Nine countries are on the path to complete atheism.

Rational Public Radio ^ | 3/22/11 | Scott Connery

[Scottmkiv]

It seems like the religion in the U.S. is a juggernaut that will be nigh unstoppable in the next decade or two. It's seemingly impossible to get elected without being openly and devoutly religious. George Bush claimed to receive divine commandments on how to perform his job.

President Obama has made his church attendance receives plenty of attention too. Some question his sincerity, but no one questions that this is the politically smart thing to do.

George Bush famously said that Islam is a religion of peace despite all the evidence to the contrary. 40% of U.S. citizens are strict young earth creationists. There are constant efforts to insert religion into our schools. It's clear that religion has quite a hold on the minds of America.

It's not all bad news though. Even in America Atheism is on the rise. People claiming no religious affiliation constitute the fastest growing religious minority in many countries throughout the world. Americans without religious affiliation comprise the only religious group growing in all 50 states; in 2008 those claiming no religion rose to 15 percent nationwide, with a maximum in Vermont at 34 percent.

However, a recent study has found that 9 countries are on a path to complete atheism. According to the study, Australia, Austria, Canada, the Czech Republic, Finland, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand and Switzerland, have ever increasing levels of atheists. The Netherlands had the lowest population of atheists at 40%, and the Czech Republic was the highest at 60%.

[circlecity]

The ultimate conclusion of atheism is always nihilism. Further, it's clear that the roots of atheism are almost always moral rather than intellectual.

[Scottmkiv]

What makes you say atheism always ends up with nihilism? Obviously it can, but what requires it to do that every time?

What about atheists like Rand who clearly aren’t atheists?

Why do you say atheism is always a moral argument and not intellectual. The intellect determines morality, so I’m not sure how this difference is meaningful. Even if I grant the distinction, what is wrong with making a moral argument?

[circlecity]

"The intellect determines morality"

No it doesn't. A guilty conscience is not a work of the intellect at all but is a classic example of innate morality at work. And the ultimate end of atheism being nihilistic is dictated by the fact that there is objective basis for morality under atheism. That Rand does not have the courage to follow her philosophy to its logical conclusion is of no moment.

[Scottmkiv]

If you argue that the intellect doesn’t determine morality, you must either argue that man is born with a fully formed sense of morality, or that it is divinely revealed to each and every person.

Please provide evidence of either.

[circlecity]

"If you argue that the intellect doesn’t determine morality, you must either argue that man is born with a fully formed sense of morality, or that it is divinely revealed to each and every person. "

It's both and the evidence is overwhelming. A general morality is written on every man's heart - the conscience. Even a child knows that lying, stealing, cowardice and betrayal is wrong. That is why those traits are never admired or respected in others. The universality of this phenomenon throughout the recorded history of human experience testifies to this. We may disregard this understanding, every one does to some degree, but we all are born with a basic sense of right and wrong. This is not deduced rationally but innately discerned. The rest of morality is disclosed by divine revelation - scripture. The evidence can be found on the shelf of just about any bookstore. Apart from God there can be no objective morality or ethical normative - only personal preference and social convention. There can be no ontological meaning for a finite being without an infinite reference point. Without God the righteous becomes merely the self-righteous; whatever makes any given individual feel good about themselves.

[YoungBlackRepublican]

“Seems being foolish is on the rise.”

So people who choose not to believe in something without proof are the ones who are foolish huh? Seems like your logic is a little backwards no? In my opinion a thousand years from now people will look back at this time and wonder what were we thinking. Kinda the way we look at the ancients and wonder how they thought the earth was flat. Seriously....future generations are gonna wonder how we ever discovered flight. They will think “they actually thought a virgin gave birth?——they actually thought a single man collected 2 of each animal-—they actually believed an invisible man in the sky actually cared about how many times they masturbated?
I don’t know if there is a God or not...I just want some proof if there is.