407 replies to this topic

[SquigPie]

they count as "Other"

[Chyros]

Scope, on 31 May 2009, 0:36, said:

What happened to all the Muslim, Jewish and other believers.

They didn't register .

[BeefJeRKy]

SquigPie, on 30 May 2009, 19:15, said:

they count as "Other"

I'm sure they're more than 1% then

[Zero]

Scope, on 31 May 2009, 3:23, said:

SquigPie, on 30 May 2009, 19:15, said:

they count as "Other"

I'm sure they're more than 1% then

What are you talking about, I don't understand the question.

[BeefJeRKy]

See the previous page zero.

[Zero]

Scope, on 31 May 2009, 2:44, said:

See the previous page zero.

I know the question, I just don't understand it. What about the Jewish and Muslims? I see them up on the list....

[BeefJeRKy]

SquigPie, on 30 May 2009, 18:18, said:

WNxMastrefubu, on 30 May 2009, 18:53, said:

hmm this forum has alot of christains and athiests.

lol wut?

Stating the obvius....

Wellcome to the internet, consisting of 20% Christian, 79% Atheist and 1% Other.

@Zero: I meant that surely the Internet cannot have that few Muslims.

[SquigPie]

Nobody gets irony these days?

I was refering to the fact that when browsing the net, you come across at least a few dozen "I R CAFFOLIK!" "I B ANITHIEST!" flamewars. But you hardly ever meet any Hindus/Buddhists/Muslims/Sikhs/Other.

[BeefJeRKy]

True people from that group tend to be less conspicuous but I've come across quite a few muslim/christian arguments across the net.

[Zero]

Maybe it's because somewhere between 60-90 percent of computers are located in the Judeo-Christian world (i.e. America, England, France, Germany, Canada, Australia, etc., etc.). These same countries, mostly industrialized countries are also filled with power to run the said computers 24-7 and also these same countries have a relatively large population of aethists (France, I believe, is about 40%, America is somewhere around 15%, etc., etc.).

As for those groups, well, go to a normal Indian/Middle Eastern town and see how many people (in percentage as to the total population of the town) have running power AND computers, the stuff is expensive, as is internet service. And like I've said before, most of these computers are located in mainly the Judeo-Christian world.

[Chyros]

Zero, on 3 Jun 2009, 16:08, said:

These same countries, mostly industrialized countries are also filled with power to run the said computers 24-7 and also these same countries have a relatively large population of aethists (France, I believe, is about 40%, America is somewhere around 15%, etc., etc.).

This seems to be correct: almost two-thirds of all internet users come from China, EU, US or Japan (in that order, by amount), while for example Indonesia, the most muslim country in the world, only contributes 1,59% to the total amount of internet users. However, as to 15% of atheism in the US: no chance, March 2009 ARIS survey indicated it's actually 1,6% - it didn't get its religious stereotype without reason .

[Zero]

Chyros, on 3 Jun 2009, 17:18, said:

Zero, on 3 Jun 2009, 16:08, said:

These same countries, mostly industrialized countries are also filled with power to run the said computers 24-7 and also these same countries have a relatively large population of aethists (France, I believe, is about 40%, America is somewhere around 15%, etc., etc.).

This seems to be correct: almost two-thirds of all internet users come from China, EU, US or Japan (in that order, by amount), while for example Indonesia, the most muslim country in the world, only contributes 1,59% to the total amount of internet users. However, as to 15% of atheism in the US: no chance, March 2009 ARIS survey indicated it's actually 1,6% - it didn't get its religious stereotype without reason .

You sure Chyros? I heard of a study done recently in the US (early this year I believe), were it said that 15% of the US was aethist. I mean, I find it much easier to believe, afterall, the fear of being aethist is no longer as present as it used to be (won't say it is nonexistant, however, most defnitely is NOT), and I do run into a lot more proclaimed aethists than I used to. Then again, it might have been an internet survey, and those people might just be closet aethist?

