Openly Atheist Prime Minister...

[puffnstuff]

Actually the only person I've met that moved to Calgary lately from BC is über-religious, annoyingly so.
The far greater number of migrants to Alberta seem to come from Saskatchewan...and I don't think 'hillbilly' counts as a religion.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by Nyah

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. I'm going by what you said in regards to Alberta having a relatively low proportion of people that identify with a specific religion, and that being helped along by people coming here from BC. I just disagree with you in the sense that, the majority of the people here don't have to be from BC to be progressive and non religious. I was born & raised in Calgary and I don't know more than a few people that are religiously, well...religious.

He said it was 'helped by', you seem to be reading that as "solely because of".

You did put words in his mouth by suggesting that he was claiming "that most of the progressive non-religious young people in Alberta come from BC". He said nothing of the sort, only suggesting that the influx increased the unaffiliated population of a place that is - on its own - becoming increasingly irreligious. Whether or not that's true is an entirely different story.

[saskflames69]

nm

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by evman150

Your'e new here. Just a heads up - playing fast and loose with words doesn't fly when discussing sticky subjects. You are still referencing and basing your arguments on things I didn't say.

I'm not new here, and your comment did come across very much like "you biblethumpers wouldn't be so advanced if not for all the BC youngsters moving there".

I'm not putting words in your mouth, but that is what it sounded like to me.

If I'm wrong in that, fine.

What are the stats? Are there enough non-religious young BC-ians moving here to actually skew the numbers.

[evman150]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I'm not new here, and your comment did come across very much like "you biblethumpers wouldn't be so advanced if not for all the BC youngsters moving there".

I'm not putting words in your mouth, but that is what it sounded like to me.

If I'm wrong in that, fine.

What are the stats? Are there enough non-religious young BC-ians moving here to actually skew the numbers.

I don't know. I've just heard over and over on this forum that tons and tons of British Columbians move to Alberta. I have no stats to back this up. But the religiosity among urban British Columbians is so low that any meaningful migration would have an effect on the numbers. Maybe even a very significant effect (>3%).

I'm pretty sure my statement is pretty safe, if you allow the assumption that a lot of British Columbians move to Alberta. We have the lowest religiosity in the country by far. You take a fair amount of those people to another province, boom, the religiosity of that province goes down. In no way did I say it was the biggest factor, or the only factor, as I have been accused of. And nowhere was the word "advanced" even mentioned - I'm not even sure what you mean by that.

[sergei_makarov]

Originally Posted by evman150

I don't know. I've just heard over and over on this forum that tons and tons of British Columbians move to Alberta. I have no stats to back this up. But the religiosity among urban British Columbians is so low that any meaningful migration would have an effect on the numbers. Maybe even a very significant effect (>3%).

I'm pretty sure my statement is pretty safe, if you allow the assumption that a lot of British Columbians move to Alberta. We have the lowest religiosity in the country by far. You take a fair amount of those people to another province, boom, the religiosity of that province goes down. In no way did I say it was the biggest factor, or the only factor, as I have been accused of. And nowhere was the word "advanced" even mentioned - I'm not even sure what you mean by that.

You're correct about the exodus to Alberta - I remember reading it in a Sun article a few months ago (it was on the front page).

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/09...n_1856124.html

On topic, young people in general are increasingly less likely to be religious, which shouldn't be a surprise since today's young adults are also increasingly more educated than before and there are direct relationships between one's likeliness to be religious and their level of higher education.

[Kidder]

Put these Presidents in order of when they will occur (if ever), from soonest to furthest.

Female President
Openly gay President
Latino President
Athiest President
Muslim/Jewish/other religion President
Divorced and Single President
Physically disabled President
part Cyborg President

[sergei_makarov]

Originally Posted by Kidder

Put these Presidents in order of when they will occur (if ever), from soonest to furthest.

Female President
Openly gay President
Latino President
Athiest President
Muslim/Jewish/other religion President
Divorced and Single President
Physically disabled President
part Cyborg President

I think Hilary runs in 2016 and wins.

[getbak]

FDR was physically disabled (although, he did everything he could to hide it from the public eye), so that has already happened.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Bunk

Calgary/Alberta both have a relatively high proportion of residents that identify as having no religious affiliation. By proportion, the only place less religious than Alberta is BC.

This is a myth. While BC on the whole does have a higher proportion of non-religious residents, it is also simultaneously home of the Canadian Bible belt.

Originally Posted by puffnstuff

Actually the only person I've met that moved to Calgary lately from BC is über-religious, annoyingly so...

