Except when you figure the main adherents of this fairly new religion were wandering desert tribes and had a chip on their shoulder. I'm not saying that edict is right, but I'm also not reading the bible literally like you, in fact I would argue one cannot realistically do so since so much of it runs into conflicts with other parts of it.
It's a valid question, I'm not arguing that, but you seem to be unwilling to listen to any answer as to why such edicts from god exist in the old testament, nor have you proffered any good reason as to why the new testament is rendered an invalid text because god was a jerk in the old testament.
Well, if you say that the genocide edicts aren't really a problem because the Bible shouldn't be read literally, you've invalidated the theological underpinnings of the NT. If the Bible shouldn't be read literally, there's no reason to believe in the Resurrection, which is the central rock on which most kinds of Christianity are built.
Good point, I'm trying to say that as a guide, the bible gives you good advice on how to live your life, and is not a bad thing because of a few rotten parts. But you are correct in that if you are unwilling to by into God's OT doings, than the NT does indeed lose it's underpinnings as well.
But Christians who do bad things sometimes do so In The Name Of God.
Atheist who do bad things hardly ever do so In The Name Of There-Is-No-God.
I would say forcing large segments of the population to abandon religion because the ruling party doesn't like it is bad enough. It's a human rights violation, in any case.
But Christians who do bad things sometimes do so In The Name Of God.
Atheist who do bad things hardly ever do so In The Name Of There-Is-No-God.
I would say forcing large segments of the population to abandon religion because the ruling party doesn't like it is bad enough. It's a human rights violation, in any case.
Like I said, that's not an atheistic concept. It's a totalitarian one.
Anyway, @ the OP: I'm not 100% sure if a shift away from organized religion actually means a shift toward reason. Nate Silver, superstar of FiveThirtyEight.com and baseball god for PECOTA, mentioned in an interview that he was bothered by the fact that some of his readers said, basically, "I don't understand your math but I really enjoy your analysis."
If you read FiveThirtyEight.com, there is no way to assess the validity of his arguments unless you understand the math. People on there were simply assuming his math was right and that he was some kind of all-knowing oracle. So even if our idols change, I'm not sure if our underlying thought processes have really come so far......
Well, you could understand how he scores the different poll companies without knowing how he puts it into his maths.
Not to mention, Nate specializing in this sort of thing. As do other people. Other statisticians would be coming out of the works if Nate's math was wrong. An engineer built designed Nate's car. I'm sure he doesn't understand the process behind it. But that doesn't stop him from making a reasonable assertion that the engineer was doing the correct thing.
You can't understand everything, but assuming Nate is right is not a faith based decision. He has been right in the past, no other people in his field have disagreed with him. Rationality will tell me there is a high likelihood he will be right again. Which incidentally is the exact work Nate does.
You don't have to understand everything, obviously, plus there are plenty of people who disagree with Nate all the time. He even posts links! As much as I love Nate, some of his stuff is nothing more than guesswork and conjecture, albeit relatively informed conjecture. It becomes an issue when people start taking the statements of any expert as true without examining it critically. It happens everywhere, every day, and it's harmful and hardly unique to Nate Silver's followers.
But that's my point. Changes in religious identification != changes in rational behavior. The target of the atheist movement should not be the decline of religion, but rather the rise of rationality. We're measuring the wrong thing if we're only focusing on religious identification.
Like I said, that's not an atheistic concept. It's a totalitarian one.
But it's still atheists doing it because it threatens their atheist state. I don't see how it's any different at all from a religious state outlawing atheism because it threatens their religious state, and I don't doubt that you would call the latter an inappropriate exercise of religious zeal.
I agree... I feel so out of touch with the Catholic Church... one priest is like the Rush Limbaugh where my parents go. He complains how schools should observe Catholic holidays and parents should not send their kids to school.... yeah during a recession lets ask parents to ask for days off. Of course this is the same person who uses Fox News as biblical reference.
Of course this is the church that had 5-6 priest rape cases.... explained the case of raising funds to pay the lawsuit clearly in English to a Latino congregation but 2 sentences in Spanish "Necessitamos Dinero. Ahora!" (We Need money NOW!)