[Chyros]

Zero, on 3 Jun 2009, 21:42, said:

Chyros, on 3 Jun 2009, 17:18, said:

Zero, on 3 Jun 2009, 16:08, said:

These same countries, mostly industrialized countries are also filled with power to run the said computers 24-7 and also these same countries have a relatively large population of aethists (France, I believe, is about 40%, America is somewhere around 15%, etc., etc.).

This seems to be correct: almost two-thirds of all internet users come from China, EU, US or Japan (in that order, by amount), while for example Indonesia, the most muslim country in the world, only contributes 1,59% to the total amount of internet users. However, as to 15% of atheism in the US: no chance, March 2009 ARIS survey indicated it's actually 1,6% - it didn't get its religious stereotype without reason .

You sure Chyros? I heard of a study done recently in the US (early this year I believe), were it said that 15% of the US was aethist. I mean, I find it much easier to believe, afterall, the fear of being aethist is no longer as present as it used to be (won't say it is nonexistant, however, most defnitely is NOT), and I do run into a lot more proclaimed aethists than I used to. Then again, it might have been an internet survey, and those people might just be closet aethist?

Those 1,6% are ones that calls themselves atheists. 15% says it has no religion but says they aren't atheists either - in other words, they're the kind of type that hang a bit in between. EDIT: oh yeah, and they weren't agnostics either since those got a comparably low percentage.

Also, any professional survey is conducted completely uncontrollably, so closet atheists (*shudders at the fact something like that can actually be brought into existence*) aren't a big problem, I'd say.

Edited by Chyros, 03 June 2009 - 22:29.

[SquigPie]

Well, since there's a few silly atheists who still thinks that all we religious people want to do is to burn them, like the heretics they are...

BURNTHEUNBELIEVERS!!!!

*cough*

Sorry about that

They probably don't wanna admit that they are atheists, since they fear the mob (muhahaha! yes! fear teh wrath of GOD!!!).

But still, Closet Atheists? Why not just admit what you are? Admition is the greatest sign of selfconfidence in my eyes.

Edited by SquigPie, 04 June 2009 - 05:53.

[Zero]

Chyros, on 3 Jun 2009, 23:15, said:

Zero, on 3 Jun 2009, 21:42, said:

Chyros, on 3 Jun 2009, 17:18, said:

Zero, on 3 Jun 2009, 16:08, said:

These same countries, mostly industrialized countries are also filled with power to run the said computers 24-7 and also these same countries have a relatively large population of aethists (France, I believe, is about 40%, America is somewhere around 15%, etc., etc.).

This seems to be correct: almost two-thirds of all internet users come from China, EU, US or Japan (in that order, by amount), while for example Indonesia, the most muslim country in the world, only contributes 1,59% to the total amount of internet users. However, as to 15% of atheism in the US: no chance, March 2009 ARIS survey indicated it's actually 1,6% - it didn't get its religious stereotype without reason .

You sure Chyros? I heard of a study done recently in the US (early this year I believe), were it said that 15% of the US was aethist. I mean, I find it much easier to believe, afterall, the fear of being aethist is no longer as present as it used to be (won't say it is nonexistant, however, most defnitely is NOT), and I do run into a lot more proclaimed aethists than I used to. Then again, it might have been an internet survey, and those people might just be closet aethist?

Those 1,6% are ones that calls themselves atheists. 15% says it has no religion but says they aren't atheists either - in other words, they're the kind of type that hang a bit in between. EDIT: oh yeah, and they weren't agnostics either since those got a comparably low percentage.

Also, any professional survey is conducted completely uncontrollably, so closet atheists (*shudders at the fact something like that can actually be brought into existence*) aren't a big problem, I'd say.

Oh! Okay, my bad then, although, that's strange. Wait, does that mean that they are simply believers unbound to any church? If not, that would techincally make them aethists....

