# Atheist Census



## WTFnooooo (Mar 27, 2010)

http://www.atheistcensus.com/

Make sure you validate, through email.


----------



## MayritaJudith (Mar 27, 2009)

Done!


----------



## Noca (Jun 24, 2005)

done


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

Done.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

This is an interesting resource. 60% of respondents having University/college educations certainly suggests a link between atheism and level of education. (Against around 30% for the general population having that level of education according to recent census figures)

Glad to see a significant numbers of Iranians have completed this. I always welcome news of atheism in Islamic countries.


----------



## Brasilia (Aug 23, 2012)

So "atheists" want to be part of the group now. Just like "religious" people. 

:roll


----------



## WTFnooooo (Mar 27, 2010)

Brasilia said:


> So "atheists" want to be part of the group now. Just like "religious" people.
> 
> :roll


It's just a *census*.
Did you participate?


----------



## Brasilia (Aug 23, 2012)

WTFnooooo said:


> It's just a *census*.
> Did you participate?


I know it's a census. I didn't participate because even though I don't label myself "religious", "atheist" etc., I noticed that the option for "religious" under the Title section was left out on purpose. I believe the true intent is to shun people who label themselves as such (even though I don't support them) and to make people who label themselves as "atheists" feel just like "religious" people by having them come together and happily complete a little census - to me this seems like an "intelligent" version of Gangnam Style, that is, it's going to be popular with young adults. When it comes to the official UK census, I tick all the boxes in the religions section including atheist. Nonetheless, if people wish to participate in this census they can, I'm not going to that's all.


----------



## WTFnooooo (Mar 27, 2010)

Brasilia said:


> I know it's a census. I didn't participate because even though I don't label myself "religious", "atheist" etc., I noticed that the option for "religious" under the Title section was left out on purpose. I believe the true intent is to shun people who label themselves as such (even though I don't support them) and to make people who label themselves as "atheists" feel just like "religious" people by having them come together and happily complete a little census - to me this seems like an "intelligent" version of Gangnam Style, that is, it's going to be popular with young adults. When it comes to the official UK census, I tick all the boxes in the religions section including atheist. Nonetheless, if people wish to participate in this census they can, I'm not going to that's all.


There are other polls/censuses where "religious" as an option is included.

So you believe in gods?


----------



## Brasilia (Aug 23, 2012)

WTFnooooo said:


> There are other polls/censuses where "religious" as an option is included.
> 
> So you believe in gods?


OK, but I would end up ticking all of the options anyway.

Yeah, I happen to believe that god exists.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

Brasilia said:


> I know it's a census. I didn't participate because even though I don't label myself "religious", "atheist" etc., I noticed that the option for "religious" under the Title section was left out on purpose. I believe the true intent is to shun people who label themselves as such (even though I don't support them) and to make people who label themselves as "atheists" feel just like "religious" people by having them come together and happily complete a little census - to me this seems like an "intelligent" version of Gangnam Style, that is, it's going to be popular with young adults. When it comes to the official UK census, I tick all the boxes in the religions section including atheist. Nonetheless, if people wish to participate in this census they can, I'm not going to that's all.


Talk about missing the point. :lol


----------



## Brasilia (Aug 23, 2012)

ugh1979 said:


> Talk about missing the point. :lol


What point exactly - would you care to explain yourself?


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

Brasilia said:


> What point exactly - would you care to explain yourself?


That the census is for atheists *only*. It specifically *isn't *a general census, so you complaining that there is no option for "religious" means you missed the point of the census.

It's perfectly valid to only poll/perform censuses on certain groups and not have open them to everyone. It's called demographics.


----------



## Brasilia (Aug 23, 2012)

ugh1979 said:


> That the census is for atheists *only*. It specifically *isn't *a general census, so you complaining that there is no option for "religious" means you missed the point of the census.
> 
> It's perfectly valid to only poll/perform censuses on certain groups and not have open them to everyone. It's called demographics.


I never said I disapproved of the census entirely, I even said it is fine for people to participate, but I disapprove of it therefore _I_ wont.

I actual fact, I said I dislike all the labels.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

Brasilia said:


> I never said I disapproved of the census entirely, I even said it is fine for people to participate, but I disapprove of it therefore _I_ wont.
> 
> I actual fact, I said I dislike all the labels.


Why do you disapprove? The labels are all labels people use so it's perfectly valid to run a census to find out which people use the most.


----------



## Brasilia (Aug 23, 2012)

ugh1979 said:


> Why do you disapprove? The labels are all labels people use so it's perfectly valid to run a census to find out which people use the most.