Anyway I feel a lot of religious organizations are tug between two sides the baby boomers and Gen x/y
Horus on
“You have brains in your head. You have feet in your shoes. You can steer yourself any direction you choose. You're on your own. And you know what you know. And YOU are the one who'll decide where to go...”
― Dr. Seuss, Oh, the Places You'll Go!
Science would also make a pretty poor religion, always changing its stance on things every few decades and requiring a large amount of money to fund.
Oh wait...
I really hope you're being facetious there.
Yes, there is a joke there. No, it is on religions, wanting money and changing their policies every few decades or centuries to match the times (ie, get more money and followers)
That's not to say that science isn't a living part of culture either, needs money to thrive, and also changes its mind as new ways of looking at things happen over decades and centuries. Also science, being rooted in theory would make for the most part a terrible religion.
But Christians who do bad things sometimes do so In The Name Of God.
Atheist who do bad things hardly ever do so In The Name Of There-Is-No-God.
I would say forcing large segments of the population to abandon religion because the ruling party doesn't like it is bad enough. It's a human rights violation, in any case.
Like I said, that's not an atheistic concept. It's a totalitarian one.
Well, who can say what he would have done if he didn't believe that people were just more meat for the grinder?
In any case, Christians killing and killing in general are both grotesque distortions of moral codes, whether it is handed down by a God or established via society.
Like I said, that's not an atheistic concept. It's a totalitarian one.
But it's still atheists doing it because it threatens their atheist state. I don't see how it's any different at all from a religious state outlawing atheism because it threatens their religious state, and I don't doubt that you would call the latter an inappropriate exercise of religious zeal.
Like I said, that's not an atheistic concept. It's a totalitarian one.
But it's still atheists doing it because it threatens their atheist state. I don't see how it's any different at all from a religious state outlawing atheism because it threatens their religious state, and I don't doubt that you would call the latter an inappropriate exercise of religious zeal.
No.
It's a communist doing it because it threatens their totalitarian state.
Go ahead and found an atheistic pro-capalist party proposing freedom of the secular press. See how long you last.
It's a communist doing it because it threatens their totalitarian state.
Go ahead and found an atheistic pro-capalist party proposing freedom of the secular press. See how long you last.
I don't see what economic policy has to do with it. Seems like a double standard to me.
Religious people only do things for religious reasons but atheists do things because of economic reasons and it therefore does not reflect at all on their atheism. Is that what you're saying?
Like I said, that's not an atheistic concept. It's a totalitarian one.
But it's still atheists doing it because it threatens their atheist state. I don't see how it's any different at all from a religious state outlawing atheism because it threatens their religious state, and I don't doubt that you would call the latter an inappropriate exercise of religious zeal.
Because totalitarian religious regime usually comes out deep belief of religion. In some cases, they want power to get rid of all the unbelievers. Of course there are religious totalitarian regimes who do things out of greed, but for example there were some pretty hardcore warrior popes who fully and completely believed that all of Christendom should eradicate unbelievers because that's what God wants.
Totalitarian atheist regime however, doesn't out of deep belief in atheism and it's tenets. It's just plain and simple lust for total power. Religion just stands in their way, just like minorities, other political parties, etc.
I simply don't see how an atheist group outlawing religion because religion is incompatible with its secularly-based goals isn't an example of atheists being dicks and violating human rights. Obviously atheism was an important tenet of what they were doing or they wouldn't have been threatened by religious groups in the first place.
Religious people only do things for religious reasons but atheists do things because of economic reasons and it therefore does not reflect at all on their atheism. Is that what you're saying?
No.
Religious people do bad things. Atheists do bad things.
Sometimes, but not always, religious people do bad things because they think that's what their religion wants them to do.
Atheists do not bad things because they think that's what their lack of a religion wants them to do. They might do bad things because they think some other non-religious belief system requires them to, but not the actual atheism itself.
EDIT:
Obviously atheism was an important tenet of what they were doing or they wouldn't have been threatened by religious groups in the first place.
I think their desire for unopposed power was an important tenet of what they were doing.
Obviously atheism was an important tenet of what they were doing or they wouldn't have been threatened by religious groups in the first place.
Not really. Religious people crush other religions all the time for reasons that have nothing to do with their religion and everything to do with them feeling that the other religions are a threat to their power. For Stalin, the Orthodox Church would have represented a competing power.
Religious people do bad things. Atheists do bad things.
Sometimes, but not always, religious people do bad things because they think that's what their religion wants them to do.
Atheists do not bad things because they think that's what their lack of a religion wants them to do. They might do bad things because they think some other non-religious belief system requires them to, but not the actual atheism itself.
EDIT:
I think their desire for unopposed power was an important tenet of what they were doing.
Perhaps, but I would argue that their atheism allows them to psychologically excuse themselves from feeling bad about doing shitty things to religious people because they feel religious people are inferior to their own atheism. "Heathens", if you will.
And yeah, Pony's right and this has gotten pretty far OT, and I've got homework I need to be doing anyway.
Religious people do bad things. Atheists do bad things.
Sometimes, but not always, religious people do bad things because they think that's what their religion wants them to do.
Atheists do not bad things because they think that's what their lack of a religion wants them to do. They might do bad things because they think some other non-religious belief system requires them to, but not the actual atheism itself.
EDIT:
I think their desire for unopposed power was an important tenet of what they were doing.
Perhaps, but I would argue that their atheism allows them to psychologically excuse themselves from feeling bad about doing shitty things to religious people because they feel religious people are inferior to their own atheism. "Heathens", if you will.
Except atheism doesn't mean anything other than a lack in belief of god. It doesn't say anything about how to feel about religious people. You're putting way to much into your idea of what an atheist is. Meanwhile almost all religious texts have specific passages that tell you how to feel about non-believers.
This was almost an interesting discussion. Why did it boil down to "religious people are bad!" "Atheists are bad!" "NO U" like it always does?
I wasn't trying to say atheists are bad, personally.
I wasn't trying to accurately represent the discussion at hand, but you're right in any case. Still, any discussion about religion that turns up anywhere and is about any unique facet always gets dragged into the mud and thrown back up as the same old arguments.
This was almost an interesting discussion. Why did it boil down to "religious people are bad!" "Atheists are bad!" "NO U" like it always does?
I don't see where else it could have gone. How can we have a discussion about why less people are religious without mentioning the idea that maybe it's because religious claims are wrong?
Interesting dilemma I have noticed is that the churches are basically torn apart by two different things. They have to pander to their current conservative mainstay so they can keep their attendance up - but every passing moment where they do this just drives and drives the following generations away. I think it's pretty hard problem for them, because it's not like they can just wait until baby boomers die and then suddenly do an 180-turn with "hey, gays are OK!". By that point, Generation X and Y have lived for years without the church and sees no reason to waste their Sundays by returning.
And the Internet Generation/Generation Z never really gave a flying fuck in the first place. I'm sorry for anyone trying to compete this point, but it's true. At least from where I have seen it. The numbers for this just haven't come out of yet because we are just turning 18, but it's going to hit hard when we are like 30 or so.
This was almost an interesting discussion. Why did it boil down to "religious people are bad!" "Atheists are bad!" "NO U" like it always does?
I don't see where else it could have gone. How can we have a discussion about why less people are religious without mentioning the idea that maybe it's because religious claims are wrong?
Because large pop culture trends very rarely steer towards the "correct" side anyway, so saying the population is just starting to understand the truth is just...
...Wait a minute. I'm not getting involved. I'm stopping this right now.
This was almost an interesting discussion. Why did it boil down to "religious people are bad!" "Atheists are bad!" "NO U" like it always does?
For my part, I allowed myself to be baited by Stalin. My apologies.
Given that today's young "nones" probably would be in church if they didn't associate religion with far-right political views, he says, new faith groups may evolve to serve them.
Didn't the Episcopalians or Unitarians already do this?
And, if so, did they attract a reasonable amount of today's young former-"nones"?
Except atheism doesn't mean anything other than a lack in belief of god. It doesn't say anything about how to feel about religious people. You're putting way to much into your idea of what an atheist is. Meanwhile almost all religious texts have specific passages that tell you how to feel about non-believers.
Actually, no they don't, and most religions don't have texts anyway.
Interesting dilemma I have noticed is that the churches are basically torn apart by two different things. They have to pander to their current conservative mainstay so they can keep their attendance up - but every passing moment where they do this just drives and drives the following generations away. I think it's pretty hard problem for them, because it's not like they can just wait until baby boomers die and then suddenly do an 180-turn with "hey, gays are OK!". By that point, Generation X and Y have lived for years without the church and sees no reason to waste their Sundays by returning.
And the Internet Generation/Generation Z never really gave a flying fuck in the first place. I'm sorry for anyone trying to compete this point, but it's true.
I've heard (though I don't have a source for this and admit I may be wrong) that the only real growth in religion is in the more hardline churches and that the moderate churches are really struggling for membership.
Interesting dilemma I have noticed is that the churches are basically torn apart by two different things. They have to pander to their current conservative mainstay so they can keep their attendance up - but every passing moment where they do this just drives and drives the following generations away. I think it's pretty hard problem for them, because it's not like they can just wait until baby boomers die and then suddenly do an 180-turn with "hey, gays are OK!". By that point, Generation X and Y have lived for years without the church and sees no reason to waste their Sundays by returning.
And the Internet Generation/Generation Z never really gave a flying fuck in the first place. I'm sorry for anyone trying to compete this point, but it's true.
I've heard (though I don't have a source for this and admit I may be wrong) that the only real growth in religion is in the more hardline churches and that the moderate churches are really struggling for membership.
Yeah, but that is only because their parents are indoctrinating their children 24/7 in hardcore churches. I bet if you compare the membership numbers on a pure number basis, the moderates still have more people. They are losing them at bigger rate, but the hardcore churches still have less membership.
Though nobody knows what the future can bring...maybe the moderates have less children.
I'm defenitely noting interesting shifts here on Europe, though. One reason why Islam is so on the rise is because
A) Muslims have more children
and
It's far less likely for a child of a Muslim to switch their religion, and because of the tenets of Islam it will always be a bigger part of their life, even for a moderate Muslim.
It's going to bring some interesting things in the future (Partially Islamic Russia, for one. It's calculated that in 2050 one third of Russians will be Muslims). Who knows, maybe hardline Christians who are against any sort of birth control will have bigger families, and halt the loss of the Church membership.
This was almost an interesting discussion. Why did it boil down to "religious people are bad!" "Atheists are bad!" "NO U" like it always does?
Yeah, there were a few interesting bits early on before it became another "Religion! Booo!" thread.
What do you think are the ultimate sociological and cultural indications of this trend? Since people obviously aren't going to suddenly stop wanting a community or people to share their interests with. Personally I see it as a continuation of the urbanization of America as more cultural options open themselves to people who are more prone to interacting with people from disparate parts of a region to begin with. Few of the shared experiences that bonded people together in the past even exist anymore. No longer do people just live in the suburbs and drive to work in the city. Any map of commuter travel today looks like a daisy-chain rather than a spoke and wheel. Neighbors are becoming more and more diverse as inner suburbs become more like classic cities and the demographic trends that are making the country as a whole less homogeneous. Meaning that I'm more likely to run into and befriend random people at activities I enjoy from all across the city rather than the guy from across the street. There's still a community, it just doesn't look like the one in Leave it to Beaver.
Shit yeah, it's obvious that cities will grow and grow and grow. It's happening all the time. We got from 30% of people in cities to 50% in just 50 years. I think in 2050 at the least we are going to see some cities grow so large that they will merge with eachother in everything but name, in the U.S. In Asia this could happen even earlier. And with cities comes multiculturalism, which usually seems to not work well with churches. I think churches are going thrive in rural communites, mostly. You don't really see hardliner churches in large cities anymore.
Instead of all that nitpicking, can't we all just agree that religious faith in itself is an irrational and dangerous thing?
[CITATION NEEDED]
It is wrong, always, everywhere, and for anyone to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.
According to who? You?
Now who is imposing their belief upon others?
Besides, the key word, if you'll look where I bolded, was dangerous. I guess I just don't feel very dangerous.
