Great Excuses Hit Parade

 


 Last time On AW  I talked about propaganda merchants and showed that an atheist who sited an article that said there had been a huge increase in atheism in America was wrong because neither the author nor the atheist bothered to research the source of the data.

Now let's look at the excuses used by atheists to dismiss this observation. See what outrageous things they say to keep from admitting they were wrong about something.

Sylor: post 3

It looks like we've found yet another thing Meta doesn't understand-research. Here's a study from this year (check out page 8 for a chart showing how ridiculously huge the gap in growth is), although more recent numbers show that this is already outdated and nonreligious is growing even faster. Page 46 shows the religion questions and answer breakdowns. It turns out that From 14 to 24% of millennial are atheists and agnostics.

So, are you dishonest, or do you just fail at even the most basic of research methods?

So because I dug to the bottom of the citation circle and found it's origin in an article the author the article sited didn't understand, and it contradicts his point, I don't know about research? Interesting. The chart he links to is the one used as a graphic in my own article form last time on Atheist watch. Apparently if I'm no good at research I'm better at reading pie charts than old Sylor becuase the chart shows the original assertion of atheism risign is wrong.

Sylor again

Oh, and by the way, since Meta found the 2007 pew study, he should have definitely found the ones they've done every single year since then which consistently show atheism is on the rise.

 Meta:
I did show that the 2009 survey is using the 2007 data, and there are not others that update the 2007 on the same scale. Pew does things all the time but they have no done any major landmark religious topography studies like the one in 2007 since that time. The studies that speak of the level of atheism in America go by the same 2007 data. Notice he links to something; that is a Pew study that says "none category is rising." The problem there is he's confusing "none" with atheist. the atheists are only 1.6% of American that's 19% of the 5% in the none category. People in that category believe in God.

The number of Americans who do not identify with any religion continues to grow at a rapid pace. One-fifth of the U.S. public – and a third of adults under 30 – are religiously unaffiliated today, the highest percentages ever in Pew Research Center polling.
In the last five years alone, the unaffiliated have increased from just over 15% to just under 20% of all U.S. adults. Their ranks now include more than 13 million self-described atheists and agnostics (nearly 6% of the U.S. public), as well as nearly 33 million people who say they have no particular religious affiliation (14%).³

Meta:
That is the 15% if he had looked at the page he linked us to he would see the whole page is designed like a chart with "15% marked off by the level of gray background demarcating the line. the chart shows none is up 50 20% but what he totally misses is the dark space at the bottom demarcating the line showing the level of atheism they are still back at about 2%.

i know so little about research at least I can read a flipping graph.


MikeWC

I thought this thread was going to be a discussion of the nature of propaganda. Instead, it turned out to be one of Meta's "Someone is wrong on the Internet!" screeds.

Sad face.

Meta:
something is wrong on the net is about propaganda. He dismisses the falsehood and the propaganda as just internet hi jinx.

Originally Posted by Deist

In other threads, Meta insists popularity of a belief doesn't make those beliefs true. Now, he contends that atheism is a small percentage of the population, and therefore must not be true, since the god believing group is larger.

CHRISTIANITY is what is receding. A belief in insane things like the OT God is no longer being adopted by the younger, more intelligent humans.

Meta:
trying to turn around the argument by making it an attack on my views as appeal to popularity. It's strait  refutation of their assertion and an insight into the mistaken in their facts. I said noting about popularity or that being popular makes anything right. I didn't say atheism is wrong becuase tehy are a pathetically small group of losers, I mean because they are not popular '-)

Sylar adds one work post: *educated*

I'm so stupid and evacuate to believe in God. how could anything person bleieve in God tha'ts proved because the can lie about statistics. I see how it works now, if you lie about statics and use the wrong fact you all all about research that makes makes you educated. Or is it that being an atheist is so smart it makes everything you say right even when it's a lie? I guess I'm too stupid to figure that one out.


Originally Posted by maybrick

You seem to be saying that the stats that you like are correct and the stats that you dislike are wrong.

It would seem to me that Pew represents a trustworthy source or an untrustworthy source. Either way picking and choosing the data you like is not really going to convince anybody, except perhaps yourself.