What I've already said, people just want the excuse to feel part of the group - some "atheists" are just being like some "religious" folk, in that they are being a little sheepish but yearning a sense of the same sort of belonging.

You are claiming they (labels) are valid without saying why, why am I the only one providing a reason in support?


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

Brasilia said:


> What I've already said, people just want the excuse to feel part of the group - some "atheists" are just being like some "religious" folk, in that they are being a little sheepish but yearning a sense of the same sort of belonging.


Some people may want to feel part of a group, that's human nature, but it's not the objective of this census.



> You are claiming they (labels) are valid without saying why, why am I the only one providing a reason in support?


They are valid because they are commonly used terms atheists use to describe themselves.

I'm really not sure how you are struggling with this as it's very clear. :lol


----------



## Brasilia (Aug 23, 2012)

ugh1979 said:


> Some people may want to feel part of a group, that's human nature, but it's not the objective of this census.
> 
> They are valid because they are commonly used terms atheists use to describe themselves.
> 
> I'm really not sure how you are struggling with this as it's very clear. :lol


OK, so some people want to feel part of a group, then I never want the whole 'anti-group sentiment' argument used against "religious" people, after all you have told me that it is OK for "atheists" to be that way.

I'm not struggling with anything - I'm not the one who initiated the questioning. I listened to the views presented, and presented my own, yet I was received with lots and lots of questioning!


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

Brasilia said:


> OK, so some people want to feel part of a group, then I never want the whole 'anti-group sentiment' argument used against "religious" people, after all you have told me that it is OK for "atheists" to be that way.


I've never heard anyone use an anti-group argument against religion. We are (in general) social animals so group formation is natural.



> I'm not struggling with anything - I'm not the one who initiated the questioning. I listened to the views presented, and presented my own, yet I was received with lots and lots of questioning!


Yes I questioned them because I found them to miss the point.


----------



## Brasilia (Aug 23, 2012)

ugh1979 said:


> I've never heard anyone use an anti-group argument against religion. We are (in general) social animals so group formation is natural.
> 
> Yes I questioned them because I found them to miss the point.


I find that incredibly hard to believe, that is the pinnacle of all anti-religion arguments - I would almost go as far to say that is a lie but I am in no position to therefore I wont say it is one. The only positive I see is that you yourself claim not to use that argument.

Or were you 'struggling'? LOL only kidding.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

Brasilia said:


> I find that incredibly hard to believe, that is the pinnacle of all anti-religion arguments - I would almost go as far to say that is a lie but I am in no position to therefore I wont say it is one. The only positive I see is that you yourself claim not to use that argument.


I take part in a lot of debate on this subject and have never seen it used.

It doesn't even make sense! Why would anyone have a problem with humans identifying with groups? :?

I can only think as someone who has only just become an adult you are confused on the issue.


----------



## Brasilia (Aug 23, 2012)

ugh1979 said:


> I take part in a lot of debate on this subject and have never seen it used.
> 
> It doesn't even make sense! Why would anyone have a problem with humans identifying with groups? :?
> 
> I can only think as someone who has only just become an adult you are confused on the issue.


A lot of people have issues with the group theory. For example, because many conflicts occur between groups of people - Protestants and Catholics killing each other over their differences, when in fact both are human beings. some "atheists" claim that mindless group mentality is what sparks radicalism, people don't think for themselves, their only concern is to "belong" to their faith, and thus end up hating on those who don't "belong".

Equally, I can say I can only think of someone who is set in their ways and not informed of the current situation to be confused on the issue. I don't think my age has anything to do with it.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

Brasilia said:


> A lot of people have issues with the group theory. For example, because many conflicts occur between groups of people - Protestants and Catholics killing each other over their differences, when in fact both are human beings. some "atheists" claim that mindless group mentality is what sparks radicalism, people don't think for themselves, their only concern is to "belong" to their faith, and thus end up hating on those who don't "belong".


The group issue of radicalism spans cultures and goes far wider than simple religious identification. Nobody says we *shouldn't* form groups though. Groups are often essential as they are often the basis of teamwork.

Your claim that it's the "pinnacle of all anti-religion arguments" is simply wrong.



> Equally, I can say I can only think of someone who is set in their ways and not informed of the current situation to be confused on the issue.


