Why so many non-believers why are the numbers still increasing?

[EdmundJohnstone]

Wikipedia states the following numbers, why do you think there are so many non-believers, and why are the numbers of non-believers increasing?

Christianity 2.4 billion[3] 33%
Islam 1.8 billion[3] 24.1%
Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist 1.2 billion 16%
Hinduism 1.15 billion 15%
Buddhism 521 million 7%
Chinese traditional religion[c] 394 million 5.50%
Ethnic religions excluding some in separate categories 300 million 4.19%
African traditional religions 100 million 1.40%
Sikhism 30 million 0.32%
Spiritism 15 million 0.21%
Judaism 14.4 million[5] 0.20%
Bahá'í 7.0 million 0.10%
Jainism 4.2 million 0.06%
Shinto 4.0 million 0.06%
Cao Dai 4.0 million 0.06%
Zoroastrianism 2.6 million 0.04%
Tenrikyo 2.0 million 0.02%
Neo-Paganism 1.0 million 0.01%
Unitarian Universalism 0.8 million 0.01%
Rastafari 0.6 million 0.01%
Total 7.167 billion 100%

Source: Wikipedia -> List of religious populations
Below is the global map of Atheists/Agnostic/Unaffiliated People (Source:Wikipedia)

[inavalan]

Following your source: Irreligious includes agnostic, atheist, secular believer, and people having no formal religious adherence. It does not necessarily mean that members of this group don't belong to any religion. Some religions have harmonized with local cultures and can be seen as a cultural background rather than a formal religion. Additionally, the practice of officially associating a family or household with a religious institute while not formally practicing the affiliated religion is common in many countries. Thus, over half of this group is theistic and/or influenced by religious principles, but nonreligious/non-practicing and not true atheists or agnostics.

[EdmundJohnstone]

Hmmm, I get what you mean, but most of religions are actually listed, what other practices can the seculars have?

I also found this but it's just for USA







Source:Pew Research Center

[mihael_11]

My truth is, that i can't be labeled into any of this religions, by what i believe in, so only label that gives me freedom to access my true religion is nonreligious or whatever. I really question myself and all the existance, why all this religion bull**it was created anyway? What a possible waste of energy. When did we experienced need for religion? Was that necessary? Everyone says, dependable on where was born, that religion which is there is the main one and true. Many many questions rise about this..

[Shivani Devi]

Hi there.

First, let me begin by saying that I AM "religious" and I also believe in God.

I am more of a "religious person" than a "spiritual person" because I follow a culture, a tradition and a set of guideline teachings or tenets in accordance with my practice...I am a Traditional Hindu.

Over the past few days, I have had one person try and "convert" me into being just "spiritual" and non sectarian or non religious, and dare I say it, the non religious and the atheists can be just as pushy, indoctrinating and sanctimonious in their views, as any missionary of Faith could ever be.

There is a social/peer pressure to give up established belief systems, but that is just a sign or symptom of the age we are living in.

Thus I have learned not to bother with what everyone ELSE is doing or believing in... and even if the whole WORLD became irreligious or "spiritual" or Atheist, it would make no difference to ME, personally.

Sure, I may become ostracised and persecuted for my religious beliefs that I refuse to compromise, but I hear that this makes one "closer to God" and if I had to choose between God and my fellow man (society is basically forcing that issue), then God and my religion will win out every time...It is a non-brainer.

I often joke with myself that even though I am a Hindu, I would make the perfect Christian. LOL

Put it this way...Noah lived in a word full of skeptics and disbelievers. In the end, he was the ONLY one who "kept the faith" and look what God did to everybody else! and in a way, I don't blame God for doing that.

Other people will have their own views, their own beliefs and all I can say is "good luck to THEM" but at the end of the day, when all is said and done, the only person I have to live with is MYSELF and can I really do that by adopting the beliefs and philosophies of another just to make THEM happy when they are not mine? Can I live like a hypocrite and be able to face my own heart? The answer to that one is a resounding "NO".

So, even if the whole world were "Satanists" (for example), all I can say is "yeah, you DO that" and I'll just patiently bide my time until God intervenes.

[Altair]

This is research based on social, nominal variables so what the results show is not always going to be what the reality shows. Then there are definitions to consider. Many so called ''spiritual'' people live by the trope of ''I'm spiritual, not religious'', but of course in practicality it is the same thing. Religion means to commune with the divine. It doesn't say anything about customs, rules, etc. , which is another way people in 'western' countries, through Abrahamic 'logic' of religion, define religion itself..

You get the same issue with ''God''. You get people not believing in God but still believing in ''a Source'' etc. Just more fancy words to distance themselves from ''religion'', but for any practical sake there is no difference.. just people who don't question the labels and definitions they use! (i.e. intellectual laziness..). I mean, from that research alone you get people who don't believe in God but do believe in a universal spirit. Who are they trying to fool? ''Oh I believe the same really, I just don't like the word God''....

