Why do teenagers and young adults hate Christianity ?

[MehGuy]

Atheists always say they are the evidential ones. The smart ones who figured out that God is a myth. They claim, many of them, that the only thing that exists is physics, chemistry, and the physical nature of things. So the only way we can gain understanding is through our five senses. That is a false view. It is the same sort of lie people talk themselves into as believing in the pragmatic view of truth. I was an atheist for a while. I know what it is like to be an atheist. As such, I am well aware that what @2PhiloVoid says is true that at root, it has to be about an illumination to your eyes. Still, if there is so much evidence against the atheist position (and there is) then I would say the rational position is Agnosticism. Atheism is rebellion. Agnosticism is at least rational because it leaves the possibility open. And being a Christian requires illumination. So Atheism, at its root, is about rebellion. Agnosticism is the rational view. And being a Christian is about the Holy Spirit opening your eyes to the Truth. But when atheists have been given so much evidence it hurts, it is simply denying the truth at that point.



Said, and repeated, several times, that I was only going based on what I have heard from multiple sources (who I believe are credible). I don't have a primary source. However, I did link a search result that confirms that at least in the last 30 years persecution against Christians has gotten worse worldwide.

I suspect most atheists are agnostic (weak atheists).

I don't see any evidence for atheism, you can't really prove a negative. For most atheists they simply lack a belief because of a lack of evidence.

Atheism really isn't that deep, nor does one have to be exceptionally smart to be one. For many like myself it was more of a psychological battle than an intellectual one.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Atheists always say they are the evidential ones. The smart ones who figured out that God is a myth.

This isn't the place to work out your issues with atheists. These claim haven't been made here.

They claim, many of them, that the only thing that exists is physics, chemistry, and the physical nature of things.

Chemistry is not separate, it is just applied physics.

So the only way we can gain understanding is through our five senses. That is a false view. It is the same sort of lie people talk themselves into as believing in the pragmatic view of truth.

Again, not being claimed here.

I was an atheist for a while. I know what it is like to be an atheist.

And I am not going to claim you weren't or were a "bad atheist" or anything like that. I only ask for reciprocity on self-assessment.

As such, I am well aware that what @2PhiloVoid says is true that at root, it has to be about an illumination to your eyes. Still, if there is so much evidence against the atheist position (and there is)

"Atheism" is the position that someone doesn't believe in any of the gods. How do you have evidence against someone's internal beliefs.

then I would say the rational position is Agnosticism.

Agnosticism is just the position taken by non-believers who don't want to sound "dogmatic and absolute". It isn't some sort of special position.

Atheism is rebellion.

It is non-belief, nothing more, nothing less.

Agnosticism is at least rational because it leaves the possibility open.

That's just giving a label to uncertainty or indecision.

And being a Christian requires illumination. So Atheism, at its root, is about rebellion. Agnosticism is the rational view.

This is just repeating your assertion.

And being a Christian is about the Holy Spirit opening your eyes to the Truth.

Never really figured out what all of the HS stuff was.

But when atheists have been given so much evidence it hurts, it is simply denying the truth at that point.

And this is just the same error Paul makes in Rom, ch 1.

 

[RDKirk]

And this is just the same error Paul makes in Rom, ch 1.

I suspect Paul was thinking about the adherents of the worshippers of the "Unknown God." That was a particular ideology of philosophers who looked at creation, particularly how the paths of heavenly bodies were so reliably predictable, and concluded that there couldn't possibly be a pantheon of quibbling gods, but some supremely sovereign god who had full control of everything. And because reliability was considered a virtue, then given the reliability of heavenly body motions, that god must also be highly virtuous. Paul was either a very quick study or was already familiar with that philosophy, because he was able to quote one of them, Epimenides. But I think Paul figured that that group of pagans could merely study the heavens (Psalm 19) and come to the correct conclusion, then sufficient evidence for God is not concealed from anyone.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Never really figured out what all of the HS stuff was.

Most of us haven't either, Hans, despite what a certain, more mystical sector among Christians says about it.