Well, the problem with aethism is the same problem as being gay: it can get you harrased by people and it can also get your family to disown you. For example, me AND my brother are aethists, when my parents found out..... I almost ran for cover. Society still persecutes aethists, as do families, and although it is no longer as bad as it used to be and you can possibly see something like an aethist president (which until not that long ago was a harder thought to swallow than a black president), people are still afraid to admit it because they fear what their friends and families will think

[Chyros]

Zero, on 4 Jun 2009, 19:40, said:

Chyros, on 3 Jun 2009, 23:15, said:

Zero, on 3 Jun 2009, 21:42, said:

Chyros, on 3 Jun 2009, 17:18, said:

Zero, on 3 Jun 2009, 16:08, said:

These same countries, mostly industrialized countries are also filled with power to run the said computers 24-7 and also these same countries have a relatively large population of aethists (France, I believe, is about 40%, America is somewhere around 15%, etc., etc.).

This seems to be correct: almost two-thirds of all internet users come from China, EU, US or Japan (in that order, by amount), while for example Indonesia, the most muslim country in the world, only contributes 1,59% to the total amount of internet users. However, as to 15% of atheism in the US: no chance, March 2009 ARIS survey indicated it's actually 1,6% - it didn't get its religious stereotype without reason .

You sure Chyros? I heard of a study done recently in the US (early this year I believe), were it said that 15% of the US was aethist. I mean, I find it much easier to believe, afterall, the fear of being aethist is no longer as present as it used to be (won't say it is nonexistant, however, most defnitely is NOT), and I do run into a lot more proclaimed aethists than I used to. Then again, it might have been an internet survey, and those people might just be closet aethist?

Those 1,6% are ones that calls themselves atheists. 15% says it has no religion but says they aren't atheists either - in other words, they're the kind of type that hang a bit in between. EDIT: oh yeah, and they weren't agnostics either since those got a comparably low percentage.

Also, any professional survey is conducted completely uncontrollably, so closet atheists (*shudders at the fact something like that can actually be brought into existence*) aren't a big problem, I'd say.

Oh! Okay, my bad then, although, that's strange. Wait, does that mean that they are simply believers unbound to any church? If not, that would techincally make them aethists....

They're the kind who can conform to some kind of supreme being, but not to any existing religions.

Quote

Well, the problem with aethism is the same problem as being gay: it can get you harrased by people and it can also get your family to disown you. For example, me AND my brother are aethists, when my parents found out..... I almost ran for cover. Society still persecutes aethists, as do families, and although it is no longer as bad as it used to be and you can possibly see something like an aethist president (which until not that long ago was a harder thought to swallow than a black president), people are still afraid to admit it because they fear what their friends and families will think

Oof, I feel for you mate...
Bet you're glad you're not even from the Bible Belt =o .

Edited by Chyros, 04 June 2009 - 20:03.

[General]

After all those years I've made a conclusion : ' Most of ' those who claim they follow a faith; don't ' exactly ' follow that faith ! They do what accepted as ' sin ' more than they repent or follow their religion. I do that aswell and seen thousands which does that, most people believe there is a God out there but still care about this world : contradiction at its best.

[SquigPie]

The heart of philosophy is contradiction and paradoxes.

For instance, take De Sade.

He believed in total freedom, nomatter to whose extenct.

So he believed that there should be no morals or rules, if you wanna f*ck your sister. do it.

But this would also mean that the strong brutalises the weak (why not?). And thus the weak would be robbed of their freedom. So he believed in the very thing he hated. Some powerhouse governing everything.


You can't make a philosophy that doesn't contradict itself, like atheists calling themselves freethinkers. But since they don't believe in something they can't prove, they all believe that 2+2=4, instead of the many possibilities that religion offers (2+2=5,5/6/7/4,3 etc.).

So atheists aren't freethinkers, since they are limited to believe in what they see, feel, hear and smell. Limited by reality, you might say.

On the other hand, religious people also tend to all believe the same. So they aren't really freethinkers either!

Paradoxes, paradoxes, paradoxes, we all tend to ignore our own, and depend on others to point them out for us.

