As some governments have strongly promoted atheism, whilst others have strongly condemned it, atheism may be either over-reported or under-reported for different countries. There is a great deal of room for debate as to the accuracy of any method of estimation, as the opportunity for misreporting (intentionally or not) a belief system without an organized structure is high. Also, many surveys on religious identification ask people to identify themselves as "agnostics" or "atheists", which is potentially confusing, since these terms are interpreted differently by many different people, with some identifying themselves as being both atheist and agnostic. Additionally, many of these surveys only gauge the number of irreligious people, not the number of actual atheists, or group the two together.

• A 1995 survey [19] attributed to the Encyclopedia Britannica indicates that the non-religious are about 14.7% of the world's population, and atheists around 3.8%.

• The 2001 ARIS report found that while 29.5 million U.S. Americans (14.1%) describe themselves as "without religion", only 902,000 (0.4%) positively claim to be atheist, with another 991,000 (0.5%) professing agnosticism.

• In the 2001 Australian Census [20] 15.5% of respondents ticked "no religion", and a further 11.7% either did not state their religion or were deemed to have described it inadequately (there was a popular and successful campaign at the time to have people describe themselves as Jedi).

• The 2001 New Zealand census [21] showed that 40% of the respondents claimed "no religion".

• In 2001, the Czech Statistical Office provided census information on the ten million people in the Czech Republic. 59% had no religion, 32.2% were religious, and 8.8% did not answer. This suggests that the Czech Republic is probably the most atheistic country in the world.

• In 2002 survey in Russia, 32% self-described as atheist. Of the 58% self-describing as Russian Orthodox Christian, 42% said they had never been in a church.

• A 2002 survey by Adherents.com [22] estimates the proportion of the world's people who are "secular, non-religious, agnostics and atheists" as about 14%.

• In a 2003 poll in France, 54% of those polled identified themselves as "faithful", 33% as atheist, 14% as agnostic, and 26% as "indifferent". [23]

• A 2004 survey by the BBC [24] in 10 countries showed the proportion of the population "who don't believe in God" varying between 0% and 44%, with an average close to 17% in the countries surveyed. About 8% of the respondents stated specifically that they consider themselves to be atheists.

• A 2004 survey by the CIA in the World Factbook [25] estimates about 12.5% of the world's population are non-religious, and about 2.4% are atheists.

• A 2004 survey by the Pew Research Center [26] showed that in the United States, 12% of people under 30 and 6% of people over 30 could be characterized as non-religious.

• A 2005 poll by AP/Ipsos [27] surveyed ten countries. Of the developed nations, people in the United States had most certainty about the existence of god or a higher power (2% atheist, 4% agnostic), while France had the most skeptics (19% atheist, 16% agnostic). On the religion question, South Korea had the greatest percentage without a religion (41%) while Italy had the smallest (5%).

• A 2006 survey in the Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten (on February 17), saw 1006 inhabitants of Norway answering the question "What do you believe in?". 29% answered "I believe in a god or deity", 23% answered "I believe in a higher power without being certain of what", 26% answered "I don't believe in god or higher powers", and 22% answered "I am in doubt". Depending on the definition of atheism, Norway thus has between 49% and 71% atheists. Still, some 85% of the population are members of the Norwegian state's official Lutheran Protestant church. Parts of this deviance is due to the fact that all non-affilated Norwegians were signed into this church a few years before (without being asked), and that signing out is a time-consuming, bureaucratic affair yielding no immediate gains.

Leonardo, I am not sure if any government (unless you are talking about the communist regimes) actually actively promotes atheism. There are many countries with a "state religion" (e.g. Lutheranism in Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Finland - Sweden abolished it in 2000), but the majority of the population of these countries are either nominal believers or atheists (not because of any active encouragement by the state). Some so-called "secular states" (e.g. South Korea, the United States) are actually very "religious" (e.g. SK - Buddhism and Christianity, US - Christianity). Even in non-religious secular countries like France, Japan, and Canada, the government never officially promotes or encourages atheism.

But both Maju and you are right. For example, in Quebec, a majority of the French-speaking Quebecois would IDENTIFY themselves as Catholics, but I would say most of them are either nominal Catholics (who wouldn't even bother going to mass on Christmas day) or atheists.   