Yeah I only read about and debate the subject daily and have been for as long as you've been alive. :roll


----------



## Brasilia (Aug 23, 2012)

ugh1979 said:


> The group issue of radicalism spans cultures and goes far wider than simple religious identification. Nobody says we *shouldn't* form groups though. Groups are often essential as they are often the basis of teamwork.
> 
> Your claim that it's the "pinnacle of all anti-religion arguments" is simply wrong.
> 
> Yeah I only read about and debate the subject daily and have been for as long as you've been alive. :roll


Again, you can't just simple say 'nobody says we shouldn't form groups though' - when I for one am saying exactly that - I dislike the whole mindless group mentality that controls "atheists" and "religious" people alike - I gave an example of where that happens. And to me it seems like the basis of anti-religion argument so we just disagree on that.

OK so what you are saying is that you have more experience and by experience we're talking enthusiasm for the topic (and age) than me therefore I should just accept your view as fact - Well you can have the last word if you wish but I'd rather not spend all my time reading and debating this subject daily - Good day!

^ And I'm not simply dismissing your views as completely false by saying that.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

Brasilia said:


> Again, you can't just simple say 'nobody says we shouldn't form groups though' - when I for one am saying exactly that - I dislike the whole mindless group mentality that controls "atheists" and "religious" people alike - I gave an example of where that happens. And to me it seems like the basis of anti-religion argument so we just disagree on that.


OK I'll change my statement; only 1 person I've ever heard of has said we should never form groups. :lol

Strange argument.



> OK so what you are saying is that you have more experience and by experience we're talking enthusiasm for the topic (and age) than me therefore I should just accept your view as fact - Well you can have the last word if you wish but I'd rather not spend all my time reading and debating this subject daily - Good day!


No I'm just telling you that your argument isn't the "pinnacle of all anti-religion arguments" based on a lot of personal experience of anti-religious arguments. (More so that you could have possibly had due to your very young age age)

If you don't want to believe it fair enough, and I'll just put it down to the arrogance of teenage boys.

Good day.


----------



## Brasilia (Aug 23, 2012)

ugh1979 said:


> OK I'll change my statement; only 1 person I've ever heard of has said we should never form groups. :lol
> 
> Strange argument.
> 
> ...


I said I wouldn't reply back - but that is just beyond ridiculous.

It seems as though the self-proclaimed "atheist" is forcing his views on others, since those who don't agree with him must simply be arrogant teenage boys. What a shame you had to end it like that.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

Brasilia said:


> I said I wouldn't reply back - but that is just beyond ridiculous.
> 
> It seems as though the self-proclaimed "atheist" is forcing his views on others, since those who don't agree with him must simply be arrogant teenage boys. What a shame you had to end it like that.


I'm not forcing my view on anyone. I'm just drawing conclusions about someone I'm debating with.

I don't typically debate with teenage boys for good reason.


----------



## Brasilia (Aug 23, 2012)

ugh1979 said:


> I'm not forcing my view on anyone. I'm just drawing conclusions about someone I'm debating with.
> 
> I don't typically debate with teenage boys for good reason.












Let's just pretend you didn't say that bit, for your sake.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

Brasilia said:


> Let's just pretend you didn't say that bit, for your sake.


Lets pretend you have a sound argument.


----------



## Brasilia (Aug 23, 2012)

ugh1979 said:


> Lets pretend you have a sound argument.


----------



## Foh_Teej (May 5, 2004)

What exactly is you argument?


----------



## WTFnooooo (Mar 27, 2010)

Brasilia

You should tick the box that says "other" instead of ticking all.
If you tick all and a machine checks the form it might count it as the first option, or who knows, any of the options, or count it as "other", which if the latter is the case is of no need to waste time ticking all the boxes. A similar thing can happen if a person checks the forms.


----------



## stradd (Feb 17, 2012)

Groups are a bit two fold. One one hand, yes they can lead to conflicts that end... badly. I guess. On the other hand, the only reason our society exists as it does today is because Humans view themselves as a group. We group ourselves into countries, races, whatever. Just because were grouped doesn't mean we can't treat each other peacefully. 

For example, if I'm talking to someone I don't know, I'm not going to murder him just because he isn't in my group of friends.

That being said, I filled it out.

On a side note, I wanted to add that although people may hate to be labeled, the ultimate purpose of "labels" is for people to have a better understanding of things. I think the problem is that people associate being labeled with being marginalized, e.g. a poor person probably wouldn't be fond of being "labeled" a poor person. But that's exactly what it means, it's just a means of identification. It's like the labels on crayons, some say green, others say orange. They are all labeled but that doesn't make some better than the others or others more or less unique. Hopefully you can follow.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

Foh_Teej said:


> What exactly is you argument?


His argument is that anti-group attitude is the "pinnacle of all anti-religion arguments".