Meta:
this guy can't seem to get it through his head they are same stats.

Originally Posted by MFFJM2 Even more interesting is that the PEW research of church attnedance has it much higher than pastors and ministers admit in their congregations, suggesting that religious types lie about how often they attend church, perhaps out of guilt. According to PEW 37% of American adults state they attend church weekly, but...

Meta:

This is "muffins" as I call him, a veteran of the hate meta club and one of the major members of the "God haters" club. That's just what I call them, those aren't real groups. He has the champion comment because this s the real honest to goodness tactic of the "read herring." Like the practice of dragging a fish over the track of escaping people to cover the smell so the dogs can't track them. He's trying to divert the reader form the fact that they lied, or at least quoted inadequate statistics in an article that was not well researched.

This is the champion comment because its so classically fallacious. It goes back to the garden. Adam says "O you know the woman, the one YOU GAVE ME" it's really your fault God. I screwed up becuase you gave me the woman. So they are saying hey it's really the fault of Christians that we quote this badly researched Clarice because they lie all the time.

I point out hte diversionary nature of the comment then Whatshisface says

Originally Posted by Whatsisface

So your not interested in figures all of a sudden?

He's trying to reinforce the diversionary tactic.

their atheist guru weighs in

Originally Posted by HRG

"Truth" is not a synonym for "those propositions that Metacrock wants to be true". Atheists on this board do care about truth; they differ from you about what is true.

Meta:

 they care so much that when you point out their bad research arhter than owning up to it they make every classic excuse in the book form "you are one too," to "you just don't know how to reserach" but not one of them said "Ok we made a mistake it's not that big a deal." had they said that I would have to agree.

I kept classifying it all "propaganda" which it clearly is, they are trying manipulate info to persuade. A person whose positon I am sure of weahter atheis or something else or Christian i do not know, said this:

Originally Posted by EnochP

"Propaganda" originally meant propagation of an idea, ideology, thought or meme. It did not carry the modern sense of necessarily having the intent to mislead or deceive. However, an evolutionary perspective on communication does carry the sense of intent to influence or control. One of the most ignorant utterances I have ever seen on the subject came from Diane in that rabid, insane CARM SEP forum, to the effect that there is no such thing as right-wing (misleading) propaganda. Martin Bormann is the patron saint of it.

 Meta

Interesting. 

I think a lot of atheists are good people who have good beliefs, such as Hans. I agree with Han's politics. But they don't realize the are feeding into a totalitarianism. they are. modern "new" atheism is one of the chilling totalitarian moments I've ever researched.


As I pointed out already, had they just said "Ok this was a mistake, I took the article at face value when I should have researched it more" I would have said "Ok no big deal and left it in the other thread. They just can't admit they are wrong about anything. Look at the idiotic lengths to which they go just avlid saying "I was wrong" one single time.

The Atheist Propagadna Merchant: Always Inflating the Numbers

The propaganda merchant doesn't care what's true. the Propagandist cares only what impression he leaves in your head. Oliver North said i best, "there is no reality there is only appearance." The sick cynical findings of an ultra right wing activist are echoes by atheists in the New Atheist mentality.

there are a lot examples but one that pertains to this board is the way the joke about atheism rising is continually rebuffed yet they keep trying tp pass to off as hot news flash. When dig below the surface to see where the figures come form they all come orm the 2007 pew study which found 1.6% of the country is atheist.

here are the results of the digging.

http://bogusatheistsocialscience.blo...esults-by.html


yet despite the fact that I've shown the same stuff on this board a number of times where Jag tell the same story over and over again.

the lie atheism is increasing 19%. It is not at 19%, that's 19% of 5% that 5% is not atheism they are people who don't believe God but don't only 19% of them call themselves atheist. In all the time I've been doing this message board apologetic stuff atheism hasn't gone up a single point.

yet here is Jag still telling people the same old story. I'm not saying he's lying, but he's telling a falsehood which is based on a lie even through he may unwilling to believe it is.



post 19

Originally Posted by NewJagella View Post post no 18
Let's look at the numbers. According to The Huffington Post:

(Emphasis Mine)

I'd say that proves my point.

Where did you get your own data?

