I guess you should look at who drives the religion conversations, rather than starts them, to get an idea of zeal.

How do the statistics look when you adjust for the relative numbers of atheist regular posters and theist posters (distinct from just normal churchgoers)

That's kind of funny also since for the large part the driving of those conversations is a defense of religion. If a group is on the defense and tends to not start that many threads on the subject, how can they be considered the zealots? Clearly the zealotry is one the side of the people who engage aptly rather than merely defend.

Note I don't mean to say that you can find out the answer, just that you need to in order for your argument to stand.


Its more just a function of the mix of people we have.

It seems like you're just trying to start a fight over a comment everyone else has forgotten.

Glad you asked TGM I've got those figures in a second.

wait wait wait how did you classify me

lol i can understand why he's upset. he's not a zealot and it's kind of mean to call someone a zealot or a radical because of their religion these days.

if you're not a terrorist i mean...

and even so, if his moniker is any guide, he's ANGLICAN. for god's sake that's certainly not a bastion of radicalism.

Ah yes the N word is bad, but the Z word useful?

In no way is zealot comparable to the N word. You're really reaching there. Furthermore, who here claimed that calling someone a zealot was "useful"?

I think my point- that pretty much only Crazy Anglican and Acosmist post frequently in favour of theism, but many people, often transiently, post against- does explain the distribution of the Opening posts between theists and atheists.

However, you are certainly not a zealot, that's for sure.

Sorry that was @ abgemacht

Thucy I categorized you as atheist/agnostic

TGM we had 7 to 4 atheist vs. theist (even though I think two of those four have stated the they do not believe in God) so we have margin for error.

I think it would be more interesting to go with world stateistics though, For such a small group the atheists seem to have claimed the internet rather zealously (at least this corner little of it)

@ abgemacht

I did, and granted this was tongue-in-cheek to point out a trend that was actually going in the other direction. I have not problem with anyone who wants to have serious discussion. However it just struck me as absoulte nonsense that anyone could even think that "religious zealots" were highjacking the site when the overwheming majority of threads were critiques of religion on one level or another.

The high density of atheists on the internet is probably linked to factors such as youthfulness, being western and being wealthier, don't you think?

That may be true if your from Europe, from the American perpective (from a guy who converted from atheism as an adult) I'v also heard that atheists tend to not be that big a group so the internet give the opportunity to band together in a way they don't get to otherwise.

The internet is atheist, libertarian, and listens to metal music.

I don't know what the difference between atheists and non-religious is, but a lot of the people I am around seem to be "without religion". About 14% of the US is non-religious. It has been growing slowly over time for me, though I imagine that my situation and such kind of give me a different group of people than most.

yep, we are slowly and finally taking over the world, step by step. atheist = no god, whereas you can still be a theist and be against organized religion as human made lies

THat is true Tantris the people wh oclaim to be atheists tend to be an extremely small group (in the USA about 1.6% of the population) but the people who claim nonreligious, or no religious preference tends to be higher up to ten percent. That doesn't explain the situation though. It still looks like my friend had a bit of a point. In real life I've probably only know two guys wh claimed to be atheists and one converted to Wicca.

lol yeah you're probably right. however i do go to church and read the bible lol so idk

The point really isn't about the numbers as much as about the attack that seems almost knee jerk in it's nature. One peron complains about the religious debates and another blames it one the "religious zealots" in direct opposition to the facts. It seems curious and even a bit prejudicial.

@Thucy

I'll switch you to the Christian side if you like, I went merely from the points that I'd seen you make. If you go to church and read the Bible, then you're doing more than a lot of Christians. Have you read any of the commentaries by C.S. Lewis? I kind of liked them when I was not going to church. They gave a pretty rational argument from a guy that had been an atheist and decided to join the church as an adult.

I didn't think Atheists were really a sparse fringe group that needed the internet to band together... Sadly, as an Esperantist, yes, that is exactly us. Please learn Esperanto, friends! : )

The figures that I cited were from a University of New York survey. It was done with a large enough random smaple to make some generalizations probably a little dates (around 2003, I think).

I think the first I saw religion threads, that I remember anyway, were "Bible Study" and "Taking It Outside". Which, I apparently misremember or misread, because I thought it was actually starting a bible study on this site.

Yet I offered a critique of, not really atheism, but a comment that seemed to be anti-religious and looked at a trend that showed anti-religious threads outweighed religous ones, and you guys banded together.....right?

Anyway, as I said it was not meant as a harsh criticism, merely a look at something of which I thought you were probably unaware. What you choose to do with the information is up to you.

It's late good night all.

Bonan Nokton, Stukus!

Still what would the problem be with starting a bible study on this site? It's not as if anyone is obliged to even open the thread. In the light of so many anti religion threads and debates seem unavoidable even (when the OP specifically says that he'd like to discuss thus and such specifically) there seems little harm in such a thread.

The Takin' it outside threads btw were in response to specific anti-religious statements in an attempt to avoid highjacking other threads (I know I opened them).

haha no i wouldnt say i was anything more than a "nominal" Christian, reason being I am a pyrrhonian skeptic, and therefore doubt that there is anyway to know god exists, ever. as such, i may hope he exists but do not claim to know he does.

furthermore, as a pyrrhonian skeptic, i hold that it is best to simply act of habit and go off of perception and instinct, all the while realizing that these processes may be fundamentally flawed, but feeling no compunction about that since there is no alternative really. as such my instinct and perception tell me there's no god, but there still could be, and i have a Christian upbringing, living in a Christian culture. As a result I read the Bible for information and go to church for the sake of custom and propriety.

anyway yeah.

so long story short i'm an agnostic who goes to church still

"Clearly the zealotry is one the side of the people who engage aptly rather than merely defend. " @Crazy Anglican, aren't the nonreligious people the defenders now? : )

Kaj bonan nokton al vi! Cxu vi parolas Esperanton? Mi lernas, sed jam mi amas la lingvon!