I'm surprised too, I bet that number is incorrect.

We rock! I feel so proud.

In all seriousness only 10% of the Australian population attend any form of regular religious services. The attitude in this country is extremely casual and non-committal when it comes to religion. Most people here simply do not care, religion is such an insignificant part of society to most that most don't even see the need to get up an loudly proclaim to the world their atheism.

I wouldn't be to sure about all of Georgia. When I was down there it didn't seem religious, though I was in Atlanta.

But I do find the Evangelicals dangerous, I don't trust them at since they are pushing hard to get into politics.

Very interesting also this quote from the same wikipedia article:

Islam

In Islam, atheists are categorized as kafir (����), a term that is also used to describe polytheists, and that translates roughly as "denier" or "concealer". The noun kafir carries connotations of blasphemy and disconnection from the Islamic community. In Arabic, "atheism" is generally translated ilhad (�����), although this also means "heresy". As the Sharia punishment for apostasy in Islam is death and such apostasy is also widely socially disapproved of, atheists (as well as converts from Islam to other religions) in Islamic countries and communities frequently conceal their non-belief. The surveys mentioned above that indicate 100% religious belief in certain Islamic countries should be interpreted in light of this fact.

Wrong. Apostates can only be killed if they cause turmoil in a society. In other words if they commit treason, or do a Salman Rushdie.
Normal people can come and go when they please. Islam is between you and God and nobody else.

Oh come on, you don't believe it yourself. Only in Germany i dare to consider me as an atheist.

That's a very good point. Perhaps they should, in Omar's view.

Killing people ara not solving problems. Islam must bring us tolerance.When I see an atheist I leave the place without saying kafir,if I stay I try to explain Allah with all my heart.

Omar,thanks.They write their opinion without reading.

Maju a fascist don't say this: Killing people are not solving problems. Islam must bring us tolerance.When I see an atheist I leave the place without saying kafir,if I stay I try to explain Allah with all my heart.

This were also my post...So please be more careful before writing.

A christian or muslim it does not matter is respectful to each other..All 12 willa pay these days I am sure of that..

I am also respectful to people who do not need to pray an god but I want to know why. I promise I won't say an fanatic saying if an atheist explains this.

I think it was a simple but true explanation 

"there is no scientific proof that "god" exists."

But there is also no scientific proof that there is no god.

If you want a proof look around.Who can create a tre or an animal?

Take care.All the books changed by time but Kuran is still original.The God8we call it Allah) promised to protect Kuran and it still did not change.If you still don't  believe please read it and search the scientific facts.When Kuran came to the world some scientifc facts couln't be explained.Scientists found the facts after 1000 years of Kuran came.

Mohammed was spoken to by an angel....but has no proof that he was...not too believeable. Modern science would actually suggest that Mohammed was suffering deslusions

If god does in fact exist, then humanity has a truly sad way of trying to make it believeable

I will translate the information into English when I find time..

How do you know? Kuran is only a book and for sure it could be change as well. Kuran's verses were collected by Osman many years after mohammad's death. So there is a change or lost of many verses are not impossible.

If you still don't  believe please read it and search the scientific facts.When Kuran came to the world some scientifc facts couln't be explained.Scientists found the facts after 1000 years of Kuran came.

please read this article, it will enlighten you well.

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/DGolden/touting_science.htm - http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/DGolden/touting_science .htm

I was replying to your post Halevi. Want me to make it longer? I think that my point is clear enough.

Preciesly Osman what aimed was to avoid multiplicity of versions, a sign that there was already that going on. A very natural fact considering the nature of human memory and the fact that the Quran seems to be the compilation of the preachings of one prophet during many years - something obviously impossible to remember throughtly. Only with modern means such as recorders and such could all that intelectual production be comiled faithfully - let's not be ingenuous.

Religion being a self-delusion "growing up" on it is a necessity. I can't expect mankind to evolve unless it overcames it's childhood fantasies. Things change. The religions are framed as static. Though the faithful are trying to stick to their beliefs the reality makes them to be inconsistent. Omar - for example - holds the Quran as being the ultimate textbook. He even says that it is scientific. That's a nonsense all by itself. Completness, that is what religion holds up with, is inconsistent. Although this might be restricted only to mathemathics the fact is that we analize our existence through logic. Science, on the other fact relies on consistency, thus knowing that it doesn't achieve completness. Basically science has no ultimate answer.

