Religion Irreligion - the world's fastest growing 'religion'

[nicky]

a)Which only makes the result more stark and succinct.
b) I can only point out that the term agnostic exists solely to differentiate, to not clump them in with the atheists, or the religious so not sure of your point there.

a) No, it doesn't. The contrast against a general public in Australia/Canada or Western Europe would be much smaller maybe flipped even.
b) No worries, as i have no idea of your point either.

ANYWAY, thanks Lethality for posting those graphs, they're interesting albeit confusing and opaque.

There are significant amount of scientists from both sides and even if no scientist believed in something it wouldn't change my position. However that is not the case, lots of scientists are spiritual.

I dare Atheists to take a heroic does of mushrooms, or smoke some DMT or do an ayahuasca ceremony and let me know if you're still Atheist.

 

[Pie eyed]

a) Yes but in this case the general public are US citizens, one of the most religious countries in the world.
b) The question is about atheists, not agnostics, i'm agnostic. Hence why I resent Agnostics being clumped with Atheists.

a) Which only makes the result more stark and succinct.
b) I can only point out that the term agnostic exists solely to differentiate, to not clump them in with the atheists, or the religious so

 

[Pie eyed]

a) No, it doesn't. The contrast against a general public in Australia/Canada or Western Europe would be much smaller maybe flipped even.
b) No worries, as i have no idea of your point either.

ANYWAY, thanks Lethality for posting those graphs, they're interesting albeit confusing and opaque.

There are significant amount of scientists from both sides and even if no scientist believed in something it wouldn't change my position. However that is not the case, lots of scientists are spiritual.

I dare Atheists to take a heroic does of mushrooms, or smoke some DMT or do an ayahuasca ceremony and let me know if you're still Atheist.

I hazard guess the percentage of Atheist and Agnostic in the general polulation in any western country other than the US would be higher than the US figure.
That the figure would be closer to the percentage of solely Scientists.

Several polls have been conducted by Gallup International: in their 2012 poll of 57 countries, 13% of respondents were "convinced atheists" and in their 2015 poll of 65 countries 11% were "convinced atheists"

Way ahead of the US figures for general population.

 

[nicky]

I hazard guess the percentage of Atheist and Agnostic in the general polulation in any western country other than the US would be higher than the US figure.
That the figure would be closer to the percentage of solely Scientists.

No s**t, which is exactly what i was saying. You're the one who made the point that the data in that graph was succinct. I'm the one who pointed out that the comparison was skewed because the US is batshit crazy about religion.

Jesus, it's like arguing with a cheshired cat.

 

[Pie eyed]

No s**t, which is exactly what i was saying. You're the one who made the point that the data in that graph was succinct. I'm the one who pointed out that the comparison was skewed because the US is batshit crazy about religion.

Jesus, it's like arguing with a cheshired cat.

I was under the assumption you were arguing it was skewed toward atheism....which it clearly is not, so my mistake obviously.
If you further compare the figures for Scientists with the figures for Members of the National Academy of Science as astronomically high at 93%.
Many are at pains to point out that the NAS has only around 2250 US members and 440 international associates, but this is because members are elected. There is no nomination process.
It's also promptly pointed out that members make up only one tenth of one percent of all US scientists, though they boast over 200 Nobel Prize winners.
You could argue they only elect atheists, but for the 7 percent.

 

[Procrastinator35]

you could write your own book P35, i will commit to purchasing one.

Who needs religion when you've got Dawkins....The obsession is hilarious.

 

[nicky]

I was under the assumption you were arguing it was skewed toward atheism....which it clearly is not, so my mistake obviously.
If you further compare the figures for Scientists with the figures for Members of the National Academy of Science as astronomically high at 93%.
Many are at pains to point out that the NAS has only around 2250 US members and 440 international associates, but this is because members are elected. There is no nomination process.
It's also promptly pointed out that members make up only one tenth of one percent of all US scientists, though they boast over 200 Nobel Prize winners.
You could argue they only elect atheists, but for the 7 percent.

The US have the best universities so the ratio doesn't surprise me.

So you're trying to make the point that the best scientists are Atheists, good on you. Even if I give you the benefit of the doubt on those stats it doesn't change anything. Crazy hypothesis are laughed at by the majority scientific community until they're proven true.

“The fanatical atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against traditional religion as the "opium of the masses"—cannot hear the music of the spheres.” - Einstein

 

[Present Not Past]

Hawkins, Krauss, Greene, Cox, Sagan, Tyson, Feynman are renowned astro physicists and are all atheists, to suggest you know more than them is particularly arrogant. But carry on if that helps you in life

Don't know where you got that from. He publicly said he wasn't an atheist.

 

[M Malice]

Who needs religion when you've got Dawkins....The obsession is hilarious.

i will take dawkins, NDG, cox etc. over religious ideology any day of the week.

 

[Procrastinator35]

i will take dawkins, NDG, cox etc. over religious ideology any day of the week.

It's cute how you think there's a difference between them & Evangelical crazies....Any-who, carry-on.

