More evidence to show that atheism is good for society!
Offline http://www.gadling.com/2007/08/23/least-religious-countries/
Least Religious Countries
Posted Aug 23rd 2007 12:15PM by Iva Skoch
When you travel to Europe, don't be surprised to find that many Europeans don't believe in God. I have even witnessed some alcohol-infused conversations between Americans and Europeans that almost ended in fistfights over His/Her existence. When you travel to the following countries, you might want to pick a less controversial topic of conversation ... umm, maybe George W?
Here are the Top 10 least religious countries in the world:
1. Sweden (up to 85% non-believer, atheist, agnostic)
2. Vietnam
3. Denmark
4. Norway
5. Japan
6. Czech Republic
7. Finland
8. France
9. South Korea
10. Estonia (up to 49% non-believer, atheist, agnostic)
The one that surprised me was Israel, ranking 19th, with up to 37% claiming to be non-believer, atheist, agnostic. Compare that with the United States, ranking 44th, with 3-9% non-believers, atheists, agnostics. (I think I have met them all on the streets of New York City, too.)
The survey concluded that "high levels of organic atheism are strongly correlated with high levels of societal health, such as low homicide rates, low poverty rates, low infant mortality rates, and low illiteracy rates, as well as high levels of educational attainment, per capita income, and gender equality. Most nations characterized by high degrees of individual and societal security have the highest rates of organic atheism, and conversely, nations characterized by low degrees of individual and societal security have the lowest rates of organic atheism. In some societies, particularly Europe, atheism is growing. However, throughout much of the world -- particularly nations with high birth rates -- atheism is barely discernable."
Oh, the sweet satisfaction of being vindicated. *grins evilly*
Unfortunately, the link to the study has been taken down as it has been published as a chapter in the Cambridge Companion to Atheism.
Hello Kelly,
Vindicated how, exactly? The title of this post, "More evidence to show that atheism is good for society" is rather fallacious, in that it commits a non sequitur by insinuating that societal health is the result of atheism, when in fact this may not be true at all; some of these countries that you boast as shining proof of atheism's benefits for society actually have some of the highest per capita suicide rates in the world. One could just as easily conclude from the statistical correlation between atheism and suicide rates that atheism is in fact not good for society. The conclusion? The ease with which statistics can be manipulated should lead to caution in using them as proof for anything.
Interestingly, the study you cite clearly states that atheism is "barely discernible" throughout much of the world, especially in regions with the highest birth rates--so again, how, exactly, are you "vindicated"?
The Saint
Could you please provide me with the statistics for your claim of suicide rates?
If god takes life he's an indian giver
Kelly,
Because the Scandinavian countries are all mentioned, do you know of any notable authors/orators?
Miracles don't exist. "Miracle" is a word given to a preposterous event that a theist considers dogmatically advantageous. Def. - Ecclesiastical sensationalism.
If I wanted to be really technical, I could state that there is a strong positive correlation between atheism and societal health, but I wanted to fit it in the headline.
The fact that "atheism is barely discernible" in countries with the highest birth rates is the problem. Read the other article I posted or even buy the book and read that chapter to see that my interpretation of it is accurate and then fess up to being so blinded by your religion that you can't even analyze data objectively.
The vindication comes from the oft-presented accusation (of atheism being harmful for society and THEIR religion being wonderful) from theists with verbal diarrhea, such as yourself, being entirely debunked scientifically. So, sorry. You lose.
edit: As far as suicide goes, the data show that while there is globally a statistically higher suicide rate in less religious countries, the five countries that tipped the scales are all Eastern European countries with a lot of other social problems. It also shows that the positive factors in more atheistic countries outweigh that ONE negative correlation. Good job cherry-picking.
I've gots ta git B-to-tha-izzack ta plott'n mah nefarious pizzle ta destroy tha public image of atheists n bitchez."If I have a little money I buy books and if any is left I buy food and clothes.'