My suspicion is that this person probably hails from the Fraser Valley, or alternatively from the central interior. Langley, Abbotsford and Chilliwack, BC are easily the most evangelically Christian saturated municipalities in the whole country. BC is a weird conglomeration of densely populated "pockets" that reflect philosophical, ideological and religious sensitivities. It makes for an unusual living experience, in which at virtually any time in any part of the province it seems like the majority of residents are vocally dissatisfied and at odds with their representation: Residents in central and West Vancouver will commonly complain about a hyper-conservative provincial government, while residents in my kids's hometown, Chilliwack are are simultaneously terrified by the ultra-liberal, left-leaning, godless liberals.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by sergei_makarov

On topic, young people in general are increasingly less likely to be religious, which shouldn't be a surprise since today's young adults are also increasingly more educated than before and there are direct relationships between one's likeliness to be religious and their level of higher education.

I don't question the statistical data, but I suspect that our interpretation of the link between "religious" and "educated" is mostly coincidental. I am also seriously skeptical about general collective trends in "intelligence" that mirror improving education. I think we can agree on the following independent premises:

· Education in the Western world is becoming increasingly accessible and is steadily improving.
· Religion in the Western world is becoming increasingly less popular and prominent.

However, to these I should like to add:

· The average "level" of intelligence in the Western world is likely static. This is a supposition on my part, but one made in the absence of an clear definition of "intelligence", and an effective, standardised method for measurement.

Also to consider:

· People in the Western world have increased liberty.
· People in the Western world are becoming increasingly independent, and less communally minded.
· People in the Western world have increasing disposable incomes (or at least the preception of increasing disposable incomes).
· People in the Western world enjoy increasing leisure time in company with a virtual explosion in leisure options.
· People in the Western world benefit from a dramatic escalation of access to information, which is NOT the same as intelligence.

In short, it is not as simple as saying people are increasingly smarter, and thus increasingly less religious. I expect that there are a wide range of social and cultural factors that have affected the quality, distribution, and extent of religion in the Western world.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Ahem

Let me just clear my throat.

Aaaand take a sip of this handy glass of water.

Ok

BOOGA BOOGA BOOGA

HIDDEN AGENDA

BOOGA BOOGA BOOGA

You are right. I have no belief that there is a "hidden agenda". The actual agenda is scary enough (doubling down on the drug war, increasing government secrecy/reducing transparency, cutting spending on environmental watchdogs, etc).

I must say there is a huge difference between Canada and the U.S. in that conservatives in the U.S. wear their religion on their arm and are willing to say that religion is behind their platform. However, Harper's religious beliefs are known, but he doesn't go around publicly stating them. And his platform and actions in the house do not seem influenced by these beliefs. He basically shut down the vote on gay marriage. Shut down the discussion on abortion. If anything, he has angered religious organizations for NOT implementing more socially conservative policies. It may well be a practical issue in that Harper would lose a lot of seats if he did follow the American model of promoting and implementing religion-based policies.

[JayP]

Originally Posted by Max Cow Disease

Insofar as someone actually believes the principles/prophecies of their faith, that's certainly something I take into account in judging, ultimately, their mental aptitude for high office.

And isn't that the exact same thing Americans do? As far as they're concerned, someone who doesn't have faith lacks the moral aptitude for high office. That's certainly not true, but your statement is certainly isn't either. Believing in a deity is a terrible judge of intelligence when you're talking about accomplished people running for high office.

Voting like that is essentially everything atheists like to complain about. If the world keeps progressing as is and atheists become the majority, aren't mindsets like yours just going to flip the issue and not actually eliminate it?

[polak]

"Western World" is not a good way of describing the "less religious" places.
MANY of the countries that are considered "western" are still pretty religious.

However, I think if you look at the countries that always rank high on the quality of life lists, you will see countries that are not known as overly religious.

Australia, Canada, Sweden, Norway, Denmark... I feel like if you go to any of these countries and tell someone you're athiest, you won't be treated any differently then anyone else, but if you go to some "western" countries like say the US, or most of Europe and you say that you're athiest then... well... I sure wouldn't do it.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by polak

"Western World" is not a good way of describing the "less religious" places.
MANY of the countries that are considered "western" are still pretty religious.

But virtually all Western nations are decreasingly so.

Originally Posted by polak

However, I think if you look at the countries that always rank high on the quality of life lists, you will see countries that are not known as overly religious.

This is anecdotal. Is there a discernible link between religiousity and quality of life? Prove it.

Originally Posted by polak

Australia, Canada, Sweden, Norway, Denmark... I feel like if you go to any of these countries and tell someone you're athiest, you won't be treated any differently then anyone else, but if you go to some "western" countries like say the US, or most of Europe and you say that you're athiest then... well... I sure wouldn't do it.

You are generalising. What is your point, exactly? Mine was to suggest that the link between level of education and religiosity is probably artificial at worst, and grossly over-simplified at best.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by JayP

And isn't that the exact same thing Americans do? As far as they're concerned, someone who doesn't have faith lacks the moral aptitude for high office. That's certainly not true, but your statement is certainly isn't either. Believing in a deity is a terrible judge of intelligence when you're talking about accomplished people running for high office.

Voting like that is essentially everything atheists like to complain about. If the world keeps progressing as is and atheists become the majority, aren't mindsets like yours just going to flip the issue and not actually eliminate it?