 

[Total Power]

Don't know where you got that from. He publicly said he wasn't an atheist.

Ok fair enough, atheist when it comes to religious god's fair enough, like einstein.

 

[nicky]

Ok fair enough, atheist when it comes to religious god's fair enough, like einstein.

Einstein wasn't Atheist. I don't believe in religious Gods (the jury is out on Hindu gods though) however that doesn't mean i'm an atheist when it comes to religious Gods.

If someone doesn't identify with being an atheist, like myself and Einstein, you don't get to label us one using criteria that suits you.

 

[Total Power]

It's cute how you think there's a difference between them & Evangelical crazies....Any-who, carry-on.

How is dawkins crazy? the only anti-god book he wrote was the god delusion and that got your all worked up, if he writes another i assume you will explode? There are 2 sides of the same coin, religious loonies like you and militant atheists, they are actually the same, you dont understand it, but i do. Atleast militant atheists like hitchens have a sense of humour

 

[Total Power]

Einstein wasn't Atheist. I don't believe in religious Gods (the jury is out on Hindu gods though) that doesn't mean i'm an atheist when it comes to religious Gods.

Yes i mean he was pantheist, which can be classified as atheism by some schools of thought for example:

"After all, pantheism denies the existence of a transcendent, personal God, which is the God of traditional theism. So, in that sense, pantheism seems to be a form ofatheism. It's not clear what exactly pantheists are talking about when they talk of “God.”

philosophytalk.org/community/blog/laura-maguire/2015/04/pantheism

 

[M Malice]

It's cute how you think there's a difference between them & Evangelical crazies....Any-who, carry-on.

if you can't see the difference between highly educated and respected individuals like dawkins, NDG, cox, greene etc. and jim jones, pat robertson, david koresh etc. or even george pell your judgement of personal worth to societies advancement is a tad off.

 

[Total Power]

if you can't see the difference between highly educated and respected individuals like dawkins, NDG, cox, greene etc. and jim jones, pat robertson, david koresh etc. or even george pell your judgement of personal worth to societies advancement is a tad off.

Who needs them when you have Rumi

 

[Present Not Past]

Ok fair enough, atheist when it comes to religious god's fair enough, like einstein.

Wrong again
“I am not an atheist. An atheist is someone who has compelling evidence that there is no Judeo-Christian-Islamic God".

 

[Total Power]

Wrong again
“I am not an atheist. An atheist is someone who has compelling evidence that there is no Judeo-Christian-Islamic God".

Asked directly about his religious views in 1996, Sagan explained, “I’m agnostic.” He’s been called “pantheist”; but he seems to ascribe to Spinoza’s view of “God” as a singular self-subsistent substance, with both matter and thought being attributes of such.

A pantheist doesnt believe in theistic gods.

 

[Lethality]

ANYWAY, thanks Lethality for posting those graphs, they're interesting albeit confusing and opaque.

There are significant amount of scientists from both sides and even if no scientist believed in something it wouldn't change my position. However that is not the case, lots of scientists are spiritual.

I don't think they were confusing; it's just that one graph showed one set of answers, and another graph showed another.

Yes, there are certainly some very eminent scientists who believe in God. Some of it is luck, or coincidence, circumstance. Francis Collins says he believes in God because he saw a frozen waterfall once and he fell to his knees and became a Christian. Weird.

 

[Total Power]

In many cultures it is customary to answer that God created the universe out of nothing. But this is mere temporizing. If we wish courageously to pursue the question, we must, of course ask next where God comes from? And if we decide this to be unanswerable, why not save a step and conclude that the universe has always existed?[Carl Sagan, Cosmos, page 257]


Dont you just love Carl?

 

[Procrastinator35]

In many cultures it is customary to answer that God created the universe out of nothing. But this is mere temporizing. If we wish courageously to pursue the question, we must, of course ask next where God comes from? And if we decide this to be unanswerable, why not save a step and conclude that the universe has always existed?[Carl Sagan, Cosmos, page 257]

Dont you just love Carl?

Ah Yes, the old 'Ockam's razor'.....Whence then, does the idea of God come from?

 

[Lethality]

In many cultures it is customary to answer that God created the universe out of nothing. But this is mere temporizing. If we wish courageously to pursue the question, we must, of course ask next where God comes from? And if we decide this to be unanswerable, why not save a step and conclude that the universe has always existed?[Carl Sagan, Cosmos, page 257]


Dont you just love Carl?

I agree with this. Many models of the universe include time coming into existence at the big bang, so there is not necessarily a need for something before the start of this universe.

 

[Total Power]

Ah Yes, the old 'Ockam's razor'.....Whence then, does the idea of God come from?

Yep cause your god dont need a cause, only universe needs one?

 

[Procrastinator35]

I agree with this. Many models of the universe include time coming into existence at the big bang, so there is not necessarily a need for something before the start of this universe.

'Time' came into existence?....LOL.

 

[nicky]

'Time' came into existence?....LOL.

What is so funny about that?