David,
One should be more careful with statements like “every person is defined by a religion so if you have no religion, you are defined as this (from your link) that seem to identify “nones” (unaffiliated or non religious) with atheists, at least in the USA:

A “new survey by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life … finds that many of the country’s 46 million unaffiliated adults are religious or spiritual in some way. Two-thirds of them say they believe in God (68%) … and one-in-five (21%) say they pray every day.” (www.pewforum.org/Unaffiliated/nones-on-the-rise.aspx)

George,

The particular article made that claim. It is generally accepted that there is somewhere around 15% of the world’s population that is non-religious. I admit the figure is flaky but because people are reticent to state this openly in many countries it’s likely to be higher.

The USA is a good example. Openly stating godlessness or atheism has severe social/occupational ramifications and it is the case of don’t ask don’t tell which is unsatisfactory for gaining accurate statistics.

Even in Australia where it is relatively safe to state one is an atheist although many can’t because of family and friends and work circumstance, the figures are not a true reflection of religiosity or not.

20% of the population in Australia are under the age of 14 years shows how the figures on religion are skewed here and elsewhere on the planet. This demographic is not comprised of little Christians, Muslims or Hindus etc. anymore than it is comprised of children from parents who are astronauts are themselves, astronauts.

Adults have enough trouble coming to grips with the concept of religion and children are merely parroting parent’s beliefs. You don’t often see a child with Muslim parents following the Christian tradition or vice versa.

In Australia the Census statistics on religion are not reliable as the question asked is a leading one. It states, “What is the person’s religion?” leaving it very open for the person writing the religion of baptism which we know happens by admission from those who have done it in the past.

There is the problem of parents filling out the Census form for other family members. Keeping the peace by lying would sometimes be chosen.

And going back to your original claim it works both ways. This take on Canada shows it very clearly.

- A majority (53%) of Canadians believe in God. What is of particular interest is that 28% of Protestants, 33% of Catholics, and 23% of those who attend weekly religious services do not.

- One quarter (23%) of those with no religious identity still believe in God."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism

David

David,
I did not want to start a lengthy argument just to point out that one should not automatically identify those who claim to be “unaffiliated” (or “non religious”) with those who identify themselves as “atheists” in a survey. Or, any other two groups, as you rightfully point out. I think in these matters Pew Research Centre is the more reliable source.

Also, I think people (in the US) are well aware of (and trust) the anonymity of such a survey, so there is no reason for them not to “openly state” whatever they want to state. I also agree that the term “religion” in English can have a number of meanings (this fact being the source of many misunderstandings), and a question “What is your religion?” if asked in a survey is ambiguous or even silly.

When believers cite statistics that x% of those surveyed "believe in God" what god is it that they believe in? The god of the jihad, the god of the Taliban, the god of the Mormons, the deist god, the god of the gaps, the misogynist god? Does each believer have a slightly different notion of God?

As to a tiny minority of "atheists making noise", most of the noise comes from the religious who, in order to reinforce their own delusions, try to impose them on the rest of society. Doubt is the demon of all believers and for many, infidels are embodiments of that doubt, it's psychologically less confronting to suppress, convert or murder unbelievers than to examine thier own fantasies.

PeacefulPeace,

A few generations ago the great diversity of species was used as a "proof" of a "Creator", earlier generations believed that the weather was directed by some god or other. Science demolished those and many other superstitions, your theological/cosmological arguments arguments fall into the same category.

George,

I agree with most of that. However, if there is not over a billion people on the planet that do not have a god in their lives, I would be amazed, even beyond 'belief'.

Statistics on religion are bound to be flawed for all the reasons I stated and many more.

The good news for humanity, as a social phenomena, is that the numbers eschewing religion is on a steep climb whether that is looked at in a historical context or a contemporary one.

David

David,

Statistics about 'religiosity' don't address the reality that for billions of people some form of religious or quasi-religious observance constitutes an important formal or semi-formal component of their culture and cultural identity. The bulk of religious observance worldwide is also ritualised, bespeaks peace, harmony and tolerance, and is therefore almost totally innocuous. It is only the fundamentalist fanatics and their essentially 'political' leaders who 'misuse' religious belief as an 'excuse' to attack others and cause mayhem.

>"It is the pipe dream of the religious that religions will all get along and the world will be a wonderful place."<

I disagree. Religious tolerance is far and away the rule, rather than the exception, and it is largely socioeconomic disparities and inter-ethnic rivalries (and related political and tribal 'histories' - including past and current 'colonialisation' or subjugation issues) which constitute the basis of most of the conflict in the world today. Any honest appraisal would clearly recognise that attribution of the bulk of current conflict to religious differences is a furphy and a 'construct' promulgated for political purposes.

It is fully feasible that disavowal by all religious groups of extremist teachings at odds with the application of universal human rights would leave extremist elements 'out in the cold', and remove religious intolerance as an 'excuse' for conflict.

Allah could not be well pleased with all the inter-group conflict between His followers, or the murder and mayhem committed in His name, nor the God of Abraham pleased with Israeli treatment of the Palestinians. Human frailty is no excuse for inhumanity.

BTW: "Physhing" is my term for scurrilous or mischievous questions or propositions which fail any reasonable test of merit.