And this is just the same error Paul makes in Rom, ch 1.

I don't think Paul makes an error as much as that for us to understand what he thought he was communicating to 1st century Romans, we have to be willing to approach his epistemic comment about the idea of "General Revelation" without assuming he was addressing a 21st century scientific paradigm to do make his comment coherent.

So, don't feel too bad. I don't see the direct reference either, and I've wrestled with this bit in Romans ch. 1 for far too long. However, I've come to realize from my more historical studies that Paul probably didn't quite mean what many today assert that he meant. [@RDKirk touches on some of the issue in his post just above]

This isn't to say that understanding Paul's Hellenistically Jewish, Pre-Modern, Greco-Roman epistemology will make the Bible more believable, but it does reduce some of the cognitive dissonance that comes with trying to hammer a square peg into a round hold.

 

[Paulos23]

Atheism really isn't that deep, nor does one have to be exceptionally smart to be one. For many like myself it was more of a psychological battle than an intellectual one.

Atheists only agree on the answer to one question. The rest is up for discussion.

 

[rturner76]

It's the rebellion of the youth. After numerous exchanges with Athiests, I have found that certain people are unable to accept that a power exists greater than themselves. Akso, us older people know that the kids with no experience of life think they know everything there is to know and the older generation know absolutely nothing about the world. Bottom lin, they can't believe in any concept that didn't originate from their own thinking. When it comes to philosophy, even Socrates can't teach them anything.

 

[christian-surfer]

one reason is perhaps that young people can be more naive or more easily influenced by propaganda and the media. Perhaps they are idealistic or think that they know a lot when they lack a lot of real world experience. Perhaps some are also influenced by bad examples of religion and propaganda wants to always hand you those bad examples as well because there is a lot of hatred of the christian religion. People want to think of themselves as strong and able, but in many ways the scriptures or religion points out your weaknesses. When you get older, then in some ways your weaknesses may become more obvious

 

[okay]

Looking at other countries and across history, I think a 10% Christian penetration is probably the most reliable top limit. Any more than that are just poseurs because they're getting some kind of social benefit.

And that's definitely true if "Christians" are the majority. Jesus told us "the path is narrow" and "the world will hate you." If Christians are the top dogs in a society, it means they're just "the world" calling themselves Christian.

This is a thought-provoking post - I love it. It might not address young people directly, but seems relevant. Do you have a link or two that shows some of the data or is it strewn all over the place?

I have recently been listening to a number of interviews of Ryan Burge, an academic social science researcher (and until recently a Baptist pastor) who runs his Graphs About Religion substack that talks about trends in US religion. A lot of the interesting stuff is behind a paywall, but in interviews he talks about some of it. Anyway, I have heard him site data that showed <15% (I don’t recall his number)of adults in colonial America were members of a Christian church. He was wondering if that is where the decline in the US will eventually return to. Not too different than your 10% number.

The social pressure issue has been significant in the US in the past of course. In 1960 a much higher fraction of Americans were in church and identified as Christian than we have today. It is reasonable to ask how much of that is due to there no longer being community pressure to be in a church. That is, how many folks in the pews in 1960 were only there because it kept them in good standing in the community (gave their business more customers, kid not treated differently by coaches, etc)? Today that pressure is essentially gone in many parts of the US, so those folks who aren’t true believers probably won’t bother to attend and possibly won’t even identify as Christian. The older generations might just be staying in church because of habit and social connections and might perceive pressure from their peers(?). How much of the decline of Christianity in the US is simply a revealing of what was always there, as opposed to a true change? ( that was Dr Burge’s question)

I think we shouldn’t be surprised to be a minority in a land occupied by non-believers. And I personally don’t think trying to grasp political power to force cultural Christianity (behavior, bible reading, blasphemy laws, prayer, etc) on the masses will help in the long run. It might even backfire. And of course instead of seizing political power like many folks were hoping for from their Messiah, Jesus instead divested himself of power. It doesn’t necessarily translate to our situation in the US, but sure makes me think…

 

[Robban]

I suspect most atheists are agnostic (weak atheists).