Regarding the human "need to believe in a God/something" I think it has more to do with tradition and education. When a kid begins to learn he is told to believe this is not a neccesity for him. A 6 month kids does not understand such concepts as God, Universe or whatever, and if you read him the Quran or the Bible he probably falls asleep or starts crying. The moment a child begins to understant the meaning of sentences he configures the reality according to what he experiences and what he is taught. I for exemple grew up in a country in which religion was not taught in school. "Scientific atheism" was the concept that we were taught. On the other hand, most people maintained their christian orthodox traditions. So, to make it simple, at home I was told that God existed while at school I was taught that God was an imaginary concept.

The "need of a Holy Father" is therefore a result of experience. If a person would grow up in an environment that doesn't have this concept it is likely that such that person would not develop such a concept.

I would like to think of myself as an "immortal soul" but i find this concept rather not valid. To make a forced analogy, when I cross the street I would rely rather on my experience and what I've been told to do than expect God to lead my steps. If a car is driven by Satan he might not stick to the traffic rules therefore I better make as sure as possible that there is no danger in crossing the street.

The "need to believe" is something I don't have. As I've posted a few times I don't "believe" I just think of different things as being valid or not to a certain ammount. It's like dropping an egg: If you drop it on concrete, it would probably break, if you do it in water, it may get through it in one piece. What I "believe" is that uncertainity makes life truly worthy.

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/DGolden/touting_science.htm -

[/QUOTE]
I fact I challenge anyone to find a scientific fact that contradicts the Qu'ran.
[/QUOTE]

The Qu'ran, as every other book, is not "self-explaining" but it need a interpretation for saying something.

So you can't say that there are no scientific facts that contradict the Qu'ran, but only that one can find an interpretation of the Qu'ran that fits the alleged scientific facts (and then what kind science? The science of 1000 A.D., of 2000 A.D, of 3000 A.D., ...).

"There are no facts, only interpretations" (F. Nietzsche)

I think your idea of evolution here is a bit cloudy. Are you talking about genetic evolution, social evolution, cultural evolution...etc? Evolution - when i use the term - simply means change over time due to the selection of adaptive traits. Theres no normative judgement.

Absolutely. But this inconsistency doesn't really matter to the believer, since the belief is immutable, and everything else must, by definition, be fit to it. We humans are amazingly adept at doing this =)

Agreed. Its just a collection of working theories based on our least-subjective observations.

This turns into a nature/nurture debate, which is absolutely worthwhile.

I agree that the belief in a specific 'Holy Father' or this belief system, rather than that belief system, is entirely a function of environment.

I do, however, from observation and experience, think that people need some sort of explanitory system. 'Science' is, absolutely, one of these, and both you and i adhere to it in order to make sense of our world. But, since its just a collection of truth-approximating theories, it tends to leave gaps, which we then fill with emotional, fluffy irrational beliefs that imbue our lives with meaning.

I couldn't have said it better myslef ; )

Ditto. =)  We're the minority though. This interpretation of reality is a little too mentally stressful for a lot of people to accept. They may be happier for it, too. ; )

I agree that the need is the result of experience (and I agree with most of what you say). However, the child needs a parent (not necessarily the biological ones) and is aware of that need. Virtually everyone's experience therefore includes the need for a superior being to look after them.

The experiments with imprinting in the young of animal species are relevant too. There are those memorable stories (true ones) of the goslings that imprinted on Konrad Lorenz, and followed him around as if he were a goose parent.

While the 'need to believe' is the result of experience, that experience therefore is pretty well universal, and not easy to shrug off.

Maybe not "evolution". The concept would be more like "constant changing" / "dynamic transformation" or whatever like.

*ahem*

without spraying out of topic with the "freedom of speech Vs. islam" issue, this link provides a rather good explanation regarding the major proportion of religion in the world. Its also from the link provided by Leonardo :

  http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html#Specific - http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html#Specifi c

Why is it? I don't find it contradicting. God can have all those qualities and more. His existence can be deduced by the absurdness of life and of all existence without Him as a Source/Creator.