6 ms·
Here's the original report: http://pewforum.org/Income-Distribution-Within-US-Religious-Groups.aspx http://pewforum.org/Income-Distribution-Within-US-Religious-
by diziet 16y ago
Here's the original report: http://pewforum.org/Income-Distribution-Within-US-Religious-Groups.aspx http://pewforum.org/Income-Distribution-Within-US-Religious-...
And a breakdown of the unaffiliated grouping: (The sample size is said to be 35,000)
Atheist:
100k+: 28%
50-100k: 31%
30-50k: 20%
<30k: 21%
Agnostic: (whatever the difference in reporting means)
100k+: 25%
50-100k: 35%
30-50k: 22%
<30k: 18%
I think in this example, religions affiliation is mostly an indicator of social and economic class, educational trends and the economic reality of immigration opportunities (like in the case of most Hindus) rather than the prevalence of certain religions to earn more. It's also interesting to note that the makers of the graph choose to include such small groups such as Hindu and Buddhist (At .4% and .7% of the population) and attribute the atheist and agnostic population to 1.6% and 2.4%
Further differences in these statistics are the age breakdowns of the different groups and the cultural and social trends that influence the senior members to remain working a longer time. There are differences between religious belief between age groups, and differences in income as well (generally getting higher with age).
The study goes into detail, comparing the educational levels of the different religious groups. Compared to the national average of 11% with post-grad degrees, Jewish and Hindu practitioners are at 35 and a staggering 48%. Atheists and agnostics are a about tied for fourth at 20%, after Buddhists at 26%. Gender seems to play an issue as well, for example atheists are more than twice as likely to be men.
- guelo 16y agoThe graph on that page is actually easier to understand than the infographic since it's sorted in a rational way and it's not round.
- GrandMasterBirt 16y agoAtheists: Does not believe in god or gods. Possibly even no belief in the supernatural. Agnostic: Does not follow any particular religion, does believe in god or gods.
- gjm11 16y agoUh, no. There's some dispute about the best place to draw the line between atheist and agnostic, but no one draws it there. "Agnostic" means either "doesn't claim to know whether a god or gods exist" or "claims that whether a god or gods exist is unknowable". Or, occasionally and when it's clear from context, "doesn't claim to know whether some particular other thing is true or not". ("I'm agnostic about whether there will be human-level AI within fifty years", for instance.) Someone who believes in a god or gods is not agnostic in any usual sense. (They might be agnostic on particular questions: "I believe there's some sort of god, but I'm agnostic as to whether it's the one believed in by Christians" or whatever.)
- alextgordon 16y agoBest way to look at it is as a person's view on the probability of any god existing. Theists are of the opinion that the probability that god exists is likely, in say 50-100% Agnostics are of the opinion that the probability that god exists is uncertain, in say 33-66% Atheists are of the opinion that the probability that god exists is unlikely, in say 0-50% One gotcha is that, if you account for the greater number of theists, the distribution is not symmetric. Atheists tend to be less certain (more agnostic) than theists.
- adamzap 16y agoFor the theist, probability has nothing to do with it. I would hope the same is true or the atheist/agnostic. Edit: I was considering the Christian theist.
- rue 16y agoWhy come up with such a convoluted scheme? The "I'm not atheist, I'm an agnostic" argument always sounds smug and disingenuous. Theism is belief in god. Atheism is lack thereof. Agnostics claim that gods' existence is unknowable. To co-opt Gervais' skiing simile: we have people who go skiing, those who do not, and then people who maintain it's impossible to know whether skiing actually occurs.
- 16y ago
- angstrom 16y agoI think Bertrand Russell's take on this is one of the best: Here there comes a practical question which has often troubled me. Whenever I go into a foreign country or a prison or any similar place they always ask me what is my religion. I never know whether I should say "Agnostic" or whether I should say "Atheist". It is a very difficult question and I daresay that some of you have been troubled by it. As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one prove that there is not a God. On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods. None of us would seriously consider the possibility that all the gods of homer really exist, and yet if you were to set to work to give a logical demonstration that Zeus, Hera, Poseidon, and the rest of them did not exist you would find it an awful job. You could not get such proof. Therefore, in regard to the Olympic gods, speaking to a purely philosophical audience, I would say that I am an Agnostic. But speaking popularly, I think that all of us would say in regard to those gods that we were Atheists. In regard to the Christian God, I should, I think, take exactly the same line.
- detcader 16y agohttp://www.lousycanuck.ca/wp-content/uploads/atheist_chart.gif http://www.lousycanuck.ca/wp-content/uploads/atheist_chart.g...
- diziet 16y agoI really hoped we'd talk about the economic issues more than the definitions of atheist vs agnostic... since they have no effect on the welfare of people as much as the stark class imbalance does.