That's a gross oversimplification of what secularists have a problem with, and I think a distortion of his viewpoint.

"I'm an atheist." Fine. "I'm a Christian." That's fine too.

But when it becomes "I'm a Christian who believes that my faith gives me and my ilk moral superiority and consequently you should live how we say you should live", then there's a problem. As I addressed in my post to First Lady, belief and the impacts of unjustified belief upon actions of those with power and/or influence is where our concern lies.

Religion isn't the entirety of the problem, but dogmatism is. Belief in a creator doesn't necessarily make us uncomfortable but how far one is willing to allow said beliefs to influence vital decisions that have a significant impact on policy and the lives and well-being of others.

The fact that, in the United States, embryonic stem-cell research is not funded at a federal level is a clear example of an unsubstantiated religious belief having a negative impact on important government decisions. I remember watching George W. Bush on TV addressing the subject and the complete awe and dumbfounded reaction I had to his rejecting the funding of this incredibly important area of research.

[polak]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

This is anecdotal. Is there a discernible link between religiousity and quality of life? Prove it.

I'm not going to go do this research right now but I think it'd be pretty easy to plot out an exponential decrease in overall quality of life in areas with a larger amount of religious people.

Think about it. Religions tend to believe that many things are "wrong" and this tends to take away rights and freedoms from huge swaths of the population. The closer you get to that, understandably, the lower the general quality of life will be (Islamic states for instance).

Actually the more I think about it, the more I believe there is a very large and strong link between religious states and quality of life. Maybe it's the lower quality of life (and the lack of access to information that comes with that) that leads to religious following though.

[JayP]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

That's a gross oversimplification of what secularists have a problem with, and I think a distortion of his viewpoint.

"I'm an atheist." Fine. "I'm a Christian." That's fine too.

But when it becomes "I'm a Christian who believes that my faith gives me and my ilk moral superiority and consequently you should live how we say you should live", then there's a problem. As I addressed in my post to First Lady, belief and the impacts of unjustified belief upon actions of those with power and/or influence is where our concern lies.

This goes way beyond the initial statement at hand - "Insofar as someone actually believes the principles/prophecies of their faith, that's certainly something I take into account in judging, ultimately, their mental aptitude for high office."

I agree with pretty much everything you said, but it just seems unrelated to that comment and my response. Not voting for a candidate because you deem them less intelligent because of their beliefs is no different than not voting for a candidate because you deem them to have less moral values because of their beliefs (which happens today). There's a huge difference between that and all the issues you brought up with religious politicians unless my definition of mental aptitude is completely off base here. Being religious doesn't mean they are less competent in handling the mental aspects of being in high office. You might disagree with their decision making process, but that doesn't mean they aren't as capable of understanding the entire scope of the issue.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by JayP

This goes way beyond the initial statement at hand - "Insofar as someone actually believes the principles/prophecies of their faith, that's certainly something I take into account in judging, ultimately, their mental aptitude for high office."

I agree with pretty much everything you said, but it just seems unrelated to that comment and my response. Not voting for a candidate because you deem them less intelligent because of their beliefs is no different than not voting for a candidate because you deem them to have less moral values because of their beliefs (which happens today). There's a huge difference between that and all the issues you brought up with religious politicians unless my definition of mental aptitude is completely off base here. Being religious doesn't mean they are less competent in handling the mental aspects of being in high office. You might disagree with their decision making process, but that doesn't mean they aren't as capable of understanding the entire scope of the issue.

Again, the problem boils down to dogmatic adherence of religious teaching, and if you don't think what amount of scripture one takes literally has a negative impact on their mental aptitude for being "the man" in a domain where decisions directly impact the lives of hundreds of millions, you're sorely mistaken.

- If you sincerely believe that there in a human soul in the ~150 cells that make up a three-day-old human embryo, you aren't going to fund critically important stem-cell research.
- If you sincerely believe that your God intends for rape to occur and furthermore that the resulting pregnancy is a gift from that God, you aren't going to have much need for protecting the reproductive rights of women who would terminate that pregnancy.
- If you sincerely believe that the creator of the universe demands that homosexuals should be killed for their nature (because somehow a divine artificer made a mistake when he made them), you certainly won't have much desire to stand up for their rights.

Read again what he said: "Insofar as someone actually believes the principles/prophecies of their faith...." We're not talking about moderates who think that their religion is about being nice and tolerant of others and, without a second thought, will ignore the horrible instruction found in their texts to do things we know today as immoral and obscene. We're talking about people who base beliefs about the natural universe and reality on holy books that have no more information about our world and how to move prosperously together as a civilization as they do about how to make a flavourful roast duck.

We have non-arbitrary reasons for holding illogical conclusions to important questions, and subsequently those who would foist them upon us, as suspect.

[Traditional_Ale]

It just seems so simple.

The part that helps you out with your own morals and values = good!

The part that instructs one to force it on others and they'll burn in hell if they don't like it = bad!

Just, so simple. They're only books and words.