Atheism Test

Originally posted by Alliance
2.1 Billion Christianity
1.3 Billion Islam
1.1 Billion Atheism/Agnosticism
0.9 Billion Hinduism
0.7 Billion Buddhism
0.4 Billion Chinese Traditional
0.3 Billion Pagan
0.1 Billion African Traditional
Nothing more even close.

So, I don't see any correlation.

That is WAY off

Christianity is about 1.5 Billion, followed by Islam at slightly lower

Athieism/NoReligion is at several Million

Buddhism/Daoism/other Asian Philosophy is at like 1 Billion

Hindu has several hundred Million

African has a few 10 Million something people

Pagan, not too many

Judaeism has several Hundred Million too I believe

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
?? That is more people then there is in the world. That adds up to 6.9 Billion. I could be wrong, but I thought there was 6.5 billion people on the planet.

I don't have data for everything down to the umpth person. Not to mention some groups like paganism and traditional religions aren't as easily surveyed, therefore estimates are used.

{edit} Good Job Lana!

Originally posted by Darth Kreiger
That is WAY off

Christianity is about 1.5 Billion, followed by Islam at slightly lower

Athieism/NoReligion is at several Million

Buddhism/Daoism/other Asian Philosophy is at like 1 Billion

Hindu has several hundred Million

African has a few 10 Million something people

Pagan, not too many

Judaeism has several Hundred Million too I believe

I got my data from adherents.com. I felt that they were credible enough. They make a statement of saying that these are the largest recent data records, not necessarily the most accurate, but I'd like to see where you got your numbers from.

Originally posted by Lana
The figures are probably rounded up.

0.4 billion is a lot of rounding. 😱

Rounding from what?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
0.4 billion is a lot of rounding. 😱

Considering the numbers rounded, not really. On average each figure was rounded up about .05 billion, or 5 million.

They're not precise measurements, they're just rough estimates.

And all are rounded, so there is some degree of proportionality between them.

.05 billion is 50 million...

Originally posted by Templares
The way i see it is like this: All atheists are weak atheists because all atheists in principle LACK the belief in the existence of ALL gods and/or deities. The general definition of atheism and weak atheism is one and the SAME. There are atheists, however, who take it a step further and DENY the existence of ALL or at least SOME gods. These are your strong atheists.

An atheist could be a Strong atheist towards Roman and Greek gods, ie. OUTRIGHTLY dismissing these gods as mere myths hence none-existent but is a Weak atheist towards the Christian god, ie simply lacking the belief in Jesus but does NOT deny the possibility of his godly existence.

An atheist's stance as to what constitutes a conclusive evidence is not dependent on whether the atheist is weak or strong.

Despite your Star Wars-esque use of capital letters, you haven't adressed the inherent contradiction of the two viewpoints that I raised, and so your points don't really hold any relevance.

The two terms are mutually exclusive. You cannot be both.

Originally posted by Templares
That is one NARROW definition right there (and one stupid test to boot).

Here is a much better one:

Atheism - is simply the absence of a belief, belief in a god, a higher power, a supreme being, etc. It is a state of mind in which the supernatural plays no part. For that reason atheism has no agenda, pursues no goals, and practices no principles. Although the atheist may deny the validity of any one or all of the theistic arguments, he or she does not deny the existence of a god. The existence of such a being remains unproved.

Let it be understood that the atheist does not close the door on the possibility that a god exists. Realizing that the failure of theistic arguments does not absolutely prove that there is no god, and that supposing as much would make one guilty of the fallacy of arguing from ignorance, the atheist remains open to further evidence. Until such proof is forthcoming, however, the atheist remains justified in rejecting theism as a valid concept.

What would it take to convince an atheist that a god exists? This is a fair question. [B]First, an atheist would accept the data of sense perception, known as empirical evidence, provided these data were objectively substantiated and could be experienced by another individual under similar circumstances. Second, an atheist would accept compelling argumentation that is logical and consistent, does not contradict either itself or our current knowledge of the universe, and, where appropriate, can withstand the cutting edge of Occam's Razor..

http://home.inu.net/skeptic/god.html [/B]

You should take that complaint up with Merriam-Webster Online since you think that it is narrow.

Then if the test is stupid, what does that make the testee? I'm just asking. I don't even waist my time with things that I believe are stupid.

In order to come to the conclusion whether or not the test is stupid, he had to take it first, no? If he had known it was, he wouldn' t have wasted his time with it.

Originally posted by Storm
In order to come to the conclusion whether or not the test is stupid, he had to take it first, no? If he had known it was, he wouldn' t have wasted his time with it.

Not necessarily. I encounter things periodically that I choose not to engage in, try, test, or experience because I feel that they are not worth my time.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Not necessarily. I encounter things periodically that I choose not to engage in, try, test, or experience because I feel that they are not worth my time.

Right, like that whole logic and reason deal lately....

Originally posted by Bardock42
Right, like that whole logic and reason deal lately....

Read my last post in my Circular Reasoning thread. It is full of logic.

🙂

No, it is full of what you might want to call logic, but it lands nowhere cose. It is just more silly dogma.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
No, it is full of what you might want to call logic, but it lands nowhere cose. It is just more silly dogma.

I addressed the matter of the origin of the universe with the same rationale and logic that scientists approach the matter of creation. It just doesn't make any lick of sense for something as inferior as a car to have had an intelligent designer. But in terms of life (which is infinitely more complex than inanimate objects) to just be a product of random occurence. My computer has enough sense to know that does not compute.

Sorry, but you are not talking with any sense or logic there. It doesn't make sense for a car to have had an intelligent designer? Your crrelation is so false as to be worthless, and again you are exposing the huge flaws in your logical abilities.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I addressed the matter of the origin of the universe with the same rationale and logic that scientists approach the matter of creation. It just doesn't make any lick of sense for something as inferior as a car to have had an intelligent designer. But in terms of life (which is infinitely more complex than inanimate objects) to just be a product of random occurence. My computer has enough sense to know that does not compute.

You are assuming that Intelligent Designers must somehow be better than the laws of nature, how come?

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Sorry, but you are not talking with any sense or logic there. It doesn't make sense for a car to have had an intelligent designer? Your crrelation is so false as to be worthless, and again you are exposing the huge flaws in your logical abilities.

Now I know that somebody has been sippin' on grandma's medicine bottle. Explain why it doesn't make sense for a car to have had an intelligent designer. I would loooove to here this. (waits with bated breath).

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Now I know that somebody has been sippin' on grandma's medicine bottle. Explain why it doesn't make sense for a car to have had an intelligent designer. I would loooove to here this. (waits with bated breath).

It was a question, not a statement. Try to read what he is saying.