I don't see any evidence for atheism, you can't really prove a negative. For most atheists they simply lack a belief because of a lack of evidence.

Atheism really isn't that deep, nor does one have to be exceptionally smart to be one. For many like myself it was more of a psychological battle than an intellectual one.

One can wonder for example were nazi ss athiests and also the Wehrmacht?

If so, who is the almighty God they swore by in the Fuehrer oath?
(effective August 2 1934)

"I swear by almighty God this sacred oath......."

It was no small thing, give their life without question.

At the time Germany was dealt up between Protestants and Catholics.

Too bad the spirit of nazism was not destroyed, but can a spirit be completely destroyed,

doubtful, what goes around comes around.

 

[Larniavc]

Behavior? Care to elaborate? Such as worshipping in churches in Islamic countries?

Yeah, I guess I mean when Christians are killed due to what they do as opposed to what they are. I dunno if Muslims/Hindus/Christians killing each other counts as that's clearly sectarian.

But it does make me think that I've overplayed my hand somewhat so I retract my previous assertion.

 

[Larniavc]

why does it speak so bleakly of the human race?

And why are some people so ready to believe it?

 

[Larniavc]

but I’m too young to actually know

I dunno man, you can easily look it up if you wanted to.

 

[Larniavc]

playing a Paladin character

In the games I ran it used to infuriate me when the Paladin player would let party members distract him while they slaughtered the goblin prisoners if they donated to his church. I'd never let that fly now but we were kids.

 

[Larniavc]

that I was only going based on what I have heard from multiple sources

Then you'll concede that the stated position has no supporting evidence?

 

[All Becomes New]

Then you'll concede that the stated position has no supporting evidence?

What makes you think there is no evidence for it? Some study was done about this. Because I don't know the study, does not mean it's not based on evidence. You would have to show that my source is not credible. Are you up to that task?

 

[AV1611VET]

One can wonder for example were nazi ss athiests and also the Wehrmacht?

If so, who is the almighty God they swore by in the Fuehrer oath?
(effective August 2 1934)

Probably JEHOVAH.

But ...

Matthew 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Anyone can say they know God, but the big question is:

Does God know us?

 

[Larniavc]

If it were me, I'd go interview them for some qualitative data-----with "them" be the killers. But it sounds too risky to do.

Funnily enough I was Twitter 'pen pal' with a guy from North Sentinel Island during the UK Covid lockdown I wrote to Sali asking about his experience with western missionaries and he expressed his disappointment.

“Why travel anywhere if you want your destination to be just like home?” he would ask; “Maybe if your people had opened their hearts a little, they’d have appreciated our culture more?” He was particularly annoyed at how people trying to visit would not even try to learn the language; “If your people had learnt the basics of Andamanese and then at least that would’ve been on the same page.”

He also eloquently opined that proselytizing Christianity is inherently disrespectful to other religions and like saying: “It's essentially saying 'my religion is better than yours, so please switch.'” We remained friends but eventually lost touch when he stopped using Twitter or X or whatever it's called because of Mr Musk's support for Mr Trump.

 

[Larniavc]

I think you underestimate how much other religions like Islam hate Christianity.

To be fair religious folk of all stripes have been killing believers in other religins since forever. All the while claiming the ones doing the killings are not 'True xxxxxians/ims/dus/ists". Who can forget Alice Lakwena or Joseph Kony?

 

[Larniavc]

Correct. In Islamic countries you can be killed for converting to Christianity. That’s a fact.

Very true. But that doesn't really factor into why young people are not adopting Christianity. Islam is awful. That goes without saying.

 

[All Becomes New]

“It's essentially saying 'my religion is better than yours, so please switch.'”

That is correct.

To be fair religious folk of all stripes have been killing believers in other religins since forever. All the while claiming the ones doing the killings are not 'True xxxxxians/ims/dus/ists". Who can forget Alice Lakwena or Joseph Kony?

Yup, but it is not Christianity or Judaism that ushers in the end of the age by slaughtering people of all the other religions.