next »

[SirNiko]

The problem with the graph is that it only measures how many people are nominally part of a religious group, not how many actually believe in it and follow its doctrines. There seems to be a whole lot of Christians (for instance) who get baptized out of tradition but rarely actually pray or go to church or even believe in God.

This pretty much describes me. I was baptised and have completed the rite of confirmation. I attend church twice a year with my parents, but if not for them I would be unlikely to attend. I was raised in a Christian household, but I would affiliate myself with another religion if asked. I suspect my situation describes a pretty significant portion of Americans.

Do I count as a Christian for the purposes of that graph? Do I have two religions?

[ஒழுக்கின்மை]

@paste - how else would they have designed the graph? state by state? city by city? person by person (using subpixels?) -- it seems like any other method would have even more problems than they method they used (majority per country) -- i don't think they meant it to imply that everyone in a country belongs to the religion it's colored, that's just how maps work. if it were a map of, say, sugar consumption by country, it doesn't mean that everyone in a country that eats a lot of sugar eats a lot of sugar.

[phubans]

Sure, there are a lot of terrible things religion has done... But what about the good things that it has inspired?

[ஒழுக்கின்மை]

the world will not be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest

[phubans]

the world will not be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest

Let's do this.

[Rob Lach]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTWlQaZ0DWo
Relevant

[phubans]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTWlQaZ0DWo
Irrelevant blowhard shock-jock

Fix'd

[paste]

@paste - how else would they have designed the graph? state by state? city by city? person by person (using subpixels?) -- it seems like any other method would have even more problems than they method they used (majority per country) -- i don't think they meant it to imply that everyone in a country belongs to the religion it's colored, that's just how maps work. if it were a map of, say, sugar consumption by country, it doesn't mean that everyone in a country that eats a lot of sugar eats a lot of sugar.

But sugar consumption is something that is easily measurable on one dimension, so a grayscale can easily show the average sugar consumption, say, per capita.  But with multiple religions, it's not measurable on one dimension and that's the problem with the graph. 

For example, if a country were 51% Christian and 49% Wiccan (spread out evenly, geographically), then the country would be in purple on the graph.  If many countries were like this, with different majorities but the same large minority, the minority would be the dominant religion in the world, but would not show up on the graph.  Granted, it's probably not like that and the graph seems accurate enough.  I'm mostly nitpicking; this seems like the thread to do it in.

[paste]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTWlQaZ0DWo
Relevant

By Penn's definitions, it's possible to be atheist and agnostic at the same time.  Change the poll.

[ClydeArgyle]

I'd have honestly expected more Pastafarians.

[---]

This thread will die one day..

[Rob Lach]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTWlQaZ0DWo
Irrelevant blowhard shock-jock

Fix'd

Ahahaha so ad hominem

[Dacke]

Penn Jillette making an actual argument based on actual reasoning!? And yes, he is correct. Using the most common definitions of agnostic and atheist, they are far from exclusive.

[Guillaume]

And yes, he is correct. Using the most common definitions of agnostic and atheist, they are far from exclusive.

I like the following representation:



Where a lot of fundamental religious people would be "gnostic theists", more progressive/modern religious people would be "agnostic theists", and a vast majority of atheists might consider themselves to be "agnostic atheists".

[Dacke]

Well, that's not really how most learned atheists describe themselves. Atheism isn't an active belief in itself.

It's more like:
"I do not believe in any god(s), but I can't prove that no gods exist"
(just like with celestial teapots or fairies)

But if you discuss a specific god like "Yahweh as literally described by the Bible", then it is demonstrable fact that he does not exist.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை]

But sugar consumption is something that is easily measurable on one dimension, so a grayscale can easily show the average sugar consumption, say, per capita.  But with multiple religions, it's not measurable on one dimension and that's the problem with the graph. 

For example, if a country were 51% Christian and 49% Wiccan (spread out evenly, geographically), then the country would be in purple on the graph.  If many countries were like this, with different majorities but the same large minority, the minority would be the dominant religion in the world, but would not show up on the graph.  Granted, it's probably not like that and the graph seems accurate enough.  I'm mostly nitpicking; this seems like the thread to do it in.

they actually did use two dimensions in a few cases where there was a significant secondary religion: for instance, look at the darker greens of africa, or look at how they have a different category for 'shintoism and buddhism' and 'buddhism'. so i do think they take that into account.

in most cases though, countries do not have significant secondary religions, and in most cases they have a majority religion which pretty much everyone belongs to and you're thought of as "different" if you do not belong to that religion. so i think it reflects reality in that sense for most of the cases: e.g. the US *is* a christian nation, whether we atheists want to admit it or not. for instance, my city (paterson, nj) has the second largest muslim population of any city in the US (after dearborn, michigan) -- yet there are still at least 10 churches for every mosque in this city.

[phubans]

Why is this topic so important to humankind?

I once opened up to the idea that God

Of course, atheists will tell me

And Christians will say

I guess I'm alone

And that's

Too bad.

[Dacke]

If you believe in a god, it is important to learn as much about it as you can. Perhaps it has the power to teach you things, or save you, or torment you, or something like that? In which case you may want to start bending to it's will, if that's what it wants. You may also want to inform others about the god, so they may also partake.

If you don't believe in a god, you may find it troublesome that people obey the will of an imaginary man in the sky. Personally, I think the world would be much better off if people acted on fact and reason instead.

But if you don't come in contact with belief in gods, then it becomes a non-issue and a questions that is mostly ignored. Which is the case in many parts of Europe, at least. Perhaps you would find life more enjoyable in such a place?

[Pineapple]

It always strikes me as silly when christians, especially those of fundamentalist type, use the phrase what would jesus do? and go along their life with ownership of a home, not being in Israel, not having 12 followers, not being in total poverty, not healing the sick, etcetera.

[LazyWaffle]

I'm really disappointed with you guys. I thought we were all mature enough that we wouldn't flock to a religious thread and bash everyone's beliefs. It's okay to be proud of what you believe in, but jesus (pun unintended), you people are being ridiculous