Religion

[gehringer_2]

31 minutes ago, CMRivdogs said:

I just perused the latest in the thread. I wonder if the survey makes a distinction between those who profess to be Christians and those who may lean to Christianity but are solidly "non churched"

Those who believe in the principles of Christianity, yet find most demonizations and even individual churches corrupt in some way.  

I would guess the 'agnostic' designation includes a lot of folks who grew in some religious doctrinal system, reached a point (for a wide variety of reasons) where they no longer accept any of the received doctrine, but still have the sense that they don't understand existence at any fundamental level and are left in a state of irresolution. I think that's quite a bit different from a person who has come to a positively objectivist view that nothing they can't see can exist.

 I think the big shift in the works is that as attendance at Churhes fall, fewer people are getting that doctrinal education in the first place and their agnosticism is even more ...diffuse (for lack of better word).   🕉️

Edited December 29, 2025 by gehringer_2

[LaceyLou]

I'm also wondering how many people go through the motions, who don't really believe in them. I'm not sure how they'd be classified, or how they can even be counted.

[1984Echoes]

4 hours ago, CMRivdogs said:

I just perused the latest in the thread. I wonder if the survey makes a distinction between those who profess to be Christians and those who may lean to Christianity but are solidly "non churched"...

19 hours ago, GalagaGuy said:

That 28% in the Pew Research poll represents the "religiously unaffiliated" which includes Agnostic and ...

 

I look at this differently.

Agnostic to me means unwilling to admit they are atheists because of family/peer pressure, or just plain fear (of Christian violence).

"Religious unaffiliated" to me means non-religious. No religion. No theism. No god. Not even Zeus.

Not Christians who are "non-churched" as CMR is asking. Besides, aren't there about 12 Christian categories in there? I'm certain the unchurched can find somewhere that they belong... I'm pretty certain any unchurched Christians did NOT choose religiously unaffiliated... as a guess...

And agnostics are atheists IMO, with only fear of retribution or ostracization holding them back.

IMO.

 

 

Edited December 29, 2025 by 1984Echoes

[1984Echoes]

PS: I have talked to several people who call themselves "spiritual."

They could be pagan, or Buddhist without a belief in any god, or a believer in ancestral spirits, or believe that every living thing has a spirit in them, or that there "just has to be something greater than themselves" in the universe.

None of these are theistic. Although "greater than themselves" comes close.

But no god or gods... equals atheist.

"Greater than themselves" I believe are those reluctant to commit one way or the other... But until they do commit I guess they could be classified as "undetermined" (theist or non-theist).

 

[1984Echoes]

2 hours ago, LaceyLou said:

I'm also wondering how many people go through the motions, who don't really believe in them. I'm not sure how they'd be classified, or how they can even be counted.

"Pretend Christians"?

To avoid being ostracized or persecuted...

[LaceyLou]

22 minutes ago, 1984Echoes said:

"Pretend Christians"?

To avoid being ostracized or persecuted...

I do know a few people who are from evangelical families who no longer believe, but keep quiet around families to avoid being ostracized. I have no idea how common this is. I do know that 'knowing a guy' isn't exactly proof of anything. 

Still interesting.

 

[1984Echoes]

25 minutes ago, LaceyLou said:

I do know a few people who are from evangelical families who no longer believe, but keep quiet around families to avoid being ostracized. I have no idea how common this is. I do know that 'knowing a guy' isn't exactly proof of anything. 

Still interesting.

 

I've had a lot of conversations with friends/ people in a meetup/discussion group/ etc... 

Who no longer believed...

But were terrified to "come out" specifically because of this...

They were "Christian (and some Muslims, who have it even worse) in name only".

[CMRivdogs]

2 hours ago, 1984Echoes said:

 

I look at this differently.

Agnostic to me means unwilling to admit they are atheists because of family/peer pressure, or just plain fear (of Christian violence).

"Religious unaffiliated" to me means non-religious. No religion. No theism. No god. Not even Zeus.

Not Christians who are "non-churched" as CMR is asking. Besides, aren't there about 12 Christian categories in there? I'm certain the unchurched can find somewhere that they belong... I'm pretty certain any unchurched Christians did NOT choose religiously unaffiliated... as a guess...

And agnostics are atheists IMO, with only fear of retribution or ostracization holding them back.

IMO.

 

 

This is where we differ. I consider myself unchurched. No church home for several reasons, all 0f them mostly personal. I grew up with family in a Presbyterian Church with family, he was a family friend as he was with most members of the congreation. My grandmother and mother were active in the church. My grandfather was a back pew church goer, as I later became for a while.

When family moved to Virginia, we attended the church attended by our landlords. We had two option, Church of the Brethren or Baptist, we chose the former. We were active, I became an Eagle Scout there and earned the God and Country Badge.

Without going my farther, let's just say my argument with organized religion (the church) is not over doctoral matters but a perceived difference in what they taught and what they practiced.

At 73 I've come to terms with most of that. I watch services of a couple churches during the week. I read the bible on occasion but feel my calling now on Sunday mornings is volunteering at the visitor center at Colonial Williamsburg, which I've done since COVID restrictions were lifted.