Let's say you have a plane. It has some undetermined amount of fuel in it. You decide to accept on faith that it has enough fuel to get you to where you are going, and so take off. It was wrong and dangerious for you to do that, regardless of whether it turns out you had enough fuel or not.
Shit yeah, it's obvious that cities will grow and grow and grow. It's happening all the time. We got from 30% of people in cities to 50% in just 50 years. I think in 2050 at the least we are going to see some cities grow so large that they will merge with eachother in everything but name, in the U.S. In Asia this could happen even earlier. And with cities comes multiculturalism, which usually seems to not work well with churches. I think churches are going thrive in rural communites, mostly. You don't really see hardliner churches in large cities anymore.
Well, if you go by the census bureau we're already 84% urban, the 53% number you're using is just for metropolitan areas with a population over one million. Assuming true high speed rail gets funded to the point that it becomes a complex (like highways and military spending) we'll actually have major urban centers linked across the country so as to create truly vast regional communities. Milwaukee is practically a suburb of Chicago right now, if you could cut the commute time in half via faster trains it literally would be quicker to live in their downtown and work in the Loop than to live in actual suburbs like Evanston or Aurora and work in the Loop.
The end result seems to be a dissolution of the classic Americana in favour of a reality that has been a long time building, though you wouldn't recognize in most of the media/advertising zeitgeist. The question then becomes how does this impact the local given its atrophy in expense of the regional? If I'm buddies with people from all across town and we mostly hang out/volunteer at/patronize places that are far from my home, does that weaken the local community of my home? Or would the likely redundancy of some other schmuck with friends down the hall who hang out there balance it out?
Let's say you have a plane. It has some undetermined amount of fuel in it. You decide to accept on faith that it has enough fuel to get you to where you are going, and so take off. It was wrong and dangerious for you to do that, regardless of whether it turns out you had enough fuel or not.
Terrible analogy is terrible.
Seriously, I think there's a bit of a difference between believing in a higher power of some kind in relation to some of the great mysteries of the universe, and making an assumption about fuel levels.
So, the US is catching up with the rest of the West?
I dont mean that as a snark against religion. I'm more noticing how incredibly religious the US is compared to many other Western Democracies.
Well, if you go by the census bureau we're already 84% urban, the 53% number you're using is just for metropolitan areas with a population over one million. Assuming true high speed rail gets funded to the point that it becomes a complex (like highways and military spending) we'll actually have major urban centers linked across the country so as to create truly vast regional communities. Milwaukee is practically a suburb of Chicago right now, if you could cut the commute time in half via faster trains it literally would be quicker to live in their downtown and work in the Loop than to live in actual suburbs like Evanston or Aurora and work in the Loop.
The end result seems to be a dissolution of the classic Americana in favour of a reality that has been a long time building, though you wouldn't recognize in most of the media/advertising zeitgeist. The question then becomes how does this impact the local given its atrophy in expense of the regional? If I'm buddies with people from all across town and we mostly hang out/volunteer at/patronize places that are far from my home, does that weaken the local community of my home? Or would the likely redundancy of some other schmuck with friends down the hall who hang out there balance it out?
Eh, I find that kind of community a lot stronger then your average small town community, to be honest. It still stays strong even with separation, you aren't united by the place you live in.
And yeah, like you said, some other guy will balance it out. Millions of people. There will always be a community somewhere.
Posts
Good point, I'm trying to say that as a guide, the bible gives you good advice on how to live your life, and is not a bad thing because of a few rotten parts. But you are correct in that if you are unwilling to by into God's OT doings, than the NT does indeed lose it's underpinnings as well.
I really hope you're being facetious there.
The Pipe Vault|Twitter|Steam|Backloggery|3DS:1332-7703-1083
You don't have to understand everything, obviously, plus there are plenty of people who disagree with Nate all the time. He even posts links! As much as I love Nate, some of his stuff is nothing more than guesswork and conjecture, albeit relatively informed conjecture. It becomes an issue when people start taking the statements of any expert as true without examining it critically. It happens everywhere, every day, and it's harmful and hardly unique to Nate Silver's followers.
