Here’s one:
And this one:
These appear to be surveys administered by Christian organizations, but I see no reason to discount their findings out of hand. But in fairness to the argument I’ve been making throughout this thread, social desirability bias might actually underestimate the proportion on non-Bible reading churchgoers.
Being gay in 1956 is an interesting analogy.
In 1956, being gay was in many places a crime. From society at large, gay folks could expect, at best, that being gay be considered a harmless but unfortunate pathology - at worst a form of perversion worthy of exemplary punishment.
In 2016, take the position of religion. Most people in the US are still religious, but skepticism is commonplace (in some fora, enshrined). Outside the US, in the Western world, religion of all types has been in significant decline for some time - the US is the odd one out in this respect. Religious folks openly complain (leaving aside whatever justification they may have) that they are “under threat” and exposed to countless humiliations and impositions (to give an example, the “War on Christmas”). To my mind, and I suspect you may agree, the real reason for this outpouring of angst is not any actual “impositions” but rather that religious folks deep down suspect that the days of religious influence (particularly unquestioned religious influence) may well be numbered, that the future in Western societies at least probably does not belong to religious believers: that in the future, “development” and “lack of significant religious belief” may well be correlated.
To my mind, the contrast between these two situations is more illuminating than the similarities.
These are somewhat contradictory statements, no? Proselytizers and missionaries wouldn’t be needed in places with the social pressure to believe in God (or at least the religion or denomination those evangelists represent).
I’m not saying there isn’t social pressure in some places in the US. But, in many places, I don’t find it to be any more than the social pressure to be, say, a Democrat or a Republican.
Of course people don’t know their own minds. I don’t know my own mind either, and that’s nothing to be ashamed of. The one thing we can be absolutely certain that any given person doesn’t know is their own mind, since a system can only be understood by another system that’s more complicated than the first.
They are not contradictory statements.
You have 7th Day Adventists and Mormons rapping on people’s doors, both theists and non-theists, all the time. Proselytizing can and does occur in communities where belief in God is already high, so the existence of proselytizers doesn’t signal a “need” for anything. What it signals is the existence of people who want to proselytize.
I chose option 6 but it’s a bit harshly worded.
I think a lot of people who believe in God “believe” in a way that is largely nebulous and kind of amounts to the way one holds to patriotism or a loose “belief” in things like ghosts. I suspect many, many people who claim to believe in God, in their heart of hearts, don’t literally believe in the God as described in the Abrahamic faiths. But they feel some sort of affinity for the idea and probably don’t spend any time really examining their beliefs. Certainly many people legitimately do believe in God and I don’t think they’re “very few.”
It certainly is excessive!
But it’s not “scientifically impossible.”
Is it?
The intelligence to talk came from a treatment similar to that described in Keyes’ “Flowers for Algernon.” Tragically, the donkey quickly reverted to a more typical donkey mentality.
Again, though, please try to focus your attention on, “Scientifically impossible.” You seem to believe it’s synonymous with “Really, really unlikely.”
Sorry – when you said you conceded, it was not clear to me that this was what you meant.
But since you were not the one tossing around the phrase, your concession is appreciated but not the one I wanted. 
Anyway, you’re right: the question of actual belief isn’t answered by this side-trip. But I do think there’s value in stomping on excess verbiage likek “scientifically impossible” and keeping comments tailored to actual analysis.
Do you think there is a lot of social pressure to be a 7th Day Adventist or Mormon? As I pointed out the evangelists feel the need to share their particular denomination or faith because they feel that people don’t believe. So why exactly then is proselytizing evidence for social pressure, as you asserted? It appears to me that the social pressure others are talking about, family, friends, etc., aren’t exactly proselytizers.
That would depend on where one lives and/or with what family one is raised, don’t you think?
What may I ask is the motivation for your remark(s)?
If I said it’s “scientifically impossible” for a human to run a mile in sixty seconds, are you going to chime in on that too? I mean yes, you could replace robot legs and robot lungs, but, barring that, it’s not possible.
Is it really my use of language you take issue with, or, is the matter that it is connected to the bible?
I think he’s trying to find out what your definition of “scientifically impossible” is.
It’s funny you mention running a mile in a certain time as an example of “scientifically impossible.”
But the answer to your question is: it has nothing to do with the Bible and everything to do with your imprecise use of the phrase “scientifically impossible.”
If you had instead said, “Clearly absurd,” or “Obviously false,” I would not have quibbled. But “scientifically impossible” means that the event is simply unexplainable by any hypothesis that does not violate the laws of the universe as we understand them. A Pronghorn antelope can run a mile in sixty seconds. Therefore, there’s nothing in terms of physical universal laws that prevents muscles and bones from attaining that speed. I imagine with the right DNA engineering, a man might run a mile in sixty seconds. I don’t agree it’s “scientifically impossible.”
Broke my clever code, did ya?
How many legs does a pronghorn antelope have?
Four.
And…?
Again, your use of the term scientifically impossible here is misplaced. A pronghorn has four legs; a man two. How does that create an absolute, uncrossable physical barrier lower than sixty miles per hour? What is a genetically engineered man’s two-leg top scientifically possible speed?
Semantics.
It’s not possible under “nomral” terms. It’s not physically possible without intervention and alteration.
So… do I understand you to believe that the phrase “scientifically impossible,” simply means “impossible under normal terms?”
Are those two phrases identical in meaning, in your mind?
Because that would go a long way to explaining your mistake here.
And you… you do understand that semantics refers to the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with the specific meaning of words… right?
I hope you’re not implying that proselytizing is limited to just those faiths, because it’s certainly not. “Witnessing” and “spreading the good news” is urged by many if not most Christian denominations. The door-to-door variety are just the most obvious.
Because by definition it is social pressure? If groups of people routinely try to talk others into embracing their particular religious viewpoint, then what else can you call this? An evangelist may very well think that other people don’t believe, but…so what? Their beliefs don’t dictate reality. You think evangelists would stop trying to convert people even if 100% of the American pop declared belief in God?
The point is that most people don’t want to do anything that would alienate them from family and friends; it doesn’t have to be proselytizing to be a form of social pressure. In many communities, regularly attending church and identifying as a Christian is expected behavior unless you want to be treated as an outsider.
Honestly I feel a lot more societal pressure to renounce religion than to identify as a WASP.