So any time you hear ''I am spiritual, not religious'' or ''I don't believe in God, but hey I believe in a universal spirit '' please remember this to them...

[Shivani Devi]

Originally Posted by Altair

This is research based on social, nominal variables so what the results show is not always going to be what the reality shows. Then there are definitions to consider. Many so called ''spiritual'' people live by the trope of ''I'm spiritual, not religious'', but of course in practicality it is the same thing. Religion means to commune with the divine. It doesn't say anything about customs, rules, etc. , which is another way people in 'western' countries, through Abrahamic 'logic' of religion, define religion itself..

You get the same issue with ''God''. You get people not believing in God but still believing in ''a Source'' etc. Just more fancy words to distance themselves from ''religion'', but for any practical sake there is no difference.. just people who don't question the labels and definitions they use! (i.e. intellectual laziness..). I mean, from that research alone you get people who don't believe in God but do believe in a universal spirit. Who are they trying to fool? ''Oh I believe the same really, I just don't like the word God''....

So any time you hear ''I am spiritual, not religious'' or ''I don't believe in God, but hey I believe in a universal spirit '' please remember this to them...

In one way, I agree with you, in that "Source" and "God" is exactly the same thing and in the attempt NOT to be limited by or attached any labels, they actually become so.

In another way, I politely and respectfully disagree with you that Religion and Spirituality are the "same thing". I don't think they are.

Spiritual people usually "cherry pick" from all the religious teachings according to what resonates with them personally and then throw in a lot of other stuff besides.

"Oooh...I like that chakra bit from Hinduism, but none of the OTHER stuff...I will take that mindfulness bit out of Buddhism, but leave the rest... everybody just LOVES Jesus, so gotta include him in there somewhere, but as for the rest of the Bible, forget it!...that Tree of Life thing looks interesting so I'll throw that in too...and I will conclude with works by Ekhardt Tolle, Ramana Maharishi and Rumi...There we go, SORTED"...and they usually just confuse themselves immensely in the process.

Religious people just find one thing that satisfies ALL their needs and they will stick with it...like how Christians will only stick to the Bible, Hindus will only stick to the Vedas, Buddhists will only stick to the Dhammapada or Tao Teh Ching.. Muslims will only stick to the Koran etc

The reason why most people don't like religion, is because it doesn't give them enough freedom to believe whatever they WANT to believe...As evidenced by the myriad of "Is the New Age Satanic?" threads.

[Altair]

Originally Posted by Shivani Devi

In one way, I agree with you, in that "Source" and "God" is exactly the same thing and in the attempt NOT to be limited by or attached any labels, they actually become so.

In another way, I politely and respectfully disagree with you that Religion and Spirituality are the "same thing". I don't think they are.

Spiritual people usually "cherry pick" from all the religious teachings according to what resonates with them personally and then throw in a lot of other stuff besides.

"Oooh...I like this chakra bit from Hinduism, but none of the OTHER stuff...I will take that mindfulness bit out of Buddhism, but leave the rest... everybody just LOVES Jesus, so gotta include him in there somewhere, but as for the rest of the Bible, forget it!...that Tree of Life thing looks interesting so I'll throw that in too...and I will conclude with works by Ekhardt Tolle, Ramana Maharishi and Rumi...There we go, SORTED"...and they usually just confuse themselves immensely in the process.

Religious people just find one thing that satisfies ALL their needs and they will stick with it...like how Christians will only stick to the Bible, Hindus will only stick to the Vedas, Buddhists will only stick to the Dhammapada or Two Teh Ching.. Muslims will only stick to the Koran etc

The reason why most people don't like religion, is because it doesn't give them enough freedom to believe whatever they WANT to believe...As evidenced by the myriad of "Is the New Age Satanic?" threads.

Hello Shivani! I am following you. I understand the difference you make between a devout religious person who keeps to his/her faith (mostly) and a cherry picking person. I'm like the cherry picking person by the way, because the idea or belief that one faith or religion ''has it all'' makes no sense to me. All cultures and religions had and have figures that grasped something meaningful, and also had and have figures who use it perhaps for the wrong ends.

But I was thinking about those people who openly oppose religion and God, tick the ''atheist'' option on the sheet, yet keep on doing practices where they seek or achieve communion with the divine or believe in a universal spirit. You can't bash religion, ignore what religion means, and then think you are that different by simply using different labels for the same thing. The fact that one path has more rules or customs placed on an individual than another does not remove the essence of religion/spirituality being about communion with the divine. The rest is mostly structure, logic, and discipline placed upon practice..

So yes.. in a practical sense I could see the difference between a classic religious person and a free bird (so to speak..), as the very opposites of the spectrum, but when it comes to beliefs I see no important distinction between the two. There are different beliefs within and between groups and people, but the distinction between religion and spirituality is mostly trivial.