Jagella--Former Christian 

It's also not true that percentage of "religious Americans" dropped to 60%. no way. 90% still say they believe in God. Christianity is still in high 70s if not 80s that's from Pew. Same source that his figures ultimately come from.
he says it a second time in the same thread.

Jag post 13 same thread

You may wish to visit my Atheism is growing in America! thread to answer your questions. You may also wish to check out a recent CNN.com article about the effect rising secularism is having on American culture. I reproduce part of that article here for my emphasis and your convenience.

both sources he names, Huffington and the other one are based upon the same article that ultimately lead back to the Pew study.

Atheists ratinoalizations and blaming the victim

carm

 this started about them taking exception to my findings (from Francis studies) that atheism is correlated with low self esteem. they were saying hwo can tell as though the study isn't as good their mature musings. they moved from taht to how bad I am then to how it's justfied to curch self esteem of victims because they are losers.

Bonoso is saying that I'm so arrogant.

Originally Posted by Metacrock

people with low self esteem always think those with healthy self esteem are egotistical. they think just the idea of loving yourself is egomaniac.

 Boneso

lol i love the way you keep suggesting i have low self esteem because of the same reasons that you portray yourself. What was it you thought i was again? Arrogant? That a sign of low self esteem isnt it?

hmmm... arrogance and low self esteem dont really go hand in hand do they? You are constantly contradicting yourself and looking like a fool. I genuinely believe that you believe your own BS so its not really your fault as such but, to be a good liar you need to have a good memory and a strong grasp of logic, and you meta are showing no signs of either...

Meta:

yea they do actually. it's compensation

MMJ2

He was never a "true atheist", just one of those who claimed the mantle of atheism because he thought it made him an intellectual. When he writes about being an atheist, it's quite clear he had no real understanding of what that means, just that he liked the title. Then when things got dire for someone in his family, he turned to the only thing he knew for answers, God. As it turned out he had nothing to worry about, because modern science was on the scene, and his family member recovered. However, out of resentment, fear and self-loathing he discovered that he really wasn't an atheist after all, and had discovered his true-calling...being annoying on multiple websites.

They think they know all about me. they know all my family my problems and all my motivations and stuff. Of cousre I deserved all the problems I had. "He was never a true atheist" that really gets me. We are all born atheists not this guy he was screwed up and had some belief in there.


Deist

Meta was just going through his rebellious teen stage where he was mad that God didn't do stuff for him.

Tyreal

Please stop comparing your voluntary participation on a discussion board to being brutalized physically/sexually. It's offensive and creepy.

you don't feel what you feel. We will assign the feelings we accept that you can have.


Originally Posted by MarkUK

It can only reduce a person who has had their hopes built up - telling me I'm not a millionaire doesn't hurt the slightest bit if I don't already think I am one.

I don't see why "you evolved and the universe doesn't care about you" could possibly be a bad thing unless you want or expect the universe (or its boss) to care about you.

what a rationalization. you are actually it's the victim's fault for being criticized.

Meta
we have seen proof over and over again of what unconscionable rationalizing blighters atheists are. they have no scrouips and no sense of decency. Those who are willing to stop to ridicule artistry that is. some don't ever do it. But those who do have no qualms about lying, pretense, blame the victim total bullies.

you are literally saying it's your fault if you are bullied, it's your fault if you are criticized you must really deserve it.

 Then go in for some accuzation against people with good self esteem.

MarkUK:

Thinking you're loved by an all-powerful being must be such an ego trip.

 good self esteem needs to be punished so it's justified we hurt you becuase you deserve it.

 Darth Moron

 And needing to think you're loved by an all powerful being before being able to accept yourself is certainly a sign of low self esteem.

 If you find your self esteem in Christ that's a sing you are really bad, you severed to be punished because why you have self esteem when they don't? The benefit of self love is turned into a sin becuase they don't have it. It's just a weak psychological need. Real mean bottle up their feelings and hate themselves. But they would still deny having low self esteem. Can't we see how the idea of low self esteem would self love into a sin?

 they try turn their weaknesses into lies of supriroity

 Deist

 You pulled you out of them. You just believe an unseen imaginary entity did it for you. Belief is the key. All one need do is believe that he or she is healed, out of the dark place, no longer an addict, and it is done. The next steps are up to you. Some need the psychological and imaginary god crutch because they like denying their own powers.

