48
submitted 9 months ago by genfood@feddit.de to c/germany@feddit.de
all 31 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] I_Clean_Here@lemmy.world 50 points 9 months ago

Only 7 years out of date, nice

[-] newIdentity@sh.itjust.works 17 points 9 months ago

It just took so long for the internet in Germany to load

[-] bacondragonoverlord@feddit.de 38 points 9 months ago
[-] ceiphas@feddit.de 16 points 9 months ago
[-] bacondragonoverlord@feddit.de 2 points 9 months ago

Warum das gleiche nochmal?

[-] ceiphas@feddit.de 2 points 9 months ago

Wegen der Quellenangabe

[-] uwe@lemmy.world 9 points 9 months ago

Crazy, how such a small time when germany was divided had such a large effect. The Soviets knew how to shape a people, I give them that.

[-] taladar@feddit.de 34 points 9 months ago

I would see it the other way around. It shows that religion is nothing natural and as soon as churches aren't actively allowed to indoctrinate children for one generation religious influence is massively reduced.

[-] Chariotwheel@kbin.social 10 points 9 months ago

Although the GDR regime actively surpressed the church and religion and the churches were actually a place of resistance. E.g. the only place where punk bands could play. The church in the GDR tried to not publically oppose the regime, but helped out people who were.

I am not religious, but the church in the GDR went beyond being a religious institution.

[-] Dontfearthereaper123@lemm.ee 6 points 9 months ago

Well if they went beyond bring a religious institution than religion wasn't the thing that solved it.

People always mention churches going above and beyond and acting like charities and I'm ok with the charity but why did u need the religion being involved? By merging it with concepts like charity all it does it is allow it to spread easier and thus that spreads the worse parts of religion that are baked into all religions that i can think of from the top of my head.

[-] Chariotwheel@kbin.social 6 points 9 months ago

I mean, I agree. I am not religious myself.

I was merely arguing that what was going on in the GDR was in any kind natural.

What's going on now, with the churches in Europe bleeding followers with people losing interest as the being religious is not something that is expected of you anymore in societial standards, is way more natural.

[-] taladar@feddit.de 1 points 9 months ago

Not sure how that is relevant to explain the large percentage of the population there who isn't religious. If anything the effect of the actions you describe was probably slightly in favour of the church membership numbers.

[-] Chariotwheel@kbin.social 5 points 9 months ago

Have you missed the part about the active supression?

They could deny you university if you were active in the church. Which is not really all that natural to me.

[-] taladar@feddit.de 3 points 9 months ago

Have you missed the part where the GDR has been gone for several decades by the time this data was taken? If people had liked the church for those actions you described and just not gone to avoid repercussions from the state there would be plenty of time for them to go back since the fall of the GDR. They just didn't.

[-] Chariotwheel@kbin.social 4 points 9 months ago

Okay, now I got what you wanted. I misunderstood you, I thought you meant that the surpression of the GDR itself was natural. But you meant what happened after the regime and people had the choice to join the church freely again.

That I agree with.

[-] taladar@feddit.de 3 points 9 months ago

Yes, basically I meant that some religious people tend to argue that religion is some sort of natural need that people have and even if religion was not passed on to children they would flock to it on their own. It seems that is not the case though or a one generation interruption would not have this large of an effect decades later.

[-] Chariotwheel@kbin.social 4 points 9 months ago

I do believe that a lot of religions kinda made sense in the past to underline laws and start building a cohesise society. In a sense the old testament is a book of laws with just a lot of fluff. And while a lot of it aged badly, you can see how a lot of rules made sense at the time (e.g. food safety). I do believe that this was the original purpose of this. To strenghten the belief in laws by adding a mystical component on top of them for people who weren't as firm with written laws and a believe in a justice system.

These days, of course, it's archaic and unnessary.

[-] frenchyy94@feddit.de 8 points 9 months ago

Why such a way outdated source?

[-] electrogamerman@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago

Im glad atheist numbers are growing. All religions are cancers. I dont care what you believe, but keep it to yourself.

[-] tryptaminev@feddit.de 0 points 9 months ago

You do realize that the "non religious" does not mean atheist, but also includes agnostics?

Also if you look at the map you can see that the non religiousness is primarily caused by the socialist government in former east Germany not being too kind of any religion. You can even see the divide in East and West-Berlin. At the same time there is many people that are registered as protestants or catholics even though they don't feel religious. This map does not help to see such a development.

[-] FMT99@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago

Agnostics generally don't want to force their beliefs on others though. They won't go against established science to oppose abortion, they won't advocate for laws against blasphemy, they won't usually oppose the rights of non traditional families. So agnostic is already a big win in my book.

[-] tryptaminev@feddit.de 3 points 9 months ago

Most moderate christians in Germany dont do any of these either.

Heck we had a catholic priest sue against the fascist party AfD for some of their posters being hate speech against trans people and drag artists. Article in German:

https://www.sueddeutsche.de/muenchen/muenchen-drag-lesung-strafanzeige-afd-1.5921390?reduced=true

[-] Enkrod@feddit.de 1 points 7 months ago

If we're going into details, then most agnostics are part of the atheist-umbrella.

Gnosticism refers to knowledge, Theism refers to belief.

Someone who says "it's unknowable if god exists" and doesn't actively belief (or withholds judgement) in a god is an agnostic atheist. Someone who says it's unknowable but beliefs anyway is an agnostic theist.

Most people who identify as agnostics are agnostic atheists, they do not actively belief in a god.

If you want to separate agnostics and atheists, then you reduce atheism to a small subset of gnostic atheism (it can be known if god exists and doesn't belief that god exists)

[-] Paul@feddit.de 6 points 9 months ago

other religions would be interesting aswell since those 2 are definitly not the only religions there.

[-] GiddyGap@lemm.ee 1 points 7 months ago

Wow. Such a clear delineation between the former east and west. Very interesting.

this post was submitted on 06 Oct 2023
48 points (82.4% liked)

Germany

1591 readers
1 users here now

The place to talk/ask about stuff in Germany in English.

Wiki: https://lemmygermany.github.io/wiki/

Many thanks to @Vittelius@feddit.de for creating this!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS