atheists only

[longshanks]

how many of us are there in the world, and numerically where do we rank, 3rd, 4th largest etc

 

[Kungfuzed]

Well, there's at least one here in Delaware. : hamster :

 

[BucephalusBB]

That makes 3 of us together. Soon we can build an army, muhahaha..
Better get some people, the more atheist the more truth we hold!!

being serious though, I have no idea. I saw so many different numbers so far..
I think it's hard to calculate as in some countries it's not easy being non-religious..

 

[Panda]

We have 4 now .
I think we are a substantial minority.

 

[logician]

The number of people who claim to be atheists is much smaller than the number who probably are practical atheists, i.e. don't really believe in god, but peer pressure requires they "remain in the closet".

 

[robtex]

The number of people who claim to be atheists is much smaller than the number who probably are practical atheists, i.e. don't really believe in god, but peer pressure requires they "remain in the closet".

that seems to be the case with a high frequency where I live. I am open about my atheism and attract others who either say to me "I am an atheist, or I don't believe there is a God" and than follow it up with "don't tell anyone" .

 

[Aasimar]

Yeah, oddly the number of people who are atheist and claim too be is fairly small.

Conversely the number of people who claim to be Christian but actually aren't is probably much larger.

I've never met anybody who called themselves an atheist to avoid hassle, but I've met plenty who just say they're Christian so they don't have to deal with it.

 

[logician]

I work in an office of very religious people, and claiming I am an atheist would definintely not go over well. Since I usually don't discuss religion and politics at work, it's not too much of a problem, but it still irks me how close-minded most people are on the subject.

 

[charles brough]

Even if we atheists were a large percentage of the world's population, we would still lack effectiveness because we have nothing else but a non-belief in common. We agree on little else.

My study and research leads me to conclude that all the world's mainstream civilizations have been based upon world-view or ideological systems that answered four important human questions:

1) what is our origin?
2) what is our goal(s)?
3) what moral means do we follow to achieve it?
4) what stands in our way?

All we agree on there is probably evolution as the answer to #1. Until we adopt a whole belief system that clearly and emphatically sets out for us the goals we need to achieve, the moral means we need to follow to achieve them and what stands in our way, we will stay on the sidelines while the old religions put us in wars to fight it out---eventually with atomic bombs---in the so-called "Holy Land."

I suggest a proposal in: HOME PAGE

charles

 

[logician]

Even if we atheists were a large percentage of the world's population, we would still lack effectiveness because we have nothing else but a non-belief in common. We agree on little else.

My study and research leads me to conclude that all the world's mainstream civilizations have been based upon world-view or ideological systems that answered four important human questions:

1) what is our origin?
2) what is our goal(s)?
3) what moral means do we follow to achieve it?
4) what stands in our way?

All we agree on there is probably evolution as the answer to #1. Until we adopt a whole belief system that clearly and emphatically sets out for us the goals we need to achieve, the moral means we need to follow to achieve them and what stands in our way, we will stay on the sidelines while the old religions put us in wars to fight it out---eventually with atomic bombs---in the so-called "Holy Land."

I suggest a proposal in: HOME PAGE

charles

Interesting post.

 

[Yerda]

Hey Charles,

Until we adopt a whole belief system that clearly and emphatically sets out for us the goals we need to achieve, the moral means we need to follow to achieve them and what stands in our way, we will stay on the sidelines while the old religions put us in wars to fight it out---eventually with atomic bombs---in the so-called "Holy Land."

Can I have a go with your crystal ball when you're done?

Don't you think non-theism is a weak, and perhaps trivial thing to unify people? I'd much rather march with anti-war organizations and whoever composes them given the numbers and related effectiveness.

 

[crystalonyx]

Hey Charles,

Can I have a go with your crystal ball when you're done?

Don't you think non-theism is a weak, and perhaps trivial thing to unify people? I'd much rather march with anti-war organizations and whoever composes them given the numbers and related effectiveness.

Are you saying atheism is trivial, and theism is not?

 

[Yerda]

Hello.

Are you saying atheism is trivial, and theism is not?

Not at all.

EDIT: Some brands of thesm have one possibly strong unting feature that I wouldn't call trivial - the belief in human dignity.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I agree with what I perceive to be Jaiket's point: a shared lack of something doesn't necessarily constitute a link between people.

At least, that's what I've surmised from the dwindling membership rolls of my "not gardening" group and my "any make but Chevrolet" car club.

Non-theism by itself isn't a uniting force. There are plenty of uniting forces that can occur within non-theism (I see potential for this in secular humanism, for example), but these aren't necessarily the same thing (e.g. you don't have to be a secular humanist to be an atheist). Non-theism and atheism by themselves don't forge much of a link between people, IMO.

 

[rojse]

I agree with what I perceive to be Jaiket's point: a shared lack of something doesn't necessarily constitute a link between people.

At least, that's what I've surmised from the dwindling membership rolls of my "not gardening" group and my "any make but Chevrolet" car club.

Non-theism by itself isn't a uniting force. There are plenty of uniting forces that can occur within non-theism (I see potential for this in secular humanism, for example), but these aren't necessarily the same thing (e.g. you don't have to be a secular humanist to be an atheist). Non-theism and atheism by themselves don't forge much of a link between people, IMO.

I disagree that being against something does not mean that you are not a group. For example, there are groups of people against video games, against books, or against certain values.

 

[Fluffy]

The wikipedia page, Demographics of atheism, gives various estimates and lends its support to 12-15% of the world's population. Also the link in its references looks interesting.

I would say that we are probably the third largest group behind Christianity and Islam. They make up roughly 3 billion together leaving 3.7 billion left over. There are about a billion Hindus after which it drops off quickly so I reckon there must be at least a billion "atheists" although see the wikipedia page for difficulties with that.

 

[rojse]

The wikipedia page, Demographics of atheism, gives various estimates and lends its support to 12-15% of the world's population. Also the link in its references looks interesting.

I would say that we are probably the third largest group behind Christianity and Islam. They make up roughly 3 billion together leaving 3.7 billion left over. There are about a billion Hindus after which it drops off quickly so I reckon there must be at least a billion "atheists" although see the wikipedia page for difficulties with that.

What about people that only pay lip service to a religion because they wish to conform to their family or local community's beliefs, though?

 

[Fluffy]

That would be one of the difficulties I mentioned. I don't have any idea how big that group is so I wouldn't like to hazard a guess. However, I suggest that my estimate is a safe bet as lower bound for the number of atheists but that, depending on this demographic, it might be larger than Islam.

I doubt that there are more atheists than Christians, however.

 

[crystalonyx]

I agree with what I perceive to be Jaiket's point: a shared lack of something doesn't necessarily constitute a link between people.

At least, that's what I've surmised from the dwindling membership rolls of my "not gardening" group and my "any make but Chevrolet" car club.

Non-theism by itself isn't a uniting force. There are plenty of uniting forces that can occur within non-theism (I see potential for this in secular humanism, for example), but these aren't necessarily the same thing (e.g. you don't have to be a secular humanist to be an atheist). Non-theism and atheism by themselves don't forge much of a link between people, IMO.

Which is why "religion" has been responsible for the murder and torture of millions throughout history, and "atheism" has not.

 

[Yerda]

Which is why "religion" has been responsible for the murder and torture of millions throughout history, and "atheism" has not.

OK. Why's that relevant?