A wild look at atheism vs religion by statisticians.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nigel-barber/atheism-to-defeat-religion-by-2038_b_1565108.html

My own observation is that increases in income levels of Turkish families lead to liberation of man folk first: trendy suits,  fashionable haircuts, expensive watches/4WD cars/parfumes etc start showing up; activities in extramarital social life brightens 

Efforts for any personal intellectual ascend however seem to lack. Only that portion of religious beliefs that help to keep the woman folk and other less fortunate men folk under control  are treasured and enforced. 

This article is either not written by a statician, or written by a bad one. The claim he makes is wrong. I can´t say it in any other way. The claim he SHOULD be making is the world is becoming more secular, or non-religious. This is NOT the same as being atheist. You can believe in god without having a religion. You can even state that you simply don´t know, meaning you are an agnost. Or, you don´t believe in god, but you do believe in "something." All these three views are not atheism. An atheist is SURE that there is no god. He claims in the article that half of the Dutch population is atheist. This is not true. Half of the Dutch population is non-religious. Badly conducted statistics, leading to bad conclusions, making it a bad article.

As a responce to Alpha´s remarks... liberation of menfolk can actually happen through religion as well. Often religious structures are used to oppress women. Although many religious people scream "it´s not true!!!", reality states otherwise. The men might have to dress in a certain way or follow some routines, but if this means they can sit on their butts all they and live like kings... that´s liberating But I do agree that positive changes often happen to men first, women much later. I also agree that some religious structures are clinched on by a certain elite to keep other people in control. I have to say, that I am worried about some recent developments were this urge for control through religion is increasing again.

Nigel Barber is not a statician but a biopsycologist, here is his bio:

Born in Ireland, Nigel Barber received his Ph.D. in Biopsychology from Hunter College, CUNY, and taught psychology at Bemidji State University and Birmingham Southern College. A prolific cross-national researcher, Barber accounts for societal differences in sexual and reproductive behavior, and crime, using an innovative evolutionary approach.

His blog at Psychology Today is The Human Beast http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast Books include Why Parents Matter, The Science of Romance, Encyclopedia of Ethics in Science and Technology, Kindness in a Cruel World, and The Myth of Culture: Why We Need a Genuine Natural Science of Societies. He recently returned to Alabama from Maine accompanied by wife Trudy and son David. Interests include politics, finance, organic gardening, and woodwork.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nigel-barber/

Give our statistician a break barba....poor chap is talking about year 2038.

İf half of Dutch population is without religion today (you said it)...What do you expect for the year 2038 ?

Nigel Barber is not a statician but a biopsycologist,

I am not sure what you mean, but let me assure you that anyone who is well versed in advanced mathematics can - on his own- master a great deal of statistics, if he puts his mind to it.

What I always wonder is how anyone ever can be sure. I mean make up his mind about if God exists or not. We can count ourselves among a certain group of people and adapt their identity but deep in one´s mind  -  how?

Most people at least in my country are ultimately lazy to think about such big things as hereafter or meaning of life. They explain religion is a private matter between them and God. That´s idle talk. Religion and belief is very much a community based experience.

For those interested, here is a very statistical anectode

A frequent flyer suddenly stopped taking planes for his bussiness trips and switched to driving instead. When questioned by his friends, he said " I just found out that the statistical probabilıty of having a guy with a bomb in his pocket, on any flight, is one in thousand (1/100; that is too high a risk. I decided planes are not safe enough for me.

A few months later, he was flying again. His friends wanted to know if there was a sudden decrease in the number of bombed flying guys.

He said " No, but I found a failsafe statistical solution" and explained "I simply put a bomb in my own pocket before I board the plane. Now the chances that there are two guys with hidden bombs in their pockets,on the same flight, is (1/100X(1/100= 1/1000000, (1 in a million), that is safe enough.

It sure is and that´s probably one of the biggest appeals of religion and often has nothing to do with the coherence of the actual religious beliefs. And some people are deciding that the various religious beliefs lead to bad behaviors/ attitudes and they choose to distance themselves from it and from the communities which support those (in the name of these beliefs or community structure) and say that they prefer to define religion in private ways. I think that is a healthy attitude.

Exactly my feeling.  I am a Catholic because I was born a Catholic and it has been very difficult to separate what I feel in my heart to be true and what the Catholic Church tells me is true.  I love the way going to Church makes me feel but that isn´t to say I believe everything they are saying.  For me Church is the place that connects me to my past and the traditions that have been handed down in my family for a millenia.  I know that many of my Catholic friends feel the same way.  I don´t know very many of us that follow all the "rules" but we still count ourselves as Catholics.  The rules seem silly, antequated and counter productive to the "message" of acceptance and love of fellow humans.  For me, I firmly believe in God...I´m just not so sure about the details.

