Demographics

[Contemporary Protestant]

Where is there an atheist majority? I was led to believe such a place exists (by a post on here), but wikipedia says otherwise, wiki indicates a decline in religion but atheists remain the minority, even in Europe. Where is there a majority? assuming there is a place

[aileron]

It depends on how you do the polling and how you define atheist.  If you consider people atheists who disagree with the polling statement, "I believe there is a God" then a number of countries have majority atheists, among them:  Czech Republic, Sweden, United Kingdom, France, Germany, Belgium, Netherlands, Slovenia, Denmark, Austria, and Finland among others.  That's just in Europe.  Japan wasn't polled, but they would likely answer the same way.

[The Skeletal Atheist]

Where is there an atheist majority? I was led to believe such a place exists (by a post on here), but wikipedia says otherwise, wiki indicates a decline in religion but atheists remain the minority, even in Europe. Where is there a majority? assuming there is a place

If you were referring to my post, then I suppose I should clarify: I never said those counties were majority atheist, but rather that they had a significant amount of atheists. Also, as Aileron pointed out it depends on how you poll and how you define atheist. That's the funny thing about polls, you can completely change the outcome depending on how you word it. When looking at polls it's probably best to look at multiple polls, compare and contrast, and consider the source before you pick out that particular poll. Pretty much like any other source really.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

Funny thing of polls..

Poll 1
a. I believe it's wrong to execute incarcerated inmates
b. I think it's ok to execute inmates incapable of harming society

Poll 2
a. Inmates even guilty of murder shouldn't be executed
b. Murderers deserve to die, eye for an eye

It really depends on the wording.

[Hydra009]

I'd also like to point out that the term atheist still has quite stigma and a lot of people who technically don't believe in a God are unwilling to self-identify as atheists for whatever reason.  Agnostic, secular, non-theist, no religion, etc are common responses to religion polls that often but do not necessarily indicate atheism.  Polls frequently ask people how important religion is to them to gauge the public's religiosity, and apparently, the number of people who don't place much importance on religion is quite large.  It wouldn't surprise me in the least if atheist numbers were slightly underestimated.

[benno]

Most of the world's people don't follow wiki. Most of the world's people believe in some kind of god. I reckon it might be up to the uni educated aussies to save the world from their superstitions. All those who say aye, sign your name on your essays about emily dickinson.

[Contemporary Protestant]

Sorry, Benno, what source would you have me use?

Wiki is widely followed, and its credibility is debatable (some say good, others say its bad)

[benno]

That is effed up. So Wiki is credible now?! Is that actually taught to you in uni?

[Contemporary Protestant]

Sigh, wikipedia is a great tool for gaining a general understanding, and it is accepted as a decent source(correct me if I'm wrong) outside of formal writing

[Mermaid]

Sigh, wikipedia is a great tool for gaining a general understanding, and it is accepted as a decent source(correct me if I'm wrong) outside of formal writing

Wikipedia is handy. But keep in mind that it is community moderated and any fool can edit any page at any time. I can write that the moon is made of green cheese. If you are a college or HS student, do not use Wikipedia as a source. Ever. Just a word to the wise.

[benno]

"Sigh"?! :)

Mate you have a lot to learn. Humility's a good thing to learn.

[Contemporary Protestant]

I have a hunch you're Australian, I said the credibility of wikipedia is debatable, some would say community moderated makes it even more credible because if its wrong someone will fix it.

And trust me I know not to use it on a paper, teachers threaten to give zeros to anyone who uses it

[PopeyesPappy]

Wikipedia is handy. But keep in mind that it is community moderated and any fool can edit any page at any time. I can write that the moon is made of green cheese. If you are a college or HS student, do not use Wikipedia as a source. Ever. Just a word to the wise.

Wikipedia is generally a good place to begin an investigation. Take for example the article on the Big Bang. There are currently 102 sources cited in that article. Many of them are links to published papers. So while Wikipedia may not be a good primary source for research it can be a good source of primary sources.

[benno]

OK. You're right - I'm Australian.
Maybe you should just write what you think, backing it up with well researched evidence? It's depressing even as a 30-something year old to think that Wiki has any credibility. There are actual books out there you know.

Any way, the world of academia is full of people who have nowhere to go and sell books among each other, so don't take them too seriously. You'd be better off reading the original stuff and really learning about the wealth of wisdom out there. Uni people have no idea.

[stromboli]

The accuracy of Wikipedia:

http://www.livescience.com/32950-how-accurate-is-wikipedia.html

In 2005, the peer-reviewed journal Nature asked scientists to compare Wikipedia's scientific articles to those in Encyclopaedia Britannicaâ€""the most scholarly of encyclopedias," according to its own Wiki page. The comparison resulted in a tie; both references contained four serious errors among the 42 articles analyzed by experts.

And last year, a study published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology found that Wikipedia had the same level of accuracy and depth in its articles about 10 types of cancer as the Physician Data Query, a professionally edited database maintained by the National Cancer Institute.

The self-described "free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" has fared similarly well in most other studies comparing its accuracy to conventional encyclopedias, including studies by The Guardian, PCPro, Library Journal, the Canadian Library Association, and several peer-reviewed academic studies.