More evidence to show that atheism is good for society!

kellym78
atheistRational VIP!
kellym78's picture
Posts: 602
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
More evidence to show that atheism is good for society!

http://www.gadling.com/2007/08/23/least-religious-countries/

 

Quote:

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


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
It's the old

It's the old correlation-causation trap.

There is a correlation between societies that are predominantly atheist and diminished rates of certain social ills.

There is a correlation between societies that are predominantly (monotheist) religious and elevated rates of certain social ills.

These correlations are statistically significant and statistically consistent.

We cannot, from these statistics alone, say that atheism causes good behavior or that theism causes bad behavior.

We also cannot ignore the fact that it's safer to live in an atheist country than a theist one.   Talk chickens and eggs all you like, but that's a fact.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Physboy
agnostic deistTheist
Physboy's picture
Posts: 19
Joined: 2007-08-04
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: It's the

Hambydammit wrote:
It's the old correlation-causation trap.

If you are speaking of the title of this article as being the trap (mistaking correlation for causation) as a result of it's causative implications, then I agree with you.  Otherwise, I am not sure what you are referring to.

Hambydammit wrote:
There is a correlation between societies that are predominantly atheist and diminished rates of certain social ills.

There is a correlation between societies that are predominantly (monotheist) religious and elevated rates of certain social ills.

These correlations are statistically significant and statistically consistent.

Regarding statistical significance and consistency, these are both quantitative statistical characteristics.  Since neither of these correlations are quantitatively derived or represented, your claim regarding them is false.  I would stay away from trying to ascribe quantitative characteristics to a qualitative result for the purposes of attempting validation.  This behavior is akin to subterfuge and only serves to damage credibility.

Furthermore, the data presentation from which some of these correlations come from is biased for no apparent reason (as I mentioned in the post you are responding to).  This makes even the qualitative analyses somewhat questionable.

Hambydammit wrote:
We cannot, from these statistics alone, say that atheism causes good behavior or that theism causes bad behavior.

This is sooo true.

Hambydammit wrote:
We also cannot ignore the fact that it's safer to live in an atheist country than a theist one.

I disagree, according to the evidence, the only fact is that it appears (loosely) that it most likely is safer in less religious countries than those which are are highly religious.  You are ascribing a certainty from the evidence that does not exist, otherwise known as a false precision fallacy.

Hambydammit wrote:
Talk chickens and eggs all you like, but that's a fact.

I am not completely sure what chickens and eggs you are referring to. If you are referring to the causal relationship that was determined from the evidence, which I quoted from the chapter in my post that you are responding to, then it appears you are suggesting that we ignore a conclusion from one of the surveys solely for the purposes of validating your claim.  I don't think so.  That would be akin to cherry picking.  "Not my bag, baby."  Austin Powers

The repetitive false precision does not help.

Challenge your perspectives with the truth.