Silverman: 2x the atheists vs Jews, Muslims and Hindus combined. Politifact: False...

nvidiot · 26th February 2012, 09:24 PM

An interesting Politifact piece here, thought it rather appropriate for the forum to discuss.

http://www.politifact.com/rhode-isla...verman-says-t/

Quote:

Our ruling

Atheist David Silverman claimed that "There are more atheists in the country right now than Jews, Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists combined and doubled."

He wants to include not only people who define themselves as atheists, but others, such as agnostics, who have serious doubts about the existence of God.

But just as atheists don't want someone else's religious beliefs and practices foisted upon them, we believe that those who doubt the existence of a supreme power shouldn’t be lumped into the "atheist" category.

If Silverman had claimed that the number of Americans who don't believe in God is larger than the number of Jews, Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists in the U.S., he’d be on more solid ground.

But he didn’t. Instead, he said you could double the number of people in those religions and atheists would still outnumber them. The only way to achieve that number is to include people who may not desire -- or deserve -- to be in that category, so we rate his statement False.

Seems to me the common misunderstanding of "atheist" varieties, with Politifact regarding only "strong" atheists to be worthy of the title. I'll be interested to hear what the JREF members think of this ruling.

Lowpro · 26th February 2012, 09:31 PM

Well you just read WHY they said it was false, and I agree with them. They weighed it as false because there's no context to give his statement validity. Now, they couldn't give it a pants on fire rating either, because there's no evidence to give THAT validity.

When Silverman used the numbers for agnostics as well as "secular unaffiliated" do not support him in the number of atheists, even if they are atheists. Part of being counted as an atheist probably will require some declaration, otherwise all newborn babies are part of the "atheist" number.

nvidiot · 26th February 2012, 10:55 PM

Athiesm is not opposite to agnosticism.

Sure, he's using the term atheism that most atheists would probably describe it as, and politifact are using the term as most dictionarys would describe it.

I don't know if I entirely disagree with their assesment as "false", but I think there's a continual and consistent misapplication of the term athiest and agnostic in popular culture that confuses people, atheists included.

Silverman isn't exactly my favourite "atheist celebrity" for lack of a better term.

Brainache · 26th February 2012, 10:59 PM

Who are these people and why should I care what they say?

Andrew Wiggin · 26th February 2012, 11:37 PM

Originally Posted by Brainache

Who are these people and why should I care what they say?

They (Politifact) are an organization of fact checkers affiliated with the Tampa Bay Tribune who are generally recognized as reliable and unbiased; they have a website where you can go to see how they rated various public statements.

You should care because their website is a good place to start when you hear something said by a politician and wonder if that person is lying to your face, telling the absolute truth, or somewhere in between. It's a time saver, the way Snopes.com is a time saver when deciding if that chain letter you got about the missing orphan is worth forwarding to your entire contacts list. (hint; it rarely is)

In this case, I don't agree with their assessment, but I think the way they made it is valid. As was said above, the definition of athiest they are using is what we would call strong athiesm. If the definition they use is more along the line of 'god either doesn't exist, is unlikely to exist, can not be determined to exist or not, or is irrelevant if they do exist', which is much broader than strong athiesm, then the statement they rated is much more likely to be true, since it includes a lot more folks who don't believe.

Lowpro · 26th February 2012, 11:50 PM

Well they're also using survey results and as we can see, Silverman takes the meaning of some results (such as agnosticism, secular unaffiliated) as atheism to add to the "declared atheist" numbers, and then there are just people who are unaware of atheism and just don't believe in God, but have no idea of the political field atheism is in.

I think Silverman knows this, but he's playing politics with the numbers, even if he's right he's not going going to get a high five from everyone in those polls for representing them.

Brainache · 27th February 2012, 01:03 AM

Originally Posted by Andrew Wiggin

They (Politifact) are an organization of fact checkers ...

OK, I thought they were something like that.

Now who is this Silverman bloke? Is he related to Sarah Silverman?

Lamuella · 27th February 2012, 01:45 AM

Originally Posted by Brainache

OK, I thought they were something like that.

Now who is this Silverman bloke? Is he related to Sarah Silverman?

Have you considered the many educational opportunities that "clicking on links and reading things" might afford you?

From the first paragraph of that story: "David Silverman, president of American Atheists..."

SezMe · 27th February 2012, 02:20 AM

Originally Posted by Andrew Wiggin

They (Politifact) are an organization of fact checkers affiliated with the Tampa Bay Tribune who are generally recognized as reliable and unbiased;...