But that's my point. Changes in religious identification != changes in rational behavior. The target of the atheist movement should not be the decline of religion, but rather the rise of rationality. We're measuring the wrong thing if we're only focusing on religious identification.
Of course this is the church that had 5-6 priest rape cases.... explained the case of raising funds to pay the lawsuit clearly in English to a Latino congregation but 2 sentences in Spanish "Necessitamos Dinero. Ahora!" (We Need money NOW!)
Anyway I feel a lot of religious organizations are tug between two sides the baby boomers and Gen x/y
― Dr. Seuss, Oh, the Places You'll Go!
Yes, there is a joke there. No, it is on religions, wanting money and changing their policies every few decades or centuries to match the times (ie, get more money and followers)
That's not to say that science isn't a living part of culture either, needs money to thrive, and also changes its mind as new ways of looking at things happen over decades and centuries. Also science, being rooted in theory would make for the most part a terrible religion.
Well, who can say what he would have done if he didn't believe that people were just more meat for the grinder?
In any case, Christians killing and killing in general are both grotesque distortions of moral codes, whether it is handed down by a God or established via society.
Also, this:
It's a communist doing it because it threatens their totalitarian state.
Go ahead and found an atheistic pro-capalist party proposing freedom of the secular press. See how long you last.
Being an atheist had absolutely no impact on his life and affected none of his decisions!
Religious people only do things for religious reasons but atheists do things because of economic reasons and it therefore does not reflect at all on their atheism. Is that what you're saying?
Because totalitarian religious regime usually comes out deep belief of religion. In some cases, they want power to get rid of all the unbelievers. Of course there are religious totalitarian regimes who do things out of greed, but for example there were some pretty hardcore warrior popes who fully and completely believed that all of Christendom should eradicate unbelievers because that's what God wants.
Totalitarian atheist regime however, doesn't out of deep belief in atheism and it's tenets. It's just plain and simple lust for total power. Religion just stands in their way, just like minorities, other political parties, etc.
Religious people do bad things. Atheists do bad things.
Sometimes, but not always, religious people do bad things because they think that's what their religion wants them to do.
Atheists do not bad things because they think that's what their lack of a religion wants them to do. They might do bad things because they think some other non-religious belief system requires them to, but not the actual atheism itself.
EDIT: I think their desire for unopposed power was an important tenet of what they were doing.
Abandon ship!
Later, gators.
Have fun!
And yeah, Pony's right and this has gotten pretty far OT, and I've got homework I need to be doing anyway.
Yah I'm a bit disappointed myself =/
The Pipe Vault|Twitter|Steam|Backloggery|3DS:1332-7703-1083
Except atheism doesn't mean anything other than a lack in belief of god. It doesn't say anything about how to feel about religious people. You're putting way to much into your idea of what an atheist is. Meanwhile almost all religious texts have specific passages that tell you how to feel about non-believers.
I wasn't trying to accurately represent the discussion at hand, but you're right in any case. Still, any discussion about religion that turns up anywhere and is about any unique facet always gets dragged into the mud and thrown back up as the same old arguments.
I don't see where else it could have gone. How can we have a discussion about why less people are religious without mentioning the idea that maybe it's because religious claims are wrong?
Interesting dilemma I have noticed is that the churches are basically torn apart by two different things. They have to pander to their current conservative mainstay so they can keep their attendance up - but every passing moment where they do this just drives and drives the following generations away. I think it's pretty hard problem for them, because it's not like they can just wait until baby boomers die and then suddenly do an 180-turn with "hey, gays are OK!". By that point, Generation X and Y have lived for years without the church and sees no reason to waste their Sundays by returning.
And the Internet Generation/Generation Z never really gave a flying fuck in the first place. I'm sorry for anyone trying to compete this point, but it's true. At least from where I have seen it. The numbers for this just haven't come out of yet because we are just turning 18, but it's going to hit hard when we are like 30 or so.
Its this kind of thinking is why we can't have nice religious threads.
Because large pop culture trends very rarely steer towards the "correct" side anyway, so saying the population is just starting to understand the truth is just...
...Wait a minute. I'm not getting involved. I'm stopping this right now.
Didn't the Episcopalians or Unitarians already do this?