Vindicated in the way that if you look at it with some thought, the US is 3-9% athiest, non-believer, agnostic, ect.. and look at all the shit that is caused in this country. Then look at the top countries on that list, i noticed that Norway and Sweden are both in the top 5. What do they do. Nothing! They live their nice little lives. No war, no pissing off random countries so that they take down a couple towers with plains (that america isn't smart enough to keep protected). So you tell me. Don't those figures compared to the social economics of the countries make some sense that non-believer percentage = lower violence?? Answer me that dude.
a·the·ist [ey-thee-ist] –noun a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Nobody said anything about a country doing "good or bad", as you put it. (BTW - one cannot do "good". Grammar, anybody?) The study went like this: the more secular a country, the more indicators of societal health were present. The more religious a country, the more indicators of societal ills were present. You can choose to not accept the data--it will just prove the point that you are irrational, illogical, and delusional when EVIDENCE that defies your personal beliefs is presented. Or, you could actually do some research and find that it is in fact correct.
I've gots ta git B-to-tha-izzack ta plott'n mah nefarious pizzle ta destroy tha public image of atheists n bitchez.In my opinion there are three societal influences that foster Atheism. 1. Education. With more education there is less religiosity. 2. Societial ills. In times of misery people tend to turn towards religion as people with cases of learned helplessness turn to outside sources such a deity to relieve suffering. 3. Higher per capita wealth. When people can afford the necessities and luxuries they have less of a need for religion. May it be any connection that religions often ask people to forsake material possessions and comforts? Nobody who has it well off decides to turn to religion because everything is so great, it comes for a perception that something is lacking in their life.
There are more influences from things like media, government enforced religion, etc. but I think those three are probably the top influences. In the countries cited many are strongly socialist countries that value education and such things as free health care. Countries like Vietnam and Korea have gone through cultural revolutions since they've distanced themselves from traditional Eastern culture to embrace Western culture.
Vote McCain, he brought back Czechoslovakia and will veto beer. The Real McCain
Yes, because insulting someone are the marks of a dignified intellectual and nit picking gramatical errors in light of the fact that it was simply a common used statement in society shows the genius eminating from your vast learning in the world.
When I said "do good" I meant not an action coming from the society itself, but the status of that society. For example, when a doctor says "You're doing better" after you've been sick.
Further, secular nations can be very religious. The United States is a very secular country with many people there that are religious. There are still many religious values there because naturally, the country is mainly religious, unless you want to vouch for taking away the system of government we have in place where people represent the majority of citizens in higher forms of government (Senate etc.). Secularlism can also become religious in light of the atrocious evidence of last century.
But that's besides the point seeing as you missed my point entirely. Your entire remark in the title about how "atheism is good for society" is simply fallacious. That's all.
And yes, I will choose to not accept the data because I remain skeptical and I don't like taking things at face value that affirm my worldview (such as yourself). And I will do some research to find out what the facts and the interpretations are in this matter. So until then, I'll take my 'irrational, illogical, deluded" self to school in hopes that my subhumanity won't get in the way of me earning an education.
Be back soon and have a nice day.
"If I have a little money I buy books and if any is left I buy food and clothes.'
Here's suicide rate data:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate
Only one overlap in the top 10, which is Japan. Japan has been an honor-based society for thousands of years, and a good portion of their suicide rate is due to people killing themselves after being behaving dishonorably in some way. Not a year goes by where you don't hear about some high-profile business executive killing himself after a corporate scandal is uncovered.
It's a common misconception that suicide rates in Scandinavia are unusually high. Sure, of the 100 countries listed, the Scandinavian ones are all in the top 50 (so is the United States). You could blame it on alcoholism due to long, dark winters. But believing in God wouldn't make the sun shine longer, would it? The U.S. and Norway have the same suicide rate at about 11 per 100,000 inhabitants. Sweden, Iceland and Denmark are marginally higher at around 13. Compare with Russia at 34. Finland is definitely high at 20 per 100,000, but Finland has always been caught in kind of a crappy place economically between prosperous Scandiavia and not-very-prosperous Eastern Europe.