That gets a rating of "mostly false".

Brainache · 27th February 2012, 02:41 AM

Originally Posted by Lamuella

Have you considered the many educational opportunities that "clicking on links and reading things" might afford you?

From the first paragraph of that story: "David Silverman, president of American Atheists..."

I rarely click links. I have very slow internet connection generally and it always takes ages to see these things.

So he is the President of American Atheists.

I guess there will always be people who like joining clubs like that, but I'm not one of them.

Why is there an Atheists club? Who joins these things, and who votes for the Pres.?

I'm still not sure why I should value his opinion more than, say, the President of a Fishing Club...

nvidiot · 27th February 2012, 02:49 AM

Valuing his opinion isn't necessary.

I'm more concerned about the public face of atheism being affected more than anything else.

joobz · 27th February 2012, 02:50 AM

Originally Posted by Brainache

I rarely click links. I have very slow internet connection generally and it always takes ages to see these things.

So he is the President of American Atheists.

I guess there will always be people who like joining clubs like that, but I'm not one of them.

Why is there an Atheists club? Who joins these things, and who votes for the Pres.?

I'm still not sure why I should value his opinion more than, say, the President of a Fishing Club...

I agree.
Why would people bother seeking out others with common interests? What's the point of this type of interaction? It's almost as if they enjoy the opportunity to converse and debating ideas. Nothing good can come of such open "Forum" interactions.

The nerve of some people.

Lamuella · 27th February 2012, 02:56 AM

Originally Posted by Brainache

I rarely click links. I have very slow internet connection generally and it always takes ages to see these things.

So he is the President of American Atheists.

I guess there will always be people who like joining clubs like that, but I'm not one of them.

Why is there an Atheists club? Who joins these things, and who votes for the Pres.?

I'm still not sure why I should value his opinion more than, say, the President of a Fishing Club...

You seem to be putting a lot of effort into not caring what he has said or what fullfact said about it. You could probably live a much easier life by just not reading the thread at all.

Brainache · 27th February 2012, 03:06 AM

Originally Posted by Lamuella

You seem to be putting a lot of effort into not caring what he has said or what fullfact said about it. You could probably live a much easier life by just not reading the thread at all.

It's no effort. Things are slow right now.

I have nothing against people sharing opinions with like-minded people, I do it all the time. I just never saw the need to join a club for that.

Maybe it's because I don't live in the USA and Atheists are pretty common here. Church goers are considered a bit weird around here, and an Atheist club just looks a bit too much like an Atheist church to me.

SezMe · 27th February 2012, 03:24 AM

Originally Posted by Brainache

Maybe it's because I don't live in the USA ...

Ya think? You probably don't have a bunch of loons trying to impose their Christianity on you either. Sometimes, a large group of like-minded people have more effect than a lone individual in battling such lunacy.

Stomatopoda · 27th February 2012, 03:55 AM

I wouldn't consider atheism to be a "common interest". Is there a club for people who don't particularly care for bell peppers?

Originally Posted by Lowpro

Well they're also using survey results and as we can see, Silverman takes the meaning of some results (such as agnosticism, secular unaffiliated) as atheism to add to the "declared atheist" numbers, and then there are just people who are unaware of atheism and just don't believe in God, but have no idea of the political field atheism is in.

I think Silverman knows this, but he's playing politics with the numbers, even if he's right he's not going going to get a high five from everyone in those polls for representing them.

...atheism is the absence of belief in gods. It is not an explicit belief that there are no gods. Of course babies are atheist. Why should anyone have to declare things they don't believe in?

Agnosticism regards knowledge, not belief.

Mashuna · 27th February 2012, 07:23 AM

Originally Posted by Stomatopoda

I wouldn't consider atheism to be a "common interest". Is there a club for people who don't particularly care for bell peppers?

Maybe there would be, if there was a large group of influential people who claimed bell peppers were a divine gift, and refusing to eat them a stain on one's character.

Mister Agenda · 27th February 2012, 08:30 AM

I prefer to go with the low estimates on atheists: the ones who declare themselves to be atheists. I don't like inflating that number because it means calling people who would not call themselves atheists, atheists. I don't agree with labelling other people against their wills, even if many of them would logically fit the the definition of agnostic atheist. I'm sure many of them would fit the definition of agnostic theist, too; and the poll doesn't let us sort them out. Maybe a more nuanced poll that had options for agnostic theist and agnostic atheist, with a definition included, would give us a more accurate estimate of atheist numbers.

