Could you please provide me with the statistics for your claim of suicide rates? 

 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 

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. 

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?

No, it's the Igloos

Bingo. It's good people that make a good society.  

First of all, it is a fallacy to claim that all atheists don't tell the whole story because a few didn't tell the whole story. In regard to the study you mentioned, income is related to education. hmmmmm???

Second- This study is purely correlational, which means there is just a relationship. There is no cause and effect here. However, I would like to see further studies on this that clarifies some questions. I think Scribe is correct in his good and bad analysis. I would hypothesize that it is nothing about good or bad or atheism that is causing the differences. I think the difference is that public policies and decisions are being made based upon evidence, logic and reason. By doing this we create a better society. Both religious believers and atheists believe they are doing good. The difference is that theists use their religious morality to make policy and decisions that can be harmful. They use their belief systems to drive society instead of looking at the evidence and science. HIV/Condoms and abstinence is a perfect example. Theists beliefs drive the policy of abstinence only, which we know from evidence and reason is ridiculous. By using reason you find out that using condoms reduces the spread of HIV in individuals who are already going to have sex and who know about it even if they don't hear it in health class. 

There's no cherry picking going on. The correlation is obvious and strong. Less religious societies have higher social indicators than more religious societies. It's true across the board. 

Of course there's no guarantee that an atheist society will be a good one and history has a very few examples of bad atheist societies. But we know, for sure, that religious societies will be, on average, worse. Always. 

If religions were all invented by humans, the reverse can safely be assumed. The motive to create prohibitions on things like theft and murder existed prior to religious doctrine being drafted. If this was not the case, and humans were indeed kept in check by written dogma and its metaphysical threats (as opposed to written law and its physical threats), the prisons should be brimming with atheists. We should be utterly unable to contain our wickedness in the absence of divine law.

The irony is that atheists are forced to acknowledge the real effects of actions. We aren't against gay marriage, for instance, because no crime is being committed from a rational standpoint. No one is being victimized. It takes religion to arbitrarily condemn something like that. As an atheist, one isn't afforded an "out" for their actions. I can't harm someone, apologize to a ghostly arbiter, and expect to be forgiven. It's between myself and the aggrieved. You get from reality exactly what you put into it: no power-ups or extra lives.

That assumes a tabula rasa -- that each person is a blank slate without any consistent biological imperatives at all. Most of us are as helpless but to feel empathy, and compulsively seek social order, as a piglet looking for a mother's teat. Your morals presume to be from an external source who decided arbitrarily what to condemn and what to praise. They're not, of course -- if a more credible interpretation of the bible came out saying the only way to be "saved" was to kill all the infidels, I doubt you'd go shopping for a broadsword. Neither can we deny our moral compulsions because they're not written down somewhere.

Atheism isn't a world view, it's a label we're stuck with to differentiate ourselves from the magic-believing majority. Perhaps metaphysical naturalism or secular humanism are more meaty labels, but I don't find them necessary. We are humans, following human motives -- and once we tried to legitimate our innate moral urges by ascribing them to an invented authority figure.

All theists add to the the concept of good and evil is the idea that these concepts somehow exist in some transcendental space independent of the human mind. Since there's no evidence for this, there's no reason why anyone should believe it. So I go back to my point: the atheist's concept of good and evil, subjective as it may be, is just as strong and better grounded than the theist's.

There are many possible objective standards that the atheist can apply that all have the benefit of being grounded in real things instead of imaginary fairy tales. I personally feel that our shared innate social behaviour forms an excellent basis for morality. It is certainly objective, it transcends any individual person's preferences and it actually informs actions.

As I said, the only thing your worldview allows that mine doesn't is reference to supernatural things that don't exist. If that makes you feel your system of morality is superior, great, but I beg to differ.

The social indicators are for things like infant mortality, violence, poverty etc. Now do you really want to pursue this line of argument? How do you think we should be judging societies? Wait, let me guess...number of churches, right?

Apology accepted. 

You certainly did say this. See below.

So religious countries are poorer. And stupider. Always. You just said it again.

Your chain of reasoning begs the question. If people really do become religious because they are poor and not the other way around, then what we should see through history is religious countries righting their economies and finding their way out of poverty. But we never see that, even when religious countries are blessed with wealth windfalls, like the Arab nations. Sure, some people get rich, but the country as a whole remains impoverished and saddled with atrocious social indicators.

On the other hand, when countries undergo social and cultural movements that undermine religion or cause a schism in the existing religious order, we see great progress. Look at the American economy in the last century. Look at Western Europe following the Reformation. Look at the Soviet Union and China. All places that threw off their religious yoke and experienced great surges in development with associated gains for the populace. 

Yes, by all means let's look at the wonderful record of religious countries on foreign aid! First, there's the granddaddy of them all, the US. Obviously, the US is the largest per capita foreign aid donor in the world, right?  

Wrong. The US consistently gives the LEAST foreign aid as a percentage of GDP of any industrialized nation.  Until 2001, Japan was giving more foreign aid IN ABSOLUTE DOLLARS