Nobody I know was brainwashed into being an atheist.
Why Believe?
Ah, so you were intentionally misleading. Gotcha.
I'm not sure I understand what the "problem" is yet. You seem to be arguing that the problem is that the more babies that a country has, the less educated and socially healthy it is, thus it is less likely to embrace atheism. It's interesting to note here that these highly secularized countries also have some of the lowest birthrates in the world--some well below the replacement level--while countries with traditional religious values have 2-3 times the fertility rates of secular countries. I guess as a "theist with verbal diarrhea", I can rest easy in the knowledge that in a few generations, atheists will evolve themselves right out of existence.
The Saint
Hi all, here's a more complete ranking, in case you're interested:
http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html
Spain (where I live) is only 27th
but that does remind me to make a distinction which is important. A large majority of Spaniards self-identify as Catholic, but a large proportion don't care much about following church doctrine. For instance 60% approve of Gay marriage (which is legal here). So when you look at that figure keep in mind that for every non-believer, there's an indifferent believer, whose belief in god(s) doesn't influence their behaviour or opinions. Non-belief is the ideal of course, but indifferent belief is certainly an improvement over the Religious Right.
Nice try, Saint. The fact is that higher social indicators correlate with lower levels of religiousity, as this study and other studies show. You can bleat about causality all you like, but it is simply not possible that this powerful correlation is a cooincidence. The only remaining question is whether people drop religion then start living well, or whether they start living well then drop religion. Either way, it's high time we all dropped religion.
The vindication part comes because of all the bullshit theists like you have spread around about the need for religion in society. A glance at any ranked list of social indicators next to a ranked list of religiosity puts paid to that lie.
Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown
The answer is no. The claim that the percentage of non-believers per capita = lower violence is faulty reasoning, because it falsely assumes that religious belief is corollary to violent behavior. Switzerland's religious demographics are fairly analogous to the United States (80% Christian, 9% atheist), is the wealthiest nation in the Europe (its GDP is higher than the US ), and yet its crime rate is one of the lowest in the world. If social health and violence were corollary with religious belief, then Switzerland should have the same amount of violent crime per capita as the United States, but it doesn't.
(Side Note: Switzerland maintains a civilian militia, which requires every home to have at least one functional automatic assault rifle. As a result, Switzerland has the highest private citizen ownership of automatic assault weapons in the world, yet its violent crime by firearm rate is nearly non-existent.)
The Saint
This is bullshit. An atheist is perfectly capable of having strong views on what constitutes good and evil and most do. Further, atheists usually have real, rational justifications for their moral positions instead of fake morality derived from the "whatever God says" school of pseudo-thought..
Wow. For a theist who supposedly is so steeped in moral philosophy it is rather amusing that you can't tell a simple value judgement from a moral position. We are saying that these countries are "good" in the sense that they are doing better on specific social indicators. No one has offered any opinion as to their moral status, which would be nonsensical anyway as a country can't have such a thing.
Ever? An atheist has NEVER told the whole story? Ever? Wow. That sucks.
LOL are you really this stupid? Now all you're doing is pointing out that religiousity makes countries poor! Which also makes them stupid!
Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown
It suggests that religious belief and violent behavior are strongly correlated. This does not prove that religious belief causes violent behavior, it simply provides us with a strong indicator that this might very well be the case
No, that would only be true if it had been argued that violence always results from religious belief. In other words, that religious belief invariably leads to violence. Correlation is a statistical method of inference that allows for variation. The main point here is that statistically, an atheist society is not necessarily an unhealthy/violent society and that, statistically, a christian society is not necessarily a healthy/non-violent society.
"When did I realize I was God? Well, one day I was praying and I realized I was talking to myself."
This proves nothing. All this shows is that atheists can lead good lives. That's it. There is no indication that Atheists must lead good lives.