----------



## Foh_Teej (May 5, 2004)

ugh1979 said:


> His argument is that anti-group attitude is the "pinnacle of all anti-religion arguments".


sooooooo.... we atheists are anti-religious because we don't like groups?:sus


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

Foh_Teej said:


> sooooooo.... we atheists are anti-religious because we don't like groups?:sus


Apparently so according to him.


----------



## Foh_Teej (May 5, 2004)

I don't even know how to respond to that.


----------



## Brasilia (Aug 23, 2012)

^ It's OK, please do continue to bicker amongst yourselves like old women :lol I made my point crystal clear in my first 2 posts. By pretending as though my argument is non-existent you are just being delusional. It's very easy to belittle someone's opinion, the real strength lies in the ability to support your own, which neither of you have done.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

Brasilia said:


> ^ It's OK, please do continue to bicker amongst yourselves like old women :lol


Foh_Teej and myself aren't bickering between ourselves. We are in clear agreement.



> I made my point crystal clear in my first 2 posts. By pretending as though my argument is non-existent you are just being delusional. It's very easy to belittle someone's opinion, the real strength lies in the ability to support your own, which neither of you have done.


You are under the delusional that anti-group attitude is the "pinnacle of all anti-religion arguments". We've never seen evidence of this, so the burden of proof is with you to support your claim.

As I say, the opinion of such a young person on this point certainly doesn't give you much credit so I have no reason to trust it. How many anti-religion arguments have you even managed to hear in your short life?


----------



## Brasilia (Aug 23, 2012)

ugh1979 said:


> Foh_Teej and myself aren't bickering between ourselves. We are in clear agreement.
> 
> You are under the delusional that anti-group attitude is the "pinnacle of all anti-religion arguments". We've never seen evidence of this, so the burden of proof is with you to support your claim.
> 
> As I say, the opinion of such a young person on this point certainly doesn't give you much credit so I have no reason to trust it. How many anti-religion arguments have you even managed to hear in your short life?


You know, it's not so much the fact that we disagree with each other - I don't mind that so much, but it seems as though you do.

I can't believe the words I am hearing, I am 18 not 8 - are you jealous of my youth or something? Would it be OK to dismiss my views due to my nationality, sex, socio-economic background? It's now the case that _you_ are the one displaying arrogance.

You think what you think, I think what I think, why couldn't you leave it at that - there was no need to try and promote my views as absurd secretly behind my back - that's childish.


----------



## Joe (May 18, 2010)

Internet census' are likely to be vastly inaccurate.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

Brasilia said:


> You know, it's not so much the fact that we disagree with each other - I don't mind that so much, but it seems as though you do.
> 
> I can't believe the words I am hearing, I am 18 not 8 - are you jealous of my youth or something? Would it be OK to dismiss my views due to my nationality, sex, socio-economic background? It's now the case that _you_ are the one displaying arrogance.


If you think nationally, sex and socio-economic background have any relation to amount of experience possible then you are deluded.

My point all along has simply been that I have a lot more experience of atheistic debates that you, someone who is only 18, so I'm more than happy to call you out on your claim that anti-group attitude is the "pinnacle of all anti-religion arguments". Foh_Teej, another experienced poster on this subject agrees which strengthens my point further. You have very limited experience, so you should be open to corrections from others who have far more experience.

As I said, it just comes across as the arrogance of a stubborn teenage boy who thinks he knows best yet has only just started learning about the world.



> You think what you think, I think what I think, why couldn't you leave it at that - there was no need to try and promote my views as absurd secretly behind my back - that's childish.


Who's doing anything behind your back? It's a public thread that I'm promoting your views as absurd in.


----------



## Brasilia (Aug 23, 2012)

ugh1979 said:


> If you think nationally, sex and socio-economic background have any relation to amount of experience possible then you are deluded.
> 
> My point all along has simply been that I have a lot more experience of atheistic debates that you, someone who is only 18, so I'm more than happy to call you out on your claim that anti-group attitude is the "pinnacle of all anti-religion arguments". Foh_Teej, another experienced poster on this subject agrees which strengthens my point further. You have very limited experience, so you should be open to corrections from others who have far more experience.
> 
> ...


I made the connection with nationality, sex etc. because you seem to think my age affects the credibility of my views. What a coincidence that Foh_Teej, the man who agrees with you is all experienced and noble like yourself, yet I, the man who disagrees with you is not all of a sudden.