I'm not overly religious, I believe the core teachings of Christ. Yet at the same time I prefer being "Homeless" for now.  

 

[1984Echoes]

Right...

But you would still call yourself a Christian, right?

Not a religiously "unaffiliated"...

For example... A best buddy from college (brilliant dude, PHD in Accounting...) is Italian Catholic, his wife Cuban Catholic...

And because he prefers discussing issues rather than being preached at, when he moved to PA to teach at University...

He became a Quaker.

Now I don't know the ins and outs of the Quaker church, I am just guessing based on his description that there isn't so much preaching as much as discussion roundtables (on religion, on issues, etc., etc... again, I don't know how they function exactly...).

But he would still call himself Christian even if he is not a fan of church.

He would pick one of the dozen choices that he would feel appropriate for himself.

IMO, Christian is still Christian, even if not a fan of "church".

[gehringer_2]

38 minutes ago, 1984Echoes said:

Not a religiously "unaffiliated"...

I understand the way you are using the terms, which is fine, but I think when survey work is being done, the definition of 'affiliated' is the narrower version: 'a member or regular attendee' of a particular institutional church. That is the way churches themselves use the term.

Edited December 30, 2025 by gehringer_2

[1984Echoes]

Which says PRRI would need to flesh out the definition of "unaffiliated"

IE: respondents comments that would shed light on how THEY are defining themselves.

You guys may be right... I am looking at it from one direction and not seeing the direction you're describing.

I think respondents comments might shed some light...

[chasfh]

22 hours ago, CMRivdogs said:

I just perused the latest in the thread. I wonder if the survey makes a distinction between those who profess to be Christians and those who may lean to Christianity but are solidly "non churched"

Those who believe in the principles of Christianity, yet find most demonizations and even individual churches corrupt in some way.  

Or those who say they are Christians because it makes them look cool and tough, but don't give a **** about or may not even be aware of any of the messages of love and empathy Jesus professes, which seems obvious to me when you read stuff like this:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/is-empathy-a-sin-some-conservative-christians-argue-it-can-be

[chasfh]

18 hours ago, 1984Echoes said:

 

I look at this differently.

Agnostic to me means unwilling to admit they are atheists because of family/peer pressure, or just plain fear (of Christian violence).

I'm not agnostic because I am afraid to admit I am atheist because I fear family or peer pressure, or fear violence from Christians around me. Neither my family nor my community swing that way.

I am agnostic because I think it's literally impossible to know with certainty what the deity situation is. I can't bring myself to consider myself atheist because, to me, that requires the same conceit of certainty that evangelical Christianity entails. Speaking just from my experience on the ground (and explicitly excluding this forum), both evangelicals and atheists have always been glad to tell me exactly what they believe (and what I should believe) with identical energy and sense of purpose, and each side makes me uncomfortable with their self-professed certainty and ardor. There's only one possible way we can discover the truth, and once we do, we won't be able to come back and tell anyone what that truth is.

I acknowledge that certain beliefs are probably closer to the truth than others, and that the evidence we have at hand to date seems to suggest lack of deity, but again, I'm loathe to profess any certainty about any of it. I just don't think either atheists or religionists can know for a fact who or what god/gods is/are or isn't/aren't with any certainty, and I'm suspicious of anyone who professes that certainty in any event.

But more importantly, to me anyway, I don't feel I am required to pick a side either way and defend it with either my heart or my life. At least not yet.

 

[LaceyLou]

30 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Or those who say they are Christians because it makes them look cool and tough, but don't give a **** about or may not even be aware of any of the messages of love and empathy Jesus professes, which seems obvious to me when you read stuff like this:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/is-empathy-a-sin-some-conservative-christians-argue-it-can-be

Another step to get people to accept increasing levels of hatred, and persecution. 

[gehringer_2]

1 hour ago, chasfh said:

I'm not agnostic because I am afraid to admit I am atheist because I fear family or peer pressure, or fear violence from Christians around me. Neither my family nor my community swing that way.

I am agnostic because I think it's literally impossible to know with certainty what the deity situation is. I can't bring myself to consider myself atheist because, to me, that requires the same conceit of certainty that evangelical Christianity entails. Speaking just from my experience on the ground (and explicitly excluding this forum), both evangelicals and atheists have always been glad to tell me exactly what they believe (and what I should believe) with identical energy and sense of purpose, and each side makes me uncomfortable with their self-professed certainty and ardor. There's only one possible way we can discover the truth, and once we do, we won't be able to come back and tell anyone what that truth is.

I acknowledge that certain beliefs are probably closer to the truth than others, and that the evidence we have at hand to date seems to suggest lack of deity, but again, I'm loathe to profess any certainty about any of it. I just don't think either atheists or religionists can know for a fact who or what god/gods is/are or isn't/aren't with any certainty, and I'm suspicious of anyone who professes that certainty in any event.

But more importantly, to me anyway, I don't feel I am required to pick a side either way and defend it with either my heart or my life. At least not yet.