Sweden also has meatballs. Does eating meatballs contribute to society?
Japan drinks tea. Will drinking tea lead to a better society?
Atheist go ape bananas whenever Theists say a bad society is Atheist.
They respond "But they're not bad because they're Atheist!"
The same logic applies here. They're atheist and good. They are not good because they're atheist, they're good because they're good people.
Atheists hate it when Theists cherry pick stats, so why do the same?
In the beginning the universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move ~Douglas Adams
No, it draws from the oberved corollories between religiousity and violence in societies.
According to Wiki 48% of Swiss identify as one of the main religions, 39% have some vague theistic belief, 9% are atheist and 4% agnostic. You have lumped the 39% in with the 48 who are actually members of churches. This is clearly invalid and paints an inaccurate picture of religiousity in Switzerland. Certainly the Swiss numbers are FAR different from the US where 82% report membership in one of the defined religions. A country where 39% of the population identifies as having some belief in a higher power is MUCH less religious than a country where the same number claim membership in a specific church.
OK, let's talk about Switzerland's gun culture. Switzerland reports about 300 gun deaths per year in a population of 7.5 million. That's about 4 per 100,000. The US rate is 30. Why? If anything, guns are MORE prevalent in Swiss culture than in the US.
Again we see a country that is more peaceful than the US despite similar levels of affluence, education and gun ownership. The only big difference? The Swiss are not NEARLY as religious.
Let's face it, there are probably multiple reasons why Switzerland is more peaceful than the US. But the religion correlation is valid there, just as it is everywhere else. So at the very least, religiousity is ONE of the factors, maybe even the main factor.
Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown
Do I have to mention Canada again?
Why aren't Canadians violent? societily ill?
In the beginning the universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move ~Douglas Adams
You could be on to something with your meatball/tea theory. I'd like to explore that in depth in the future. You also mention bananas and cherries... have you skipped lunch today by any chance, Pineapple?
I agree that stats aren't a reliable way to figure out complex social dynamics. The argument here, I'd say, deals more with rationalism than atheism (indeed, atheistic cultures can be irrational in a non-theistic way, as with the Maoists). That's not explicitely in the stats, but it's implied by the order of a successful society that they're not sacrificing each other or kissing their chairman's feet. If we use the term "rational," is it hard to imagine that a rational society -- in the no weird reasoning sense, not some awful Randian or social-Darwinist sense -- that takes a realistic view of social issues would do better than one that tries to contort itself around failed dogmas? I'm being general, not trying to set up a straw-man here; I apologize if that ends up being the case.
How is the religious climate in Canada (I know it's not a monolith, but you know what I mean). Parts of the US that are the most pious tend to be the most conflicted and hypocritical. Even here in So. California, you'll find that many of the most decadent people you run into don't use materialistic ideas to justify their lifestyles; there is a new agey, eastern, or other religious "offset" that provides them an imagined balance for their actions. What we do as atheists, in contrast, we're responsible for; we can't get forgiveness but from the aggrieved party.
Poutine.
Or maybe the fact that Canadians are very much live-and-let-live people. Can you see yourself caring if your prime minister had an affair?
--
maybe if this sig is witty, someone will love me.
I never denied that atheists nations can succeed.
I agree that a rational society leads to better progress. However, the only thing Theists are 'irrational' about is their belief in God. They can still be rational in the stuff that matters such as political parties, voting, making laws etc.....
The main problem I brought up is that on the board people keep saying atheism doesn't entail anything, it is simply a lack of belief in God. That is why I think the topic title is somewhat misleading. It's not atheism that leads to a good society, good people lead to a good society.
About 17% hold no religious belief.
Those are stats from 2002.
It could be different now, but Canada wasn't immoral or anything in 2002 or the years prior.
I also heard that 5% are atheist, but could not find a source to back it up.
The only reason I bring it up is because of comments like in this topic. That religion runs inversely proportional to societal health.
In the beginning the universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move ~Dou