 They are rationalizing their character assassination. They are trying to turn self esteem into a crime and their self hatred into a virtue. No doubt this is fueling their hatred of Chrsitians. they are basically all too little zombies of hate.

atheist lie in action

 Throwup no 20

"I think I remember a quote from Hood where he said Christian apologists try to use his sober work in psychology to promote their magic and mumbo-jumbo. I can't remember the exact phrase, but I do..."

wow this is scary I didn't mean to post this yet. O well, I know for a fact it's not true because I asked Hood.

One of the very frew Chrsitians to have the guts to speak up

Highrigger is just about the first Chrsitain to speak up for me on CARM since the CADRE people left back in 2004. he backs me statments about ECREP.

Highrigger post 20

I am trained in mathmatics and I agre with Bayes Theorem as far as it goes. But it does not go so far as to be applied to spritual issues. How does Mathmatics have anything to do with love or faith, passions of the heart?

Metacrock is right. It is a dumb idea. The Theorem is totally misapplied.

JohnR

I think I must have discovered some kind of atheist liturgy or something. They are acting like I murdered someone. It's  a major sin to say ECREE is not true. On my boards atheist oppent (but a friend) Quantum Troll actually takes me side on this one. He's a scientist. He's a Ph.D. candidate in nuero biology at a major university in Europe.

e: Bayes' Theorem

by QuantumTroll on Tue Nov 20, 2012 4:08 am

I'm going to start by taking Metacrock's side here, for once. As a working numerical scientist, I feel like I have a bit of weight to throw around on this subject, too

I think Metacrock is right in that the claim "ECREE" with regards to the existence of God has little or nothing to do with Bayes' Theorem. The reason for this is actually clear when you look at the examples in this thread, cocaine use and cancer. If you give a random US citizen a cocaine test, the low incidence of cocaine use means that you'll get a lot of false positives. Cocaine use is an extraordinary claim, and you need a very accurate test (or several tests) in order to convincingly show cocaine use. If you go to a crackhouse, you'll probably be able to tell pretty reliably who is high at the moment without any drug test. Similarly, any particular cancer diagnosis is a rare and extraordinary claim, and the tests have limited power. But if one test is positive, you're in a cancer crackhouse, and more testing will be much more reliable. Bottom line: You need to know the prior odds of an outcome to know the reliability of a test.

We don't know the prior odds of the existence of God. We cannot apply Bayes' Theorem on this question, because we don't have any data about the existence of God, period. I think this is the heart of Metacrock's point, and in this he is correct.

A caveat: I think the existence of God is an extraordinary claim, and my intuition says that such claims require extra convincing evidence. I agree with ECREE with regards to the existence of God, but will not use Bayes' Theorem as support for this opinion.

Finally, there's the whole miracles issue, too. Here, we do know the prior odds of spontaneous recovery from various illnesses, or we can at least calculate a reliable estimate. Therefore, when someone prays and is healed, we can apply Bayes' Theorem and we do have a mathematical basis for ECREE in this context. Every argument for miracles (at Lourdes or elsewhere) that I've seen has failed to address this fundamental problem. Can Metacrock dig up a counterexample?

my response:

Re: Bayes' Theorem

by Metacrock on Tue Nov 20, 2012 6:33 am

I appreciate your comments a great deal man. That's super and actually talking my side, wow, mark n the wall!

I agree with what you say. The only thing I would add is that many atheists, not you of cousre, or Fleet, but those who are less well immersed in scinece make it seem as though belief in god is extraordinary in the sense of being cray, way out, they leave the impression that "extraordinary" means "freaky and silly and way out."

Obviously it doesn't mean that. It means different the average. soemthing like that. yet the average in terms of belief for humans is to believe in some form of deity or God.

Extraordianrily Narrow Minded Attitudes Require Extraorinary Baiting

Animal Farm

More evidence of the narrow minded refusal to think that atheist display. it's a typical day on carm so there are about a hundred examples to choose from. In this one I got a thing about whether or not ECREE is an exact rendition of the Bayes's theorem. I keep saying the thrum i sfine it's the idea that ECREE is exactly derived from it that I'm protesting. they keep saying "that's so backward no to accept Bayes. or "what do you have Bayes?"

Originally Posted by Metacrock

It['ECREE']'s a dumb idea. It's not logical and it's just an excuse to raise the bar for religious ideas.

 

Sylar post no 1

'ECREE' is merely an English statement of Bayes's Theorem. A claim with a low prior probability needs a higher likelihood than a claim with a high prior in order to have the same posterior. You are not only wrong, but incompetently wrong. That's it; that's ALL 'ECREE' is saying. This is a mathematical fact. You can even see a very simple proof here.

And, contrary to what Meta claims, it is use all the fracking time. For example, let's look at drug tests. Last year, an estimated 0.5% of the general US population used cocaine. Let's assume that we have a 99% accurate test for cocaine. People like Meta will try to tell you that this means that anyone who tests positive on a random drug test has a 99% chance of having actually done cocaine. The reality, however, is that if we plug the numbers into Bayes's Theorem, we see that there's nearly a 66% chance of it being a false positive.

'ECREE' is why we never do just one test for cancer. Extraordinary claims do in fact require extraordinary evidence; this is mathematical fact.

I'm not allowed to use the image tags, but here is a good cartoon about 'ECREE': http://xkcd.com/1132/

I said:

Meta:

you know you are taking what I said out of context. you are doing this on purpose becuase you can't stand the fact I just beat your previous little fortress of facts.

you have no facts. atheism is not a fact. It's junk it's a house of cards. I just blew the house apart.

You are taking it out of context because you said Bayes is a fact. I said its not a fact that it apply to all god arguments. that's nto a fact. I proved it's not a fact. you are saying the theorem is a fact, I didn't dispute that. I said it doesn't apply to everything. It doesn't it as a very limited application. I dont' know that it applies to any god arguments.

what I originally said

post 37

It's not a fact that your mathematical fact has application to my God augments. nothing in Bayes theory says "all God arguments are subject tot his argument."

that's just an example of the fortress of facts fallacy.*


*Yes I coined the term it's not an official fallacy but it is a real one.

Most of my God arguemnts are not probabilistic. that only apply to indicative arguments. most of mine are not. Doesn't apply at all to any kind of phenomenology or existentialism of deductive reasoning. .

so in other words it doesn't apply because the theory is only about probability.

But they can't stop and read the truth. They have to keep up the mockery. It's clear from the things they say they are not even reading my answers. The incredilby illogcial assertion he's making that ECREE is Bayse's theorum just put into English, therefore, since Bayse's theorem is a fact then ECREE is a fact.

Sylor

It is a mathematical fact (see the proof linked in the OP) that claims with low priors need higher likelihoods than those with high priors to have the same posterior. That is ALL 'ECREE' is. It's merely a fashionable expression of Bayes's Theorem. Extraordinary claims (i.e., unlikely claims) require extraordinary evidence (i.e. greater than normal amount/quality of evidence).

The only goalposts that have been moved are by those who want to deny mathematical fact so that they can believe in magic.

Lance:

No ECREE is a proven fact. By Bayes theorem Pr(H|E) = Pr(E|H) * Pr(H) / Pr(E). Therefore; Pr(H|E) ≤ Pr(H) / Pr(E)

If someone means anything other than Pr(H|E) ≤ Pr(H) / Pr(E) when they talk about ECREE, then sure maybe it's a vague subjective slogan. But this is certainly true and obviously very clear.

Let's suppose that some evidence E makes hypothesis H more likely than not. Thus;

0.5 < Pr(H|E) ≤ Pr(H) / Pr(E)
0.5 < Pr(H) / Pr(E)
Pr(H) > 0.5 * Pr(E)

They are reading it as ECREE = Bayes when in fact it's only derived from it. Bayes saying nothing about extraordinary claims for example. I question the possibly of "translating" math into english as though math is the kind of language English is. I've always been by friends in the sciences that it can't be more than rough approximation. when it is their little ideology they want to think it's 1x1, right on the money exact. I know form translating Greek and French there's no such thing as a "literal translation." All translations are approximate or interpretive or derivative. The Genius Sylor says "it's mathematically precise" meaning ECREE is periscope. that's just not possible even translating form English to French. ECREE is not mathematics. It's only partially derived from a mathematical formula. Lance is extolling the praises of the mathematical formula that doesn't prove the linguistic derivative shares the exactitude of the formula.

Then they try arguing that probability applies to miracles and can rule them out.

 Darth Pringle

 

 

And I still can't see how mathematical probability doesn't apply to miracles (eg, the resurrection). If the number of people not coming back from death by miraculous means exceeds those who do then the prior probability of a "back from death miracle" claim actually having a natural cause (and thus, being mistaken) is going to be high ... even without knowing the exact numbers.

Meta:

 take off the blinders and think for a change? your assumption is that it has to be automatic. Yes you are assuring so. Otherwise probability would have nothing to do with it. you have to assume that it works like a drug or medicine you get the prayer you have to be healing doesn't' work.Let's say hypothetically God does hate amputees. that's a reason why he doesn't work automatically on command to heal them. So now if you say "that means 0 probability of being healed by God for amputation tha'ts true, but that doesn't' meant that he can't do it. what he does in one case? you can't rule out that case as a miracle merely because you had a probability.

Probability doesn't' apply to certainty. going case by case we find many examples of miracles. but they have o probability. because taking it case by case there's no expectation.

you dogmatically refuse to read anything I write. read this one thing you will learn a lot.

See my essay on Doxa "Causality in Miracle hunting.Originally Posted by Lance

Originally Posted by Lance

The argument for Jesus' resurrection is a probabilistic argument.

 

 Meta:

no it's not. that's impossible because you can't deal with it as though it were something that has to happen on a regular basis. No reason to look for other resurrections, there though there have been some., bit's supposed to be imposable that is what a miracle is. there' only one incarnate logos who died on cross who is going to raise form the dead. Never going to happen again so there's nothing to establish a probability by.

you can't establish a probability with a one time thing.

I challenged Lance to read my article on ECREE, in two parts.


All he says is;

Bayes Theorem entails Pr(H|E) ≤ Pr(H) / Pr(E). There is nothing you can do about this. When we say extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, we mean that Pr(H|E) ≤ Pr(H) / Pr(E).

So he's not the least big willing to read the article.

Meta:

notice friends, this is his way of saying I refuse to read the essay. So he's admitting yes he is too narrow minded to consider ideas off template he atheist template is the only thing he can think he doesn't' dare think ideas nt on it. that's just what ideology is.

Didn't take long for him to fail that test.

then he tries to argue it out:

Originally Posted by Lance

Of course I can tell you what it means. It means that the probability of hypothesis H on evidence E is at most the prior probability of H divided by the prior probability of E.

An extraordinary claim or evidence is one which has a very low prior probability. If H is very unlikely then E is going to have to be very unlikely too, to balance it out. A small value divided by a big value is a very small value.

ahahahaha that's recursive! that's circular reasoning. think about it:

BelieverWhat is extraordinary?

Atheistit's one which has a low probability

Believer:how do we know it it has a low probability?

Atheistbecause it's extraordinary!
The whole point of saying extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof is predated on knowing what's extraordinary. that has to be known in advance it can't just be hacked in by opinion. If calculating probability for an argument is impossible ten obviously the theorem can't apply.


Originally Posted by Lntz

"Atheist watch - Watching Atheist Hate Group" - this is the reason i'm not responding to the essay.

The title website shows that this is going to be a horribly biased piece of work, written for people who actually want to read nonsense about Atheists being Hateful.

Atheism = not believing in God

Being hateful is something else, and is not reliant on your belief in God.

Try presenting a more neutral piece of work, and i'm sure you'll get a better response.

so the logic ECREE is proved right because you don't like atheist watch. you still wont me to think you are not an ideologue?

In their hearts our enemies know we are right!

 
 Adherents.com pie chart shows atheism only 3% of world Population.
Don't forget the 16% non religious, 8% believe in God (still non religious). Of the
remaining 8% half of them are agnostic.



This is he cry of the side that knows it's losing. On CARM atheist poster Lance proclaims that all men know atheism is true:

Originally Posted by Lance

We don't need to, the errors in the bible speak for themselves and the proofs of atheism are obvious. All men know that God doesn't exist, some are just afraid to accept the truth and thus hide in man made myths.

This is so typical of those who argue form incredulity. "all men know that God doesn't' exist." that's the atheist version of the Christian conceit that people really know in thier hearts that Christianity is true. Everyone says it. Even Presidential Candi-ate Barry Goldwater in 1964 had a slogan "In your heart you know he's right."

so many people knew he was right that they lost by a major landslide (to LBJ).


The thing is when your cases rests upon assuming your enemies all know your right they wont admit it, they make up 90% of world population and your side makes up 3% it's pretty laughable.

On the other side of the balance sheet we need to remember that what is increasing, not atheism, it's been 3% for decades despite the big push in 2004 by the new atheists and all their best propaganda, but what is expanding is the level of dissatisfaction with organized reilgion..

I remember other posters on carm confidently asserting that Christianity was coming to an end and atheism was wining:

 CARM (02/28/2008)

a thread called

"Good News--New Study supports rising tide of non belief!"


The Study in Question is the Pew Forum on Religion and public Life study

Title:

U.S. Religious Land Scape June 28, 2008.



Great news--new study supports the rising tide of Nonbelief

The Pew Center for Religion and the Public Life just came out with a new large poll on religious affiliations in the U.S. http://religions.pewforum.org. Tally up the numbers, and you'll see that Christians make up about 76.8 percent of the U.S. population, and those with no affiliation (atheists, agnostics, don't identify with any religious group but may consider themselves vaguely "spiritual") was 16.1 percent. Another .8 percent said the don't know or refused to answer--since that is not what any God-fearing religious person would say, I would add it to the "No Affilation" side of the ledger. Rounding, we have Christians as 77% and the non-religious at 17%. All other religions are in the low single digits.

The study overall found that people move around quite a bit religiously and a large percentage don't have the same religion as their parents. However, the "no affiliation" group was clearly growing and were losing far few people than they were gaining. The non-belief crowd is like a slow rising flood--there was a time we would have been in the low single digits, but now we are up to 17% overall and are an even higher percentage of the young. With each passing generation, more and more people are considering themselves as non-religious.

In my lifetime, I expect to see this number get up to 25% or more overall, and my kids could see a USA where the majority of Americans are finally secular rather than religious in their world view. Hallelujah!

Despite the positively stated title and the exultation in the closing line, some atheists actually said "no claim has been made."


he's trying to claim atheism at 17% this is such folly. They are assuming affiliation is synonymous with belief in God! So clearly foolish and when one examines the study the breakdown of unaffiliated the actual number given to atheist population in America is 1.6%! they are counting anyone not a Christian as an atheist!

(for the first page of the study).



This study actually shows atheism shrinking as the research I have done previously indicated it was at 3% of US pop. they have at 1.6%.


I find atheists doing this all the time. I've seen them count all of Buddhism as atheism so they can say they are a major world religion. IF they really believe they are right, why aren't they just content to be right? why do they take such solace in bogus inflation of numbers? Gallop shows more people in Japan are Christian than ever before.

The category of "non affiliated" leaves room for religious belief. but to be fair, he wasn't just ignorant of what decimal points do. The whole category happened to be 16% and the atheists 1.6% so he was going by the category, not taking out the decimal.

still, he should have known.

 

*Adherents.com = 4% U.S. Pop is Ahtiest

Adherents.com shows Atheists at 0.4% of U.S. Population.


Atheist 1990 adult pop: 902,000 2004= 1,272,986 Percentrage of Pop = 0.4%

a note on this statistical table says:


 

*Gallup polls show 6% U.S. Pop with 3% error

Gallup organization

finds 6% atheist in U.S. 2008, within 3% margin of error this agrees with the other polls.

May 9-11, 2008.

Which of the following statements comes closest to your belief about God -- you believe in God, you don't believe in God, but you do believe in a universal spirit or higher power, or you don't believe in either? (findings: 6% say Neither, 78% believe in God, 15% beleive in universal spirit, 1% no opinion).


