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.