And, if so, did they attract a reasonable amount of today's young former-"nones"?
I've heard (though I don't have a source for this and admit I may be wrong) that the only real growth in religion is in the more hardline churches and that the moderate churches are really struggling for membership.
Yeah, but that is only because their parents are indoctrinating their children 24/7 in hardcore churches. I bet if you compare the membership numbers on a pure number basis, the moderates still have more people. They are losing them at bigger rate, but the hardcore churches still have less membership.
Though nobody knows what the future can bring...maybe the moderates have less children.
I'm defenitely noting interesting shifts here on Europe, though. One reason why Islam is so on the rise is because
A) Muslims have more children
and
It's going to bring some interesting things in the future (Partially Islamic Russia, for one. It's calculated that in 2050 one third of Russians will be Muslims). Who knows, maybe hardline Christians who are against any sort of birth control will have bigger families, and halt the loss of the Church membership.
Yeah, there were a few interesting bits early on before it became another "Religion! Booo!" thread.
What do you think are the ultimate sociological and cultural indications of this trend? Since people obviously aren't going to suddenly stop wanting a community or people to share their interests with. Personally I see it as a continuation of the urbanization of America as more cultural options open themselves to people who are more prone to interacting with people from disparate parts of a region to begin with. Few of the shared experiences that bonded people together in the past even exist anymore. No longer do people just live in the suburbs and drive to work in the city. Any map of commuter travel today looks like a daisy-chain rather than a spoke and wheel. Neighbors are becoming more and more diverse as inner suburbs become more like classic cities and the demographic trends that are making the country as a whole less homogeneous. Meaning that I'm more likely to run into and befriend random people at activities I enjoy from all across the city rather than the guy from across the street. There's still a community, it just doesn't look like the one in Leave it to Beaver.
Let's say you have a plane. It has some undetermined amount of fuel in it. You decide to accept on faith that it has enough fuel to get you to where you are going, and so take off. It was wrong and dangerious for you to do that, regardless of whether it turns out you had enough fuel or not.
If I steal money from any person, there may be no harm done from the mere transfer of possession; he may not feel the loss, or it may prevent him from using the money badly. But I cannot help doing this great wrong towards Man, that I make myself dishonest. What hurts society is not that it should lose its property, but that it should become a den of thieves, for then it must cease to be society. This is why we ought not to do evil, that good may come; for at any rate this great evil has come, that we have done evil and are made wicked thereby. In like manner, if I let myself believe anything on insufficient evidence, there may be no great harm done by the mere belief; it may be true after all, or I may never have occasion to exhibit it in outward acts. But I cannot help doing this great wrong towards Man, that I make myself credulous. The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things, though that is great enough; but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them; for then it must sink back into savagery.
Well, if you go by the census bureau we're already 84% urban, the 53% number you're using is just for metropolitan areas with a population over one million. Assuming true high speed rail gets funded to the point that it becomes a complex (like highways and military spending) we'll actually have major urban centers linked across the country so as to create truly vast regional communities. Milwaukee is practically a suburb of Chicago right now, if you could cut the commute time in half via faster trains it literally would be quicker to live in their downtown and work in the Loop than to live in actual suburbs like Evanston or Aurora and work in the Loop.
The end result seems to be a dissolution of the classic Americana in favour of a reality that has been a long time building, though you wouldn't recognize in most of the media/advertising zeitgeist. The question then becomes how does this impact the local given its atrophy in expense of the regional? If I'm buddies with people from all across town and we mostly hang out/volunteer at/patronize places that are far from my home, does that weaken the local community of my home? Or would the likely redundancy of some other schmuck with friends down the hall who hang out there balance it out?
Seriously, I think there's a bit of a difference between believing in a higher power of some kind in relation to some of the great mysteries of the universe, and making an assumption about fuel levels.
I dont mean that as a snark against religion. I'm more noticing how incredibly religious the US is compared to many other Western Democracies.
Eh, I find that kind of community a lot stronger then your average small town community, to be honest. It still stays strong even with separation, you aren't united by the place you live in.
And yeah, like you said, some other guy will balance it out. Millions of people. There will always be a community somewhere.