Lowpro · 27th February 2012, 12:49 PM

Originally Posted by Stomatopoda

I wouldn't consider atheism to be a "common interest". Is there a club for people who don't particularly care for bell peppers?

...atheism is the absence of belief in gods. It is not an explicit belief that there are no gods. Of course babies are atheist. Why should anyone have to declare things they don't believe in?

Agnosticism regards knowledge, not belief.

The arena that Silverman is playing with is the political arena though, where fact all of a sudden becomes a strange blur sometimes. I'm not saying he's wrong, I'm saying it's hard to validate his statements is all. That's why Politifact said False. I think he IS correct, but these pew polls don't automatically declare the secular unafilliated/agnostics as declared atheists for Silverman to throw into his own numbers.

Brainache · 27th February 2012, 03:15 PM

Originally Posted by Lowpro

The arena that Silverman is playing with is the political arena though, where fact all of a sudden becomes a strange blur sometimes. I'm not saying he's wrong, I'm saying it's hard to validate his statements is all. That's why Politifact said False. I think he IS correct, but these pew polls don't automatically declare the secular unafilliated/agnostics as declared atheists for Silverman to throw into his own numbers.

I think what I have a problem with is the fact that people like Silverman have to come up with controversal statements to get attention. No one would be reporting anything about him if he just said bland nothings. He has to generate conflict to justify his position.

If a TV Network or a Newspaper want to do an article on Atheism and Dawkins isn't available, they look up American Atheists and get a statement from this Silverman bloke. Then they quote him as if he speaks for Atheists everywhere.

It must be a little bit like how liberal Catholics feel when Bill Donohue gets quoted as represtenting the Catholic veiw on things.

Just a pet peeve of mine. I'll get over it.

Gregoire · 27th February 2012, 05:08 PM

Originally Posted by Brainache

I think what I have a problem with is the fact that people like Silverman have to come up with controversal statements to get attention. No one would be reporting anything about him if he just said bland nothings. He has to generate conflict to justify his position.

If a TV Network or a Newspaper want to do an article on Atheism and Dawkins isn't available, they look up American Atheists and get a statement from this Silverman bloke. Then they quote him as if he speaks for Atheists everywhere.

It must be a little bit like how liberal Catholics feel when Bill Donohue gets quoted as represtenting the Catholic veiw on things.

Just a pet peeve of mine. I'll get over it.

I feel the same way about Siverman. It seems to me he is more like a person trying to build up his membership.

Gregoire · 27th February 2012, 05:17 PM

I actually got to hear him speak at Skepticon 4.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AiPR74AiGdU

At about 7:30 into the video, he displayed a venn diagram to show how he thinks Skeptics and Atheists are practically overlapping groups. Now, of course, I like most of you, have met only a few Skeptics who had god beliefs. There definitely are some, but clearly not many.

But I could go on and on about all the Atheists I have met who definitely are not Skeptics...

I so wanted to go up afterwards and ask him about Bill Maher.

Stomatopoda · 27th February 2012, 05:34 PM

Originally Posted by Gregoire

I so wanted to go up afterwards and ask him about Bill Maher.

Sometimes, I suspect Bill Maher is the world's first Deep Cover Conservative. A counterpart to Ann Coulter, if you will.

jasonpatterson · 27th February 2012, 05:58 PM

Checking out the 2008 statistical abstract from the US Census Bureau, only 0.7% of the adult population answered 'atheist' when asked to self identify their religion. Far, far more fit into the combination of atheist and other 'No Religion' categories though (agnostic, humanist, general response of "No religion", etc.), as many as self reported as 'Baptist.' Catholic and Baptist were the only christian groups that were larger than the No Religion group, in fact, with Baptists edging No Religion-ers by only 2 million people.

Andrew Wiggin · 28th February 2012, 09:09 PM

Originally Posted by SezMe

That gets a rating of "mostly false".

The nice thing about 'generally recognized' is that one opinion or anecdote to the contrary doesn't overturn. You have a citation to show that they're wrong more than they're right, or do you just have some pet opinions they think are false?

SezMe · 28th February 2012, 09:48 PM

Whoa, hang on AW. You made the claim of "generally recognized" so it's your burden of providing evidence, not mine to reject the claim. Also, my post said nothing about their ratio of wrong:right. So you're 0 for 2 so far.

Mister Agenda · 1st March 2012, 07:09 AM

Originally Posted by jasonpatterson

Checking out the 2008 statistical abstract from the US Census Bureau, only 0.7% of the adult population answered 'atheist' when asked to self identify their religion. Far, far more fit into the combination of atheist and other 'No Religion' categories though (agnostic, humanist, general response of "No religion", etc.), as many as self reported as 'Baptist.' Catholic and Baptist were the only christian groups that were larger than the No Religion group, in fact, with Baptists edging No Religion-ers by only 2 million people.