[Shivani Devi]

Originally Posted by Altair

Hello Shivani! I am following you. I understand the difference you make between a devout religious person who keeps to his/her faith (mostly) and a cherry picking person. I'm like the cherry picking person by the way, because the idea or belief that one faith or religion ''has it all'' makes no sense to me. All cultures and religions had and have figures that grasped something meaningful, and also had and have figures who use it perhaps for the wrong ends.

But I was thinking about those people who openly oppose religion and God, tick the ''atheist'' option on the sheet, yet keep on doing practices where they seek or achieve communion with the divine or believe in a universal spirit. You can't bash religion, ignore what religion means, and then think you are that different by simply using different labels for the same thing. The fact that one path has more rules or customs placed on an individual than another does not remove the essence of religion/spirituality being about communion with the divine. The rest is mostly structure, logic, and discipline placed upon practice..

So yes.. in a practical sense I could see the difference between a classic religious person and a free bird (so to speak..), as the very opposites of the spectrum, but when it comes to beliefs I see no important distinction between the two. There are different beliefs within and between groups and people, but the distinction between religion and spirituality is mostly trivial.

Thank you for your reply and I also concur with all that.

I have also witnessed self-professed atheists who believe in a "Source" which is not "God" which always begs the question "what is the difference"?

The essence of all religions is the same, but the explanations and extrapolations of Divine Communion is written for the culture and the era in which it was codified.

I guess that for some, all religions are "comparative" but in some ways and for some people, they simply are not.

Which leads me on to one of my little narratives...

Now, I don't honestly think your "average Christian" would really approve of my choice of Divine Deity to commune with OR the fact that I associate a serpent with spiritual wisdom, OR see "Christ" as a pineal gland secretion...All these things are what makes me a Hindu and them a Christian...and I am quite tolerant of other religions and beliefs... UNTIL one of them comes into the Hindu forum, where I am very happily minding my own religious business and starts to discredit the religion and my belief in it...and begins quoting the Bible...then any tolerance I have flies totally out the window and they will cop an earfull from yours truly.

This was mitigated in part yesterday, after I saw another thread in the Spirituality Forum about JAH and as a follower of Lord Shiva, I have a LOT of time for the Rastafarian movement, the Hebrew Hexateuch (the first six books of The Bible) and Judaism in general. It is about the only place I can find where Shaivism and Christianity are mutually compatible and comparable...I am still thinking about what I am going to say in reply to that thread, but I will reply. Not to mention, the user who posted it is called "Shankara" which is another name for Shiva.

I don't know much about other religions....A bit, but not much and yes, I am quite devout and fundamental in my Hindu Faith...but I feel that Hinduism has so many branches and sects within it, that it is like a million different religions in one...part of the reason why I associate with it because if there is any religion that "has it all" it would be Hinduism...You just need to know where to look, but many just don't have the time or patience to study it all their lives to find it (like I did).

Most will look at one quote from one Holy text (Upanishad) that says "YOU ARE THAT" and will go yeah "I AM" so I don't need to study anything more from this religion because anything that could ever be said after that is merely superfluous...The word "convoluted" was used yesterday in regards...but for some (like me), convolution is just how their brain works, so I am like a fish in water... because I happen to possess a totally unlimited attention span.

However, there is a difference between just the dry, intellectual knowledge of "I AM" and the actual living heart-experience of it and therefore, Hinduism doesn't begin and end with Ramana Maharishi...but you can't tell other people that..So, that's where I FIRST learned "to each their own" because everything constantly changes, even though we exist in an "eternal now" which always perplexes me...but I am waffling on...As usual.

[Altair]

I think you are *lucky* in that you have and grew up (?) with a Hindu faith, as it provides a range of beneficial practices you just won't find in many religions (''just pray and have belief''). It allows for more leniency and variety in how one can view and understand God, although that depends I suppose, as vaishnavists to me do come across as rather strict and traditionalist.

But there's a variety that's been lacking throughout much of recent European history, at least under Christianity, where variety was of course punishable. We used to have polytheistic religions that emphasized similarities between cultures instead of conflict. If we had managed to achieve a couple of self realized individuals (based on our ancient philosophy this did not occur, they were knowledgeable but not spiritually enlightened) we could have ended up with almost the same as Hinduism, just different plants and animals as symbols but the message would be the same. I often wonder how things would have developed if Christianity did not happen, although I do have to give credit to Christianity in that it emphasized a more personal relationship with 'God' and ended animal sacrifice. Even if a few lines were not put in the Biblical texts we would have had a very different civilization.

It's think it's wrong when people demonize you for having different beliefs. We can disagree but equating someone else with the worst horror imaginable (to their own particular religion) is wrong, you should report such things. I'm sure you are strong in your faith but there are other people who would react differently and much harm can be done by demonization. It's been done for centuries and it should be rooted out at every opportunity..

I don't believe snakes or serpents are evil and anyone who thinks that is foolish! Snakes are beautiful animals. And they are indeed a symbol of wisdom.. the upwards moving snake (cobra) is spirituality. Even the more 'negative' representation of the crawling earthbound snake should not be demonized because it provides us with a mirror.