 

well, just because the existence of the Universe make no sense and sentience inside that universe makes even less sense that's hardly reason not to be certain about everything is it?  🎓

[1984Echoes]

2 hours ago, chasfh said:

... I am agnostic because I think it's literally impossible to know with certainty what the deity situation is...

And this too...

There is probably a breakdown of "unaffiliated" into:

1) Atheist

2) Atheist but afraid to declare so they call themselves agnostic

3) People like yourself who are true agnostics

4) Other...?

5) Per CMR & G2's definition... some call themselves "unaffiliated" even if they are Christian if they've decided to be unaffiliated with a church and therefore...

 

But I wouldn't know what that breakdown is...

[1984Echoes]

2 hours ago, chasfh said:

..., and that the evidence we have at hand to date seems to suggest lack of deity, but again, I'm loathe to profess any certainty about any of it. I just don't think either atheists or religionists can know for a fact who or what god/gods is/are or isn't/aren't with any certainty, and I'm suspicious of anyone who professes that certainty in any event...

I am absolutely certain, 110%, that there is no god.

But I won't quote any scientific fact this or scientific fact that...

It's based simply on an understanding of human nature.

Humans are curious, creative, and storytellers... so 50,000 years ago they created "The Happy Hunting Grounds" and didn't stop there, creating woodland spirits, animal spirits, river spirits, and on and on...

All based on human storytelling. Man created "god" in his own image in order to describe all the things he couldn't understand.

Now...

Obviously...

There is zero evidence there... so... my certainty is quite unconvincing... but I am not trying to convince you or anyone else to ummm... convert.

Just a possible different perspective... 

[chasfh]

I can concede only that I acknowledge the evidence I have considered is more suggestive of no deity than yes deity. Beyond that, anyone else is free to be as certain as they like, of course, but I simply believe there is no way to prove there is or is not a deity or deities, let alone which deity is in control. Absent that, any decision I or anyone else might make to believe that there is or is not a deity can be nothing more than an article of faith.

[oblong]

My belief is there is a diety of some sort.  I can’t explain it and more importantly I don’t have to explain it or understand it. 

[chasfh]

9 hours ago, oblong said:

My belief is there is a diety of some sort.  I can’t explain it and more importantly I don’t have to explain it or understand it. 

This might be a little closer to how I fell about all of it. It’s hard for me to get my arms around the idea that none of this was designed in some way, if even haphazardly. Maybe that’s only because, like most people, I am subconsciously uncomfortable with the idea of the randomness of chaos being in control of the cosmos.

But I’m with you on, like, really, who cares how I feel about al of it? Why do I have to explain to defend it on demand? Christians have tasked themselves with the unceasing objective of converting everyone they ever meet to their religion. Talk abut a thankless task, but, also, mind your own damn business and I'll mind mine.

I think you might have been the guy I said this to on the old board: evangelical Christianity was never designed as a live-and-let-live religion. It’s a get-in-your-face religion which, right there, clues me that it’s not about how they comport themselves in the world, but how they impose themselves on the world. It’s about controlling you against your will. That’s a key reason I have no use for it.

[oblong]

Further to that why would a loving and merciful God who loves us create us in such a way that deception is part of the deal?  We are gifted with knowledge but according to the creationists that contradicts things.  And why would our eternal life be subject to birth lotteries?  It’s the trap of absolutist theology. 

[chasfh]

On 12/29/2025 at 10:11 AM, gehringer_2 said:

I would guess the 'agnostic' designation includes a lot of folks who grew in some religious doctrinal system, reached a point (for a wide variety of reasons) where they no longer accept any of the received doctrine, but still have the sense that they don't understand existence at any fundamental level and are left in a state of irresolution. I think that's quite a bit different from a person who has come to a positively objectivist view that nothing they can't see can exist.

I can’t see dark matter but I believe it exists.

[Netnerd]

I’m agnostic about dark matter. Plausible but not proven.

[gehringer_2]

29 minutes ago, chasfh said:

I can’t see dark matter but I believe it exists.

HaHa - though to be fair, if the word 'see'  is being used in the wider sense of perception in general,  it would apply to instrumental measurements, so while you can't see DM visually, you can point to objective physical evidence that implies its existence. That would be the sense I meant upthread when referring to the position of an pure empiricist (I think I had used the term 'objectivist', when I should have used 'empiricist'. Objectivist would be an accurate enough word semantically but I forgot Ayn Rand hijacked that otherwise good word for her nonsense.)

Edited 4 hours ago by gehringer_2

[chasfh]

4 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

HaHa - though to be fair, if the word 'see'  is being used in the wider sense of perception in general,  it would apply to instrumental measurements, so while you can't see DM visually, you can point to objective physical evidence that implies its existence. That would be the sense I meant upthread when referring to the position of an pure empiricist (I think I had used the term 'objectivist', when I should have used 'empiricist'. Objectivist would be an accurate enough word semantically but I forgot Ayn Rand hijacked that otherwise good word for her nonsense.)

I get why you're dismissive of the analogy, but people who can't see what you term to be objective physical evidence of dark matter can reasonably doubt or even reject its existence entirely, particularly if all they have to go on is your word for it—not at all unlike your view of the existence of god.