Did I ever say I know the ultimate truth? No. Am I saying I know best right now? No. Are you saying you know best? Yes. What does that tell us? Arrogance, on your part. I don't care how much "experience" you have (although a simple interest in atheist debates is hardly a PhD). It's a sad day when a man assumes someone has little experience in the world just because of their age (even though we are discussing something rather trivial and I am clearly old enough - whether you accept that or not). You don't know what my life experiences are - yet you think you are in a worthy position to judge them! According to you it's OK to assume that age tells it all, I've already demonstrated that this works both ways, that is I can assume you are old and set in your ways and not aware of current affairs. But truly believing in such a thing as that is not in my nature.

Yes, this is a public forum, I thought we had come to the conclusion that we both disagreed, but clearly that wasn't enough for you and you don't have enough respect to accept my opinion - I'm not telling you to accept my opinion as fact (you want me to accept yours as though). What's more, you admit you were belittling my views as though it were something to be proud of.

And seriously - Where has this whole arrogant little teenage boy thing come from? Let it go already. I am a free, open thinker. I don't get that vibe from you. So and that note, can we just agree to disagree?


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

Brasilia said:


> I made the connection with nationality, sex etc. because you seem to think my age affects the credibility of my views.


Indeed you did, and it was a very strange arbitrary connection to make as the question was just of experience.



> What a coincidence that Foh_Teej, the man who agrees with you is all experienced and noble like yourself, yet I, the man who disagrees with you is not all of a sudden.


Foh_Teej, 33 years old, nearly double your age, like me, and someone who I have debated with many a time so i'm familiar with his experience level and knowledge of the subject. You are an 18 year old kid who I've never spoken to before, so you can surely understand why I have no reason to give you any respect/credit?



> Did I ever say I know the ultimate truth? No. Am I saying I know best right now? No. Are you saying you know best? Yes. What does that tell us? Arrogance, on your part. I don't care how much "experience" you have (although a simple interest in atheist debates is hardly a PhD). It's a sad day when a man assumes someone has little experience in the world just because of their age (even though we are discussing something rather trivial and I am clearly old enough - whether you accept that or not). You don't know what my life experiences are - yet you think you are in a worthy position to judge them! According to you it's OK to assume that age tells it all, I've already demonstrated that this works both ways, that is I can assume you are old and set in your ways and not aware of current affairs. But truly believing in such a thing as that is not in my nature.


All we have to go on to back up our opposing points is probable level of experience, as there are no statistics or scientific evidence to prove either of our points, and I say, as a seasoned debater of the subject who is very active in current debate of it, I have every reason to dismiss your claim.

If you disagree, fine, and as I keep saying, I'll just put that down to the arrogance of a teenage boy who thinks they know better.



> Yes, this is a public forum, I thought we had come to the conclusion that we both disagreed, but clearly that wasn't enough for you and you don't have enough respect to accept my opinion - I'm not telling you to accept my opinion as fact (you want me to accept yours as though). What's more, you admit you were belittling my views as though it were something to be proud of.


Why would I accept or respect your opinion? I think it's absurd so will happily condemn it.



> And seriously - Where has this whole arrogant little teenage boy thing come from? Let it go already.


It came from the fact you are an 18 year old kid who I find arrogant in this aspect. It's really quite simple.



> I am a free, open thinker. I don't get that vibe from you.


Likewise.



> So and that note, can we just agree to disagree?


Yes I think we essentially done that a while ago, yet here we still are.

Maybe we just got off on the wrong foot and you have other opinions I will respect and accept. Stick around and join the fun.


----------



## Brasilia (Aug 23, 2012)

ugh1979 said:


> Indeed you did, and it was a very strange arbitrary connection to make as the question was just of experience.
> 
> Foh_Teej, 33 years old, nearly double your age, like me, and someone who I have debated with many a time so i'm familiar with his experience level and knowledge of the subject. You are an 18 year old kid who I've never spoken to before, so you can surely understand why I have no reason to give you any respect/credit?
> 
> ...


Oh dear, it's like a broken record, round and round we go LOL. Well then, you want to throw out big claims over and over again, I can also play that game. I guess will have to accept that you are a stubborn old man who is quick to label others and cannot fathom the idea that different ideas exist!

According to you, your "experience" in online debates (which means nothing) overrules the opinion of another righteous citizen.

You say you find me arrogant just for the sake of it, there is no backing other than the fact that I'm not going to bow down to your ideas. 
Just think of all the times I have clearly demonstrated through example and through direct speech that I am an accepting person. 
But oh well, no more shall I cooperate like I have done in the past. I am going to follow your example and be awkward.

You don't wish to give respect (I never demanded that you convert to my side), then you wont receive it - that's also a life lesson, coming from an 18-year-old .

^ This many not be how you see yourself, but this is how you are coming across by holding onto such outdated, bigoted views.

This was not _that_ fun - and it was never personal


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

Brasilia said:


> Oh dear, it's like a broken record, round and round we go LOL. Well then, you want to throw out big claims over and over again, I can also play that game. I guess will have to accept that you are a stubborn old man who is quick to label others and cannot fathom the idea that different ideas exist!
> 
> According to you, your "experience" in online debates (which means nothing) overrules the opinion of another righteous citizen.
> 
> ...


As long as you keep saying that my opinion that your claim of anti-group attitude being the "pinnacle of all anti-religion arguments" is outdated and bigoted then I'm happy to leave it to the audience to cast their judgement on who is right and wrong here.


----------



## Brasilia (Aug 23, 2012)

ugh1979 said:


> As long as you keep saying that my opinion that your claim of anti-group attitude being the "pinnacle of all anti-religion arguments" is outdated and bigoted then I'm happy to leave it to the audience to cast their judgement on who is right and wrong here.


Fair enough, and a good idea - though you did say 'there are no statistics or scientific evidence to prove either of our points' therefore neither of us can be proven right or wrong.

As long as you continue to accuse me of being an arrogant little teenage boy I will continue dismiss your views as outdated and bigoted (don't try and make it out as though I started it!).

I have no issue with people disagreeing with me, I do not however appreciate people who think they can put down others for having a different opinion - not a very "atheist" thing to do.

:banana


----------



## Foh_Teej (May 5, 2004)

I think Brasilia has confused atheism with social anxiety disorder 
.....somehow 


Of all the bizarre arguments I've heard proposed on any subject, this anti-group mentality is just flat out unfounded in reality. I think this is the first time I have even heard or considered these concepts together in the same thought. That isn't to say there isn't a group of atheists, anywhere in the galaxy, that totally despise the fact they themselves are in a group united in anti-group sentiment.


----------



## fredbloggs02 (Dec 14, 2009)

I would only go to pie charts to watch cultural movements play out; not for truth and never where the greater number of people cast their vote. I think of atheism as it's presented today as a cultural movement that followed from a number of the faithful felling the Twin Towers, as opposed to a group of independent individuals. I don't feel the badges "free-thinker" or "secular humanist" are indicative of a greater height within people most often; neither are groups expressive of the individual's deepest relation to themselves.


----------



## BeyondOsiris (Nov 2, 2012)

Waiting for the confirmation E-mail, but done. I didn't know what title I'd consider myself though so I just put other.


----------



## Dark Alchemist (Jul 10, 2011)

Done!


----------



## arnie (Jan 24, 2012)

I don't think you guys know what the word "census" means.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

Brasilia said:


> Fair enough, and a good idea - though you did say 'there are no statistics or scientific evidence to prove either of our points' therefore neither of us can be proven right or wrong.
> 
> As long as you continue to accuse me of being an arrogant little teenage boy I will continue dismiss your views as outdated and bigoted (don't try and make it out as though I started it!).


Indeed, but thankfully the answers are so obvious to the vast majority of atheists I've ever heard comment on the subject that it's fine I can't prove it directly to you.



> I have no issue with people disagreeing with me, I do not however appreciate people who think they can put down others for having a different opinion - not a very "atheist" thing to do.
> 
> :banana


By saying that I'm not sure you even know what atheism is. :? Atheism has no link to how someone behaves.

Why do you have a problem with people dismissing others opinions? Not all opinions should be accepted or respected. Some are simple wrong and should be condemned.


----------



## Brasilia (Aug 23, 2012)

ugh1979 said:


> Indeed, but thankfully the answers are so obvious to the vast majority of atheists I've ever heard comment on the subject that it's fine I can't prove it directly to you.
> 
> By saying that I'm not sure you even know what atheism is. :? Atheism has no link to how someone behaves.
> 
> Why do you have a problem with people dismissing others opinions? Not all opinions should be accepted or respected. Some are simple wrong and should be condemned.


It's not my fault when people who claim to be so well-experienced are not well-learned enough to have heard all ideas surrounding the anti-religion argument - but you disagree with me *I have no problem with that - I'm not saying my opinion is fact* (I will expand on this theme later). In my experience, I have heard of this argument.

I have said this so many times: *I have no problem with people disagreeing with me.* I am not aware of you ever saying this - what does that tell us?

The problem I did have: By all means my friend dispute the opposing argument - but the way you carried yourself, particularly the little "banter" you had with your friend over how absurd and stupid my thinking was (which is rather insulting) is not a very professional thing to do.

When I said 'not a very "atheist" thing to do.', you seemed to have taken my speech very literally and I can only assume that was an accident. "Atheists" stand for liberal, free, honest, rational thinking. They don't just accept things as fact, they look to science as the means of providing the most rational explanation for things, not providing facts, but providing theories....You haven't demonstrated many of these qualities by being remaining closed-minded and by thinking that you are 100% correct.

I am not anti-religion or anti-atheist by the way. Just thought I'd throw that in their just in case.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

Brasilia said:


> It's not my fault when people who claim to be so well-experienced are not well-learned enough to have heard all ideas surrounding the anti-religion argument - but you disagree with me *I have no problem with that - I'm not saying my opinion is fact* (I will expand on this theme later). In my experience, I have heard of this argument.


I don't need to have heard *all *ideas surrounding the anti-religion argument to know your claim is wrong. I just need to have heard lots, which I have.



> I have said this so many times: *I have no problem with people disagreeing with me.* I am not aware of you ever saying this - what does that tell us?


You said, "I do not however appreciate people who think they can put down others for having a different opinion", so in fact you do have a problem with me bluntly dismissing your opinion.



> The problem I did have: By all means my friend dispute the opposing argument - but the way you carried yourself, particularly the little "banter" you had with your friend over how absurd and stupid my thinking was (which is rather insulting) is not a very professional thing to do.


We're not in a debate where professionalism needs to be adhered to so having banter and bluntly dismissing your statement isn't an issue.



> When I said 'not a very "atheist" thing to do.', you seemed to have taken my speech very literally and I can only assume that was an accident. "Atheists" stand for liberal, free, honest, rational thinking. They don't just accept things as fact, they look to science as the means of providing the most rational explanation for things, not providing facts, but providing theories....You haven't demonstrated many of these qualities by being remaining closed-minded and by thinking that you are 100% correct.


Nonsense. You are very confused. Atheism doesn't stand for anything apart from atheism. It's not an organisation and doesn't hold any set of philosophies or standards. It's exclusively the disbelief in a god or gods and says nothing about how honest, liberal, free thinking or anything else someone is. There are conservative, lying, controlling, irrational atheists as well (some Communists for example).

How does me disagreeing with your statement that anti-group attitude is the "pinnacle of all anti-religion arguments" equate to me not being rational and close-minded? I have no evidence for your claim being correct, and you are the only person I've ever heard make the claim, so in fact it's perfectly rational for me to dismiss it.

The accusation of close-mindedness for not accepting a baseless statement is a logical fallacy.


----------



## Brasilia (Aug 23, 2012)

ugh1979 said:


> I don't need to have heard *all *ideas surrounding the anti-religion argument to know your claim is wrong. I just need to have heard lots, which I have.


Whatever you say...



> You said, "I do not however appreciate people who think they can *put down others* for having a different opinion", so in fact you do have a problem with me bluntly dismissing your opinion.


How does that quote even support your claim? Do you not see the difference between simply disagreeing and implicitly insulting others? Where you never taught manners in school?



> We're not in a debate *where professionalism needs to be adhered* to so having banter and *bluntly dismissing* your statement isn't an issue.


Well this is real life, so yes it should be considered. But if you want to keep to your immature ways then by all means, but you wont get very far with others that way. Fair enough, you claim you were 'bluntly dismissing' my argument, I didn't see it that way, I no longer care that much, so I wont pester you over it.



> Nonsense. You are very confused. Atheism doesn't stand for anything apart from atheism. It's not an organisation and doesn't hold any set of philosophies or standards. It's exclusively the disbelief in a god or gods and says nothing about how honest, liberal, free thinking or anything else someone is. There are conservative, lying, controlling, irrational atheists as well (some Communists for example).


So would you never describe "religious" people as backward etc.? You cannot deny that's what "atheists" think of them. "Atheists" have their fair share of associations also which I pointed out. 'There are conservative, lying, controlling, *irrational* atheists as well' - Indeed :yes



> How does me disagreeing with your statement that anti-group attitude is the "pinnacle of all anti-religion arguments" *equate to me not being rational and close-minded? * I have no evidence for your claim being correct, and you are the only person I've ever heard make the claim, so in fact it's perfectly rational for me to dismiss it.
> 
> The accusation of close-mindedness for not accepting a baseless statement is a logical fallacy.


Let me be clearer here then, your close-mindedness in not that you disagree with me (you are allowed to do that), but your assumption that I am an idiot, your lack of respect, arrogance, views about my age/experience, hinder you from appreciating (not saying mindlessly accepting) the other side of the coin.

**Edit:* I've hit the 50 posts limit - I was going to say I don't think you are terrible or anything, what irritated me was the little conversation between you and your friend and the remarks regarding my age etc. I no longer wish to hold it against you and I just want to finish this whole thing (it's eating up my posts!) I'm sure you do also and might have something to add.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

Brasilia said:


> How does that quote even support your claim? Do you not see the difference between simply disagreeing and implicitly insulting others? Where you never taught manners in school?


Yes there can be difference in the delivery method, and in this instance I chose to bluntly dismiss your claim as I saw fit.



> Well this is real life, so yes it should be considered. But if you want to keep to your immature ways then by all means, but you wont get very far with others that way. Fair enough, you claim you were 'bluntly dismissing' my argument, I didn't see it that way, I no longer care that much, so I wont pester you over it.


That's your problem if you see it as anything more. I stand by my response as appropriate.



> So would you never describe "religious" people as backward etc.? You cannot deny that's what "atheists" think of them. "Atheists" have their fair share of associations also which I pointed out. 'There are conservative, lying, controlling, *irrational* atheists as well' - Indeed :yes


You are still confused, being religious can imply many more aspects about a persons beliefs than the term atheist can of someone. Atheism only addresses one belief, religion covers many beliefs.



> Let me be clearer here then, your close-mindedness in not that you disagree with me (you are allowed to do that), but your assumption that I am an idiot, your lack of respect, arrogance, views about my age/experience, hinder you from appreciating (not saying mindlessly accepting) the other side of the coin.


Until you give me any reason to give you credit or respect then it's perfectly valid for me to treat you the way I am.


----------



## fredbloggs02 (Dec 14, 2009)

ugh1979 said:


> You are still confused, being religious can imply many more aspects about a persons beliefs than the term atheist can of someone. Atheism only addresses one belief, religion covers many beliefs.


Honourable gentlemen of the court court lol... Vast be the possible essence of a disbelief in or denial of God or Gods. Nominally atheism could as easily imply the eternally Godless despite all possible evidence to the contrary and all evidence presented. Why should a grand negating pair of arms that cover every religious division express fewer "aspects about a persons beliefs" than the beliefs expressed by a single person of a single division who has as yet looked no further than his humble set of tenets? The term atheist doesn't imply a single attitude towards all the Gods it disbelieves in. Who judging solely by the label is to say which implies more?...*looks back*. Hahaha.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

fredbloggs02 said:


> Nominally atheism may express the eternally Godless despite all possible evidence to the contrary.


How would being Godless be contrary evidence for atheism?



> Why should a grand negating pair of crushing arms that cover every religious division express fewer "aspects about a persons beliefs" than the beliefs of a single division expressed by a single person who looks no further than his doctrine?


Simply because it does. As i've already said, atheism only says the person has a disbelief in god or gods. If someone is religious then they are admitting they subscribe to at least some of the doctrines of their religion, which says a lot more about them. It's really quite simple.



> An atheist may have more to say for his negation that reduces every God to nothing than a religious individual does for his modest set of tenets. Who's to say which implies more by it's label?....*looks back*. hahaha.


The key word there is "may". You can't know anything else from the label atheist until the person is questioned on what they actually believe. Some atheists don't even have an alternative belief, as the whole issue is of little or no interest to them.


----------



## RoarOfTheMemphisBelle (Aug 4, 2011)

Done.


----------



## satasmbana (Jun 7, 2012)

It is interesting that Turkey and Iran have more entries than most of the countries in Europe.It may be because we don't have the freedom of thought.


----------



## albrecht (Oct 18, 2011)

Well, apparently _someone_ turned this thread into a giant heap of stupid. Not gonna say who. If you think it might be you, you're wrong. It's not. Take a bubble bath and eat some pork rinds FFS.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

satasmbana said:


> It is interesting that Turkey and Iran have more entries than most of the countries in Europe.It may be because we don't have the freedom of thought.


Yes it is interesting but I suspect there was some kind of campaign by atheists in those countries to promote the completion of this survey.


----------



## joey22099 (Dec 18, 2012)

albrecht said:


> Well, apparently _someone_ turned this thread into a giant heap of stupid. Not gonna say who. If you think it might be you, you're wrong. It's not. Take a bubble bath and eat some pork rinds FFS.


Brasilia?


----------



## retracekim (Jan 13, 2013)

Done!


----------



## Brasilia (Aug 23, 2012)

joey22099 said:


> Brasilia?


I love this comment. Just love it.


----------