[Golan]

Sorry, but can you please stop coming up with this 2+2=5 argument? Math has nothing to do with believe and especially such basic logical systems aren't debatable. It hurts having to read this over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

Also, you are disproportionately generalizing what you are talking about. Just because there's a couple of philosophers who can be shown the errors in their thinking by a simple punch in the face doesn't make all philosophies wrong by default. Atheists aren't required to see themselfs as free-thinkers, neither is an atheist defined as someone believing only in what he can prove. And, when it comes to it, then, y'know, atheists can stop being atheists when their annual free-thinking-party convinces them of something else.

Edited by Golan, 05 June 2009 - 18:12.

[Zero]

Golan, on 5 Jun 2009, 18:04, said:

Sorry, but can you please stop coming up with this 2+2=5 argument? Math has nothing to do with believe and especially such basic logical systems aren't debatable. It hurts having to read this over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

Also, you are disproportionately generalizing what you are talking about. Just because there's a couple of philosophers who can be shown the errors in their thinking by a simple punch in the face doesn't make all philosophies wrong by default. Atheists aren't required to see themselfs as free-thinkers, neither is an atheist defined as someone believing only in what he can prove. And, when it comes to it, then, y'know, atheists can stop being atheists when their annual free-thinking-party convinces them of something else.

*Nod-Nod-Nod*

To add on to his point, many aethists are not philosophical or scientific at all, its just a belief system. Simply put, you, my friend, are taking a stereotype and putting it out there. Am I to assume that because you are Muslim you are a Religious Fanatic Terrorist? If you are Christian do you burn everything that disagrees with you and your tastes at the stake? If you are Buhddist do you.....okay, can't come up with one there. Still, my point is that you take a popular stereotype and use it. I KNOW that in SO many movie, the really smart scientists, or the really wise aethist is a philosopher, but its not true just like none of the above is true.

Also, @General, this may be because most religions set up a set of rules (sins, morals, etc.) that are IMPOSSIBLE to follow. Let's be honest, EVERYONE will, at some point, envy their neighbor's spouse/possesions, disrespect their parents, lie, blah-blah-blah. The whole point of praying for forgiveness is, to me, the same as polishing the inside of a cannon after ever shot, it's useless and just adds to the pain of it all. I believe that the whole point of forgiveness hinted at in the bible is not the physical kind you'll see at say...a confession, or a church, but instead the personal kind and admitance to guilt to yourself.

And I agree with Golan on that first point too, besides, everyone knows that 2+2=Jesus Fish

[General]

Zero, on 5 Jun 2009, 20:05, said:

Also, @General, this may be because most religions set up a set of rules (sins, morals, etc.) that are IMPOSSIBLE to follow. Let's be honest, EVERYONE will, at some point, envy their neighbor's spouse/possesions, disrespect their parents, lie, blah-blah-blah. The whole point of praying for forgiveness is, to me, the same as polishing the inside of a cannon after ever shot, it's useless and just adds to the pain of it all. I believe that the whole point of forgiveness hinted at in the bible is not the physical kind you'll see at say...a confession, or a church, but instead the personal kind and admitance to guilt to yourself.

And I agree with Golan on that first point too, besides, everyone knows that 2+2=Jesus Fish

I am not talking about following the rules which too hard, I am talking about people which not give a fuck about rules yet they claim they follow that religion.

[SquigPie]

1. I'm not generalizing, But you wouldn't really wanna hear me brag for 5 pages about all the examples I have?

2. if you devide something by itself it gives 1, and if you do the same to all philosophies you end up seeing that they are all the same, lousy and doublemoralistic.

3. 2+2=? is basically the same as the above, reducing something complex (the meaning of life) into something simple, makes you see what it truly means.

4. I'm not saying thats what all atheists believe (or didn't intend to, atleast), I was (as usual) taking an example of what some believe, and pointing out my opinion through theirs.

But thats my opinion. And now you'll attempt (/succeed?) to destroy it.

Edited by SquigPie, 06 June 2009 - 23:58.