If I got that call, I would be ready to answer 'agnostic atheist humanist Unitarian Universalist'. But only because I want atheists to be counted. Properly speaking, I could not answer the question 'What is your religion, if any?' with 'atheist' because it's not a religion. If I weren't a UU, I'd have to say 'none', and get counted with the nones instead of the atheists.

If the question to determine how many atheists are in America was 'Do you believe God or any gods actually exist?', and anyone who answered 'no' was counted as an atheist; I think it would turn up considerably more than .7% atheists.

abaddon · 3rd March 2012, 08:51 AM

Wait. Hold on just one second.

The god botherers love to claim that atheism is just as much a belief as theism, right?

So if atheists organised themselves into a group of some sort, couldn't we all get tax exemptions all over the place?

Think outside the box, people.

SezMe · 3rd March 2012, 12:32 PM

It's normal, inside the box thinking. Humanist/freethought/atheist/etc groups simply get a 501(c)(3) designation and all their donations are tax deductible. I would guess nearly all formalized groups have already done this.

abaddon · 3rd March 2012, 06:08 PM

Originally Posted by SezMe

It's normal, inside the box thinking. Humanist/freethought/atheist/etc groups simply get a 501(c)(3) designation and all their donations are tax deductible. I would guess nearly all formalized groups have already done this.

I would have thought the smilie was a giveaway. Apparently not.

ETA: 95% of the world population is not american, and neither knows nor cares what a 501(c)(3) designation is. I thought this insular amero-centrism was a trait of the gullible bleever types. I freely concede I was wrong.

SezMe · 3rd March 2012, 08:40 PM

Jesus, abaddon, who stepped on your pecker today?

abaddon · 4th March 2012, 03:27 AM

Originally Posted by SezMe

Jesus, abaddon, who stepped on your pecker today?

I got up too early, always makes me grumpy.

SezMe · 4th March 2012, 02:06 PM

Me, too.

26th February 2012, 09:24 PM	#1
nvidiot Botanical Jedi Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 1,793	Silverman: 2x the atheists vs Jews, Muslims and Hindus combined. Politifact: False... An interesting Politifact piece here, thought it rather appropriate for the forum to discuss. http://www.politifact.com/rhode-isla...verman-says-t/ Quote: Our ruling Atheist David Silverman claimed that "There are more atheists in the country right now than Jews, Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists combined and doubled." He wants to include not only people who define themselves as atheists, but others, such as agnostics, who have serious doubts about the existence of God. But just as atheists don't want someone else's religious beliefs and practices foisted upon them, we believe that those who doubt the existence of a supreme power shouldn’t be lumped into the "atheist" category. If Silverman had claimed that the number of Americans who don't believe in God is larger than the number of Jews, Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists in the U.S., he’d be on more solid ground. But he didn’t. Instead, he said you could double the number of people in those religions and atheists would still outnumber them. The only way to achieve that number is to include people who may not desire -- or deserve -- to be in that category, so we rate his statement False. Seems to me the common misunderstanding of "atheist" varieties, with Politifact regarding only "strong" atheists to be worthy of the title. I'll be interested to hear what the JREF members think of this ruling.
nvidiot Botanical Jedi Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 1,793	__________________ www.horsemen-gaming.com

26th February 2012, 09:31 PM	#2
Lowpro Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Birmingham, AL Posts: 4,520	Well you just read WHY they said it was false, and I agree with them. They weighed it as false because there's no context to give his statement validity. Now, they couldn't give it a pants on fire rating either, because there's no evidence to give THAT validity. When Silverman used the numbers for agnostics as well as "secular unaffiliated" do not support him in the number of atheists, even if they are atheists. Part of being counted as an atheist probably will require some declaration, otherwise all newborn babies are part of the "atheist" number.
	__________________ "If I actually believed that Jesus was coming to end the world in 2050, I'd be preparing by stocking up on timber and nails" - PZ Myers Last edited by Lowpro; 26th February 2012 at 09:35 PM.