I don´t know that the author of this artical is a statistician or not but it doesn´t take a genious to figure out a few things:

1.  Many people less religious YET many people still believe in God but are fed up with organized religion

2.  The rise in secularization seems to coincide with the rise of radicalization

4.  The world has truely become a scary place filled with violence and atrocity which may lead some to believe that there may be a corelation between the loss of religion and the increase of violence and radicalization.

I personally believe in the inherent goodness of humans...but I am also not a statistician. 

4. The world has truely become a scary place filled with violence and atrocity which may lead some to believe that there may be a corelation between the loss of religion and the increase of violence and radicalization.

That is not what history shows. There is no other single reason for bloodshed between people than religious differences.

Some however, will argue that it is not religions themselves leading to bloodshed, but misunderstanding, misinterpretation or politization of religions..THEY MAY BE RIGHT.

I tend to think that most violence rises out of a need for power and all its trappings.  All too often religion is a convenient way to get a group of people to "rally around a cause".  Religion is often a scapegoat for many horrifying acts (oh, the Bible says this, the devil made me do it, or God commands this).  There is a valid arguement for both opinions and depending on your own experience of the world you will feel one way or the other.  I look at history and see many wars fought, not for religion but where religion was used as a tool to convince people to go to war.  Some people look back and see religion as the ultimate call to arms. 

That was my point... He says half of the Dutch population is atheist, and he is talking about the world becoming atheist. Without official religion is not the same as being atheist. The ACTUAL percentage of atheist in Holland is 14% (in 2011). The 50% he is talking about are "without religion" people, who might be atheist, but who might also believe in God or believe in some other form of higher being. I can´t give a break for lying, sorry He claims that Holland is becoming atheist while only 14% is... That´s not a shockingly high number, is it? Show me this man, I´ll spank him for bad scientific writing!

Ever considered religion mostly a cultural thing? For example, As a Turkish non-believer whatever cooks in the Islamo-Turkish cauldron has passed on to me too. As a result, there is still a big difference between me and say a Dutch non-believer. Our minds shaped up in these pools. We both climbed different hills and met different obstacles. I believe, most people are not aware that they are Christians or Muslims just on paper. They just blend in this cultural soup that is beginning to tolerate a greater variety of different flavours.

I believe, one could find just a few true believers by Jesus or Muhammad´s standards in the entire world´s population. Majority of people just belong to a religious culture and nothing more.

It is hard for people to believe in what they have never heard of. Where I am in the SF Bay Area, many people have adopted Budhist practices, although they may have come from Christian or Jewish backgrounds.

I must say I cherish our secular society, where one is exposed to, and can explore many different paths.

Actually the Abrahamic faiths are very similar.

I see a similar movement in Holland. Although people are moving away from "traditional Western" religions, they are moving more towards new-age movements. All looking for zen, going to their yoga meditation groups. Religion may be fading, but that doesn´t mean atheism is the substitute.

I bet Alpha was hoping for a more heated debate in a thread he named "atheism vs religion"!! Come on gals and guys, clash your ideas, is it gonna be religion or is it gonna be atheism?

People personal beliefs are not a "one versus the other" thing. The only people who believe that personal beliefs are the reason for debate, are the people who start wars.

In any case, I think the point about one non-believer in one country is not the same is in another is a good one. I also think that being born as "without religion" is something totally different than being born into a religion, and than denouncing the religion. I also notice that every Turk that I have met who has chosen to not be a muslim anymore, still refuses to eat pig

 My husband hasn´t practiced his religion in years yet he still won´t eat pork either.  He claims it is just so deeply ingrained in his mind that he can´t bring himself to eat it.  This is a great example of how religion can be "cultural."

I think it´s easy to dislike meat. I have to stop myself from thinking when I eat meat and generally don´t liike it too much anyway.

One Turkish person who was a restaurant worker said to me once that the reason they don´t eat pork is that pork is full of bacteria, he even saw it.

Funny but for Christians, in the old testament it is forbidden to eat pork and also until the canon law of 1983 women were required to cover their heads before entering a church or cathedrale...  Just goes to show that we keep what we want of our religions and beliefs.  

May explain why some either stop practicing their religion or stop believing in it.

It is true that pork possibly has more dangerous bacteria than beef. (You can eat beef raw, whereas pork you really can´t.) BUT, chicken is even MORE dangerous than pork, and nobody says chicken is "dirty" in Turkey.

  Personally, I try to eat as little meat as possible and when I do it´s organic.  Now what scares me is the fact that even our fruits/vegetables and grains are being genetically manipulated and so many chemicals are used on them...it´s making natural bacteria seem far less scary!!! 