[Golan]

SquigPie, on 6 Jun 2009, 23:54, said:

1. I'm not generalizing, But you wouldn't really wanna hear me brag for 5 pages about all the examples I have?

Actually, yes if it's necessary, as I feel that your point lacks proper reasoning. It's too general.

SquigPie, on 6 Jun 2009, 23:54, said:

2. if you devide something by itself it gives 1, and if you do the same to all philosophies you end up seeing that they are all the same, lousy and doublemoralistic.

If you divide a non-trivial number by itself, you remove all information it held. That's like saying "everything's the same if you don't care for what it is". 'sides, I dare say that you didn't try this with all philosophies.
Also, if you divide 0 by itself, it doesn't give 1 in every case.

SquigPie, on 6 Jun 2009, 23:54, said:

3. 2+2=? is basically the same as the above, reducing something complex (the meaning of life) into something simple, makes you see what it truly means.

Let me put it this way: your analogy sucks. The very thing you try to reason for is inherently forbidden in your metaphor.

SquigPie, on 6 Jun 2009, 23:54, said:

4. I'm not saying thats what all atheists believe (or didn't intend to, atleast), I was (as usual) taking an example of what some believe, and pointing out my opinion through theirs.

Didn't sound that way...

SquigPie, on 6 Jun 2009, 23:54, said:

But thats my opinion. And now you'll attempt (/succeed?) to destroy it.

Let's call it "attempt to test it", agreed?

Edited by Golan, 07 June 2009 - 00:14.

[SquigPie]

Golan, I'm sorry to tell you, but the oldest rule in the Gramma-Nazi handbook is:

"When telling a person to write better, don't make gramma-errors"

Right now, you're being a gramma-nazi writting engrish.

You said that I needed to be more clear of what my opinion is, while doing the very same thing I did, you simply said "sorry, your opinion sucks", without actually saying WHY, you never added any depth, never reasoned it.

Also: Zero have no sumn, its like trying to reduce a non-existant philosophy to something simpler. You can't, since it doesn't exist.

I demand a 5 pages long reply to this post, stating every single little reason why my opinion sucks.

Edited by SquigPie, 07 June 2009 - 16:33.

[Golan]

I didn't say your opinion sucks, I said your analogy sucks. Which I've explained multiple times now. In short, you're arguing for freedom of believe, yet do so by using an analogy that doesn't hold room for believe and interpretation. This way, the transfer of the conclusion you draw on one level of your argumentation to another level isn't conclusive - furthermore, as you are basing your conclusion on an invalid point in the first placement, the transfer of the conclusion made is by default invalid. Seeing that you appear to be fond of maths, that's the propositional calculus A=>B, which will always result in true if A is false, thereby making the argument meaningless even if the transition is done correctly. Thus, by choosing an unfit analogy, your argument doesn't have a proper logical basis in the first place - its conclusions are thus invalid regardless of their relative validity.
2+2=X is by default (as in your case, as no further details were given) a logical argument that is equivalent to true if X is equal to 4 and false if X is not equal to 4. Thereby, in this case it is meaningless whether one believes that X is 4, 5, 6.6 or 1.602E−19, as it is merely an option for the logic 2+2=X which is defined for all X€C and will output its result regardless of believe. Thus, to thoroughly consider the logic 2+2=X, X requires to be unequal to 4 as well, as the logic's result for X unequal to 4 is also important. Thus, it is inappropriate to speak of any definite X in this analogy as a distinct believe as the result of 2+2=X (true if X is equal to 4 and false if X is not equal to 4) is inherent in the logical argument itself and not X, therefore there is no information in itself to be drawn about X, which you equal to believe.
Beside that, there isn't much that I can reason against your opinion, simply because it isn't clear enough. Like your "atheists are freethinkers - oh nevermind, that wasn't meant in general" argument - how can one reason against what will be redefined to evade its counterpoints once they have been made?

Edited by Golan, 07 June 2009 - 18:31.