26th February 2012, 10:55 PM	#3
nvidiot Botanical Jedi Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 1,793	Athiesm is not opposite to agnosticism. Sure, he's using the term atheism that most atheists would probably describe it as, and politifact are using the term as most dictionarys would describe it. I don't know if I entirely disagree with their assesment as "false", but I think there's a continual and consistent misapplication of the term athiest and agnostic in popular culture that confuses people, atheists included. Silverman isn't exactly my favourite "atheist celebrity" for lack of a better term.
nvidiot Botanical Jedi Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 1,793	__________________ www.horsemen-gaming.com

26th February 2012, 10:59 PM	#4
Brainache Nasty Brutish and Tall Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Knob Hill. Posts: 9,086	Who are these people and why should I care what they say?
	__________________ Words cannot convey the vertiginous retching horror that enveloped me as I lost consciousness. - W. S. Burroughs Invert the prominent diaphragm!!!

26th February 2012, 11:37 PM	#5
Andrew Wiggin Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: A small planet named for its dirt. You'll find it filed under 'mostly harmless' Posts: 2,914	Originally Posted by Brainache Who are these people and why should I care what they say? They (Politifact) are an organization of fact checkers affiliated with the Tampa Bay Tribune who are generally recognized as reliable and unbiased; they have a website where you can go to see how they rated various public statements. You should care because their website is a good place to start when you hear something said by a politician and wonder if that person is lying to your face, telling the absolute truth, or somewhere in between. It's a time saver, the way Snopes.com is a time saver when deciding if that chain letter you got about the missing orphan is worth forwarding to your entire contacts list. (hint; it rarely is) In this case, I don't agree with their assessment, but I think the way they made it is valid. As was said above, the definition of athiest they are using is what we would call strong athiesm. If the definition they use is more along the line of 'god either doesn't exist, is unlikely to exist, can not be determined to exist or not, or is irrelevant if they do exist', which is much broader than strong athiesm, then the statement they rated is much more likely to be true, since it includes a lot more folks who don't believe.
	__________________ "Everyone takes the limits of his own vision for the limits of the world." - Arthur Schopenhauer "New and stirring things are belittled because if they are not belittled, the humiliating question arises, 'Why then are you not taking part in them?' " - H. G. Wells Last edited by Andrew Wiggin; 26th February 2012 at 11:41 PM. Reason: answering the 'why should I care?' question

26th February 2012, 11:50 PM	#6
Lowpro Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Birmingham, AL Posts: 4,520	Well they're also using survey results and as we can see, Silverman takes the meaning of some results (such as agnosticism, secular unaffiliated) as atheism to add to the "declared atheist" numbers, and then there are just people who are unaware of atheism and just don't believe in God, but have no idea of the political field atheism is in. I think Silverman knows this, but he's playing politics with the numbers, even if he's right he's not going going to get a high five from everyone in those polls for representing them.
	__________________ "If I actually believed that Jesus was coming to end the world in 2050, I'd be preparing by stocking up on timber and nails" - PZ Myers

27th February 2012, 01:03 AM	#7
Brainache Nasty Brutish and Tall Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Knob Hill. Posts: 9,086	Originally Posted by Andrew Wiggin They (Politifact) are an organization of fact checkers ... OK, I thought they were something like that. Now who is this Silverman bloke? Is he related to Sarah Silverman?
	__________________ Words cannot convey the vertiginous retching horror that enveloped me as I lost consciousness. - W. S. Burroughs Invert the prominent diaphragm!!!

27th February 2012, 01:45 AM	#8
Lamuella Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 2,480	Originally Posted by Brainache OK, I thought they were something like that. Now who is this Silverman bloke? Is he related to Sarah Silverman? Have you considered the many educational opportunities that "clicking on links and reading things" might afford you? From the first paragraph of that story: "David Silverman, president of American Atheists..."
Lamuella Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 2,480

27th February 2012, 02:20 AM	#9
SezMe post-pre-born Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Santa Barbara, CA Posts: 16,369	Originally Posted by Andrew Wiggin They (Politifact) are an organization of fact checkers affiliated with the Tampa Bay Tribune who are generally recognized as reliable and unbiased;... That gets a rating of "mostly false".

27th February 2012, 02:41 AM	#10
Brainache Nasty Brutish and Tall Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Knob Hill. Posts: 9,086	Originally Posted by Lamuella Have you considered the many educational opportunities that "clicking on links and reading things" might afford you? From the first paragraph of that story: "David Silverman, president of American Atheists..." I rarely click links. I have very slow internet connection generally and it always takes ages to see these things. So he is the President of American Atheists. I guess there will always be people who like joining clubs like that, but I'm not one of them. Why is there an Atheists club? Who joins these things, and who votes for the Pres.? I'm still not sure why I should value his opinion more than, say, the President of a Fishing Club...
	__________________ Words cannot convey the vertiginous retching horror that enveloped me as I lost consciousness. - W. S. Burroughs Invert the prominent diaphragm!!!