 

*Pew Study at top = 1.6% U.S. Pop

2004 total population numbers were calculated by multiplying each group's percent of the total adult 2001 population (207,882,353) by the 2004 total population (using the June 1, 2004 U.S. Census Bureau extrapolated estimate of 293,382,953 total Americans). The U.S. Census Bureau total U.S. population estimate for 2000, based on the actual 2000 Census, was: 281,421,906. The U.S. Census Bureau total U.S. population estimate for July 1, 2001 was: 293,655,404. The adult (ages 18 and over) population estimate for July 1, 2001 was: 220,377,406. The total adult population for 2001 used in the 2001 ARIS study (apparently counting only adults aged 21 and over) was: 207,882,353. For 2001 figures, see: 293655404http://www.census.gov/popest/states/asrh/SC-est2004-01.html. This method of extrapolating the 2004 total population of each religious group from the 2001 adult population of each group does not factor in differences in the average number of children per adult for each religious group.

While stats on Christian population have been underrated! New study finds more Christians in Japan than previous thought.

More People Claim Christian Faith in Japan

By
Audrey Barrick
audrey@christianpost.com
Sun, Mar. 19 2006 10:24 AM ET

The latest Gallup poll revealed a much higher percentage of Christians in Japan compared to previous surveys, including a surprising high number of teens who claimed the Christian faith.

More People Claim Christian Faith in Japan

Japanese people walk along Omotesando, a fashionable street in Tokyo, March 8, 2006. The latest Gallup poll revealed a much higher percentage of Christians in Japan compared to previous surveys, including a surprising high number of teens who claimed the

In a country where only one percent is Christian among those who claim a faith, findings from one of the most extensive surveys of the country ever taken showed a Christian population of six percent. Meanwhile, the most popular and traditional religions – Buddhism and Shintoism – suffered declines.

Of the 30 percent of adults who claimed to have a religion, 75 percent considered themselves Buddhists, 19 percent Shintoists and 12 percent Christians, according to the Gallup Organization. Japanese youth revealed even more alarming statistics. Of the 20 percent who professed to have a religion, 60 percent called themselves Buddhists, 36 percent Christians and Shintoists.

"These projections mean that seven percent of the total teenage population say they are Christians," said George Gallup Jr. who called the numbers "stunning."

The study - the single largest study ever attempted, according to the social scientists in Japan - examined preteens, teens, young adults, adults and seniors.

"When they saw the design of the questionnaire, Japanese experts argued that the Japanese would never answer the socially delicate and/or the highly personal questions," said Bill McKay, project research director. "However, it was our professional hunch that the Japanese were ready to talk and when they did they told us more than we had asked for. The data is the most revealing look behind the face of Japan and shatters many WWII myths of the Japanese culture."

McKay is also one of the producers of a documentary that is slated for release later this year. The poll was conducted in association with American Trademark Research and MJM Group in 2001 for use in the documentary.

"In my 50 years of polling, there has been no study that I would consider as important as this one, because it provides insight into a fascinating culture," said Gallup.

Delving into more specific attitudes, the poll also found a note of hopelessness in the responses to questions related to morality, spirituality and general views about life.

"And there is little evidence of eternal hope, although a considerable number do believe in some form of life afterlife," noted Gallup. And "there is little belief in 'absolutes,' and this is true across the all-generational groups."

In comparison to teens in the United States, Japanese teens showed a pessimistic outlook on life. Previous studies found that 85 percent of teens in Japan wondered why they existed while 22 percent of U.S. teens had the same thought. Additionally, 13 percent of Japanese teens always see a reason for their being on Earth compared to 76 percent of teens in the U.S, and 11 percent of Japanese teens wished they had never been born while 3 percent of U.S. teens wished the same.

Within an estimated population of 127.4 million in Japan, academics estimate that 20 to 30 percent of adults actively practice a particular faith, but the Agency for Cultural Affairs reported in 2003 that 213,826,700 citizens claimed a religion, according to the U.S. Department of State's latest International Religious Freedom Report.

 Then there's also the God part of the brain stuff. Something all people are supposed to know but wont admit and yet we are born with the coutner concept?