The explination for this is that the maximum weight of a chiken is rather less than a pig.  The chicken can be slaughtered prior to being cooked, takes about 15-20 minutes to kill, gut and clean a chicken, versus a pig which takes a little longer to go through the slaughter process and is rather large to throw in a pot right after, unless you plan to feed a whole village in one shot.

Also, pigs roll about in mud(to protect it´s skin from the sun) are rummagers, in some countries they are used to controle organic refuse(vegetable and fruits and peelings thrown out), so in general they look unclean.

I saw this cool thing on tv, that showed most pigs actually hate dirt... But because we humans only offer them dirty water they usually walk around covered in that dirt just to keep cool. If we would provide them clean water, they would walk around freshly washed all the time Anyway, the moment I realised that chickens eat their own poop, I didn´t eat chicken for a while... I totally understand people who limit their meat-intake, not only for a vegetarian point of view, but also because a piece of meat increases your carbon-footprint. But I just can´t live without my meat So I just have a vegi-day once in a while.

What can be said to someone who enjoys his chicken meat or pork? If you like it and if it is OK for you  then just eat it. I don´t eat lamb or pork nor do I eat say rabbit meat. I enjoy eating the kind of food my mother cooked me in childhood. She was a Muslim woman and I had no chance to get used to eating pork. I don´t feel I am losing anything, you substitute one food with another.

True there are economic consequences, if we Turks ate pork, we could use this abundant and economic food and probably there would be fewer hungry people. Alas we don´t like it regardless of what we believe in. I have no problem eating it occasionally in a friends house but I would never buy it since I said I am not dying for it.

As for chickens, I suppose you are not expecting them to follow the same rules of hygiene as we humans do. Chicken meat has been consumend for thousands of years and it doesn´t do much harm at all. (Though I don´t prefer chicken all that much either).

Vegetables grow on animal carcasses and most of them are either GDO or hormone treated (thanks Israel for destroying natural seeds), meat from domestic animals is full of antibiotics and other drugs and the meat is further treated with preservatives to extend its shelf life. These are the natural results of having to live in an overly polluted world.

Meanwhile, thanks Lucy Lawless for risking her freedom while trying to stop shell from launching oil platforms in the North Pole.

I fail to see how Israel comes into this discussion. I know people like to blame Israel for a lot, and some of the things this state is blamed for is true... but general distruction of seeds? Really? And no, please don´t explain it to me... I already had enough angry discussion threads lately

Barba, there are certainly somethings going on in the world and you know whom to hold responsible for them. In one occasion you asked me to remember that Israel and the Jewry are not synonymous and I accepted that despite I feel what you are saying is only technically correct.

I have enormous respect for the Jews for the wonderful things they have done but I also protest them for the evil things committed in their name and the body that represent them happens to be the Israeli government.

I have nothing against you. You have my love and my respect as a person but I do listen to speeches made by the Israeli government and I find them overly patriotic if not racist at times.

Check out the seed, GDO and Israel link, all the Internet is at your disposal. If you learn about the game Israel plays in this, I expect you to condemn it as much as I do.

I am not seeking to flame you. If you wish we could carry this to the PM´s and stop being offtopic.

And I would venture to say that these changes were only for the better. There are fierce debates right now in the Church about contraception, abortion (women´s issues), as the Church is obsessed with controlling women and with other people´s sexuality. All that while the child abuse done by the Church members and bishops is very low on their agenda, and they have done a lot to cover it up and not much to eradicate the problem and punish the perpetrators. Recently in the US the bishops and the Vatican have criticized a group of American nuns who support gay rights and women´s right to have accessible contraception (a basic human right), and who do not pursue the men´s crazy social conservative agenda, but instead these nuns focus on poverty and social injustice!!! This is what the Church is basically boiling down to these days. They don´t give a damn about the poor, they are just obsessed with controlling women and other people´s sexuality (not their own). This is why a religious structure should be subject to change and should have to change.

That is why I am a non practecing catholic for 30 years now andI only consider myself a catholic because I was born into it and my parents christened me into the faith.  Contrary to the trend that I see, I did not and will not convert to another religion because I am disinchanted with my own.  I think that any human being can make his own decisions and have his own beleifs without having another of pseudo higher power dictate to them what is best in the matter of faith.

If I go by what I have read and learned over the years, Jesus, Mohamad, Moses, Abraham and the whole of the prophets did not need to have a place to worship, their faiths were in their hearts and soul, why should I get all dressed up and go prosternate myself in front of a man made represantation of a pseudo god or representative of his in a building constructed by man and to be considered holy, with men who preach the virtue of god and probably have less moral integrity then the people he is preaching too, that would be hypocritical of me.

That would be an explination of why we see a trend of more non practecing or atheists people.  But if we go into the psycology of the human, at the first sign of a massive hardship that will shake man he will return to his religious ways, it is a known fact, in the face of hardship and strong adversety man returns to his faith for solice.