27th February 2012, 02:49 AM	#11
nvidiot Botanical Jedi Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 1,793	Valuing his opinion isn't necessary. I'm more concerned about the public face of atheism being affected more than anything else.
nvidiot Botanical Jedi Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 1,793	__________________ www.horsemen-gaming.com

27th February 2012, 02:50 AM	#12
joobz Tergiversator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: That's how you get ants Posts: 17,495	Originally Posted by Brainache I rarely click links. I have very slow internet connection generally and it always takes ages to see these things. So he is the President of American Atheists. I guess there will always be people who like joining clubs like that, but I'm not one of them. Why is there an Atheists club? Who joins these things, and who votes for the Pres.? I'm still not sure why I should value his opinion more than, say, the President of a Fishing Club... I agree. Why would people bother seeking out others with common interests? What's the point of this type of interaction? It's almost as if they enjoy the opportunity to converse and debating ideas. Nothing good can come of such open "Forum" interactions. The nerve of some people.
	__________________ What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC. "Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser

27th February 2012, 02:56 AM	#13
Lamuella Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 2,480	Originally Posted by Brainache I rarely click links. I have very slow internet connection generally and it always takes ages to see these things. So he is the President of American Atheists. I guess there will always be people who like joining clubs like that, but I'm not one of them. Why is there an Atheists club? Who joins these things, and who votes for the Pres.? I'm still not sure why I should value his opinion more than, say, the President of a Fishing Club... You seem to be putting a lot of effort into not caring what he has said or what fullfact said about it. You could probably live a much easier life by just not reading the thread at all.
Lamuella Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 2,480

27th February 2012, 03:06 AM	#14
Brainache Nasty Brutish and Tall Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Knob Hill. Posts: 9,086	Originally Posted by Lamuella You seem to be putting a lot of effort into not caring what he has said or what fullfact said about it. You could probably live a much easier life by just not reading the thread at all. It's no effort. Things are slow right now. I have nothing against people sharing opinions with like-minded people, I do it all the time. I just never saw the need to join a club for that. Maybe it's because I don't live in the USA and Atheists are pretty common here. Church goers are considered a bit weird around here, and an Atheist club just looks a bit too much like an Atheist church to me.
	__________________ Words cannot convey the vertiginous retching horror that enveloped me as I lost consciousness. - W. S. Burroughs Invert the prominent diaphragm!!!

27th February 2012, 03:24 AM	#15
SezMe post-pre-born Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Santa Barbara, CA Posts: 16,369	Originally Posted by Brainache Maybe it's because I don't live in the USA ... Ya think? You probably don't have a bunch of loons trying to impose their Christianity on you either. Sometimes, a large group of like-minded people have more effect than a lone individual in battling such lunacy.
	Last edited by SezMe; 27th February 2012 at 03:30 AM.

27th February 2012, 03:55 AM	#16
Stomatopoda Muse Join Date: Oct 2011 Posts: 858	I wouldn't consider atheism to be a "common interest". Is there a club for people who don't particularly care for bell peppers? Originally Posted by Lowpro Well they're also using survey results and as we can see, Silverman takes the meaning of some results (such as agnosticism, secular unaffiliated) as atheism to add to the "declared atheist" numbers, and then there are just people who are unaware of atheism and just don't believe in God, but have no idea of the political field atheism is in. I think Silverman knows this, but he's playing politics with the numbers, even if he's right he's not going going to get a high five from everyone in those polls for representing them. ...atheism is the absence of belief in gods. It is not an explicit belief that there are no gods. Of course babies are atheist. Why should anyone have to declare things they don't believe in? Agnosticism regards knowledge, not belief.
Stomatopoda Muse Join Date: Oct 2011 Posts: 858

27th February 2012, 07:23 AM	#17
Mashuna Ovis ex Machina Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Welsh Wales Posts: 6,579	Originally Posted by Stomatopoda I wouldn't consider atheism to be a "common interest". Is there a club for people who don't particularly care for bell peppers? Maybe there would be, if there was a large group of influential people who claimed bell peppers were a divine gift, and refusing to eat them a stain on one's character.

27th February 2012, 08:30 AM	#18
Mister Agenda Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Columbia, SC Posts: 2,619	I prefer to go with the low estimates on atheists: the ones who declare themselves to be atheists. I don't like inflating that number because it means calling people who would not call themselves atheists, atheists. I don't agree with labelling other people against their wills, even if many of them would logically fit the the definition of agnostic atheist. I'm sure many of them would fit the definition of agnostic theist, too; and the poll doesn't let us sort them out. Maybe a more nuanced poll that had options for agnostic theist and agnostic atheist, with a definition included, would give us a more accurate estimate of atheist numbers.

27th February 2012, 12:49 PM	#19
Lowpro Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Birmingham, AL Posts: 4,520	Originally Posted by Stomatopoda I wouldn't consider atheism to be a "common interest". Is there a club for people who don't particularly care for bell peppers? ...atheism is the absence of belief in gods. It is not an explicit belief that there are no gods. Of course babies are atheist. Why should anyone have to declare things they don't believe in? Agnosticism regards knowledge, not belief. The arena that Silverman is playing with is the political arena though, where fact all of a sudden becomes a strange blur sometimes. I'm not saying he's wrong, I'm saying it's hard to validate his statements is all. That's why Politifact said False. I think he IS correct, but these pew polls don't automatically declare the secular unafilliated/agnostics as declared atheists for Silverman to throw into his own numbers.
	__________________ "If I actually believed that Jesus was coming to end the world in 2050, I'd be preparing by stocking up on timber and nails" - PZ Myers

27th February 2012, 03:15 PM	#20
Brainache Nasty Brutish and Tall Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Knob Hill. Posts: 9,086	Originally Posted by Lowpro The arena that Silverman is playing with is the political arena though, where fact all of a sudden becomes a strange blur sometimes. I'm not saying he's wrong, I'm saying it's hard to validate his statements is all. That's why Politifact said False. I think he IS correct, but these pew polls don't automatically declare the secular unafilliated/agnostics as declared atheists for Silverman to throw into his own numbers. I think what I have a problem with is the fact that people like Silverman have to come up with controversal statements to get attention. No one would be reporting anything about him if he just said bland nothings. He has to generate conflict to justify his position. If a TV Network or a Newspaper want to do an article on Atheism and Dawkins isn't available, they look up American Atheists and get a statement from this Silverman bloke. Then they quote him as if he speaks for Atheists everywhere. It must be a little bit like how liberal Catholics feel when Bill Donohue gets quoted as represtenting the Catholic veiw on things. Just a pet peeve of mine. I'll get over it.
	__________________ Words cannot convey the vertiginous retching horror that enveloped me as I lost consciousness. - W. S. Burroughs Invert the prominent diaphragm!!!

27th February 2012, 05:08 PM	#21
Gregoire Muse Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: DFW, Texas Posts: 534	Originally Posted by Brainache I think what I have a problem with is the fact that people like Silverman have to come up with controversal statements to get attention. No one would be reporting anything about him if he just said bland nothings. He has to generate conflict to justify his position. If a TV Network or a Newspaper want to do an article on Atheism and Dawkins isn't available, they look up American Atheists and get a statement from this Silverman bloke. Then they quote him as if he speaks for Atheists everywhere. It must be a little bit like how liberal Catholics feel when Bill Donohue gets quoted as represtenting the Catholic veiw on things. Just a pet peeve of mine. I'll get over it. I feel the same way about Siverman. It seems to me he is more like a person trying to build up his membership.
	__________________ "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities..” Voltaire "The crows seem to be calling my name", thought Caw.

27th February 2012, 05:17 PM	#22
Gregoire Muse Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: DFW, Texas Posts: 534	I actually got to hear him speak at Skepticon 4. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AiPR74AiGdU At about 7:30 into the video, he displayed a venn diagram to show how he thinks Skeptics and Atheists are practically overlapping groups. Now, of course, I like most of you, have met only a few Skeptics who had god beliefs. There definitely are some, but clearly not many. But I could go on and on about all the Atheists I have met who definitely are not Skeptics... I so wanted to go up afterwards and ask him about Bill Maher.
	__________________ "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities..” Voltaire "The crows seem to be calling my name", thought Caw.

27th February 2012, 05:34 PM	#23
Stomatopoda Muse Join Date: Oct 2011 Posts: 858	Originally Posted by Gregoire I so wanted to go up afterwards and ask him about Bill Maher. Sometimes, I suspect Bill Maher is the world's first Deep Cover Conservative. A counterpart to Ann Coulter, if you will.
Stomatopoda Muse Join Date: Oct 2011 Posts: 858

27th February 2012, 05:58 PM	#24
jasonpatterson Philanthropic Misanthrope Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Space, The Final Frontier Posts: 2,180	Checking out the 2008 statistical abstract from the US Census Bureau, only 0.7% of the adult population answered 'atheist' when asked to self identify their religion. Far, far more fit into the combination of atheist and other 'No Religion' categories though (agnostic, humanist, general response of "No religion", etc.), as many as self reported as 'Baptist.' Catholic and Baptist were the only christian groups that were larger than the No Religion group, in fact, with Baptists edging No Religion-ers by only 2 million people.
	__________________ Sandra's seen a leprechaun, Eddie touched a troll, Laurie danced with witches once, Charlie found some goblins' gold. Donald heard a mermaid sing, Susie spied an elf, But all the magic I have known I've had to make myself. - Shel Silverstein

28th February 2012, 09:09 PM	#25
Andrew Wiggin Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: A small planet named for its dirt. You'll find it filed under 'mostly harmless' Posts: 2,914	Originally Posted by SezMe That gets a rating of "mostly false". The nice thing about 'generally recognized' is that one opinion or anecdote to the contrary doesn't overturn. You have a citation to show that they're wrong more than they're right, or do you just have some pet opinions they think are false?
	__________________ "Everyone takes the limits of his own vision for the limits of the world." - Arthur Schopenhauer "New and stirring things are belittled because if they are not belittled, the humiliating question arises, 'Why then are you not taking part in them?' " - H. G. Wells

28th February 2012, 09:48 PM	#26
SezMe post-pre-born Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Santa Barbara, CA Posts: 16,369	Whoa, hang on AW. You made the claim of "generally recognized" so it's your burden of providing evidence, not mine to reject the claim. Also, my post said nothing about their ratio of wrong:right. So you're 0 for 2 so far.

1st March 2012, 07:09 AM	#27
Mister Agenda Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Columbia, SC Posts: 2,619	Originally Posted by jasonpatterson Checking out the 2008 statistical abstract from the US Census Bureau, only 0.7% of the adult population answered 'atheist' when asked to self identify their religion. Far, far more fit into the combination of atheist and other 'No Religion' categories though (agnostic, humanist, general response of "No religion", etc.), as many as self reported as 'Baptist.' Catholic and Baptist were the only christian groups that were larger than the No Religion group, in fact, with Baptists edging No Religion-ers by only 2 million people. If I got that call, I would be ready to answer 'agnostic atheist humanist Unitarian Universalist'. But only because I want atheists to be counted. Properly speaking, I could not answer the question 'What is your religion, if any?' with 'atheist' because it's not a religion. If I weren't a UU, I'd have to say 'none', and get counted with the nones instead of the atheists. If the question to determine how many atheists are in America was 'Do you believe God or any gods actually exist?', and anyone who answered 'no' was counted as an atheist; I think it would turn up considerably more than .7% atheists.

3rd March 2012, 08:51 AM	#28
abaddon Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 3,562	Wait. Hold on just one second. The god botherers love to claim that atheism is just as much a belief as theism, right? So if atheists organised themselves into a group of some sort, couldn't we all get tax exemptions all over the place? Think outside the box, people.
abaddon Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 3,562	__________________ Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?

3rd March 2012, 12:32 PM	#29
SezMe post-pre-born Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Santa Barbara, CA Posts: 16,369	It's normal, inside the box thinking. Humanist/freethought/atheist/etc groups simply get a 501(c)(3) designation and all their donations are tax deductible. I would guess nearly all formalized groups have already done this.

3rd March 2012, 06:08 PM	#30
abaddon Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 3,562	Originally Posted by SezMe It's normal, inside the box thinking. Humanist/freethought/atheist/etc groups simply get a 501(c)(3) designation and all their donations are tax deductible. I would guess nearly all formalized groups have already done this. I would have thought the smilie was a giveaway. Apparently not. ETA: 95% of the world population is not american, and neither knows nor cares what a 501(c)(3) designation is. I thought this insular amero-centrism was a trait of the gullible bleever types. I freely concede I was wrong.
abaddon Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 3,562	__________________ Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive? Last edited by abaddon; 3rd March 2012 at 06:12 PM.

3rd March 2012, 08:40 PM	#31
SezMe post-pre-born Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Santa Barbara, CA Posts: 16,369	Jesus, abaddon, who stepped on your pecker today?

4th March 2012, 03:27 AM	#32
abaddon Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 3,562	Originally Posted by SezMe Jesus, abaddon, who stepped on your pecker today? I got up too early, always makes me grumpy.
abaddon Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 3,562	__________________ Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?

4th March 2012, 02:06 PM	#33
SezMe post-pre-born Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Santa Barbara, CA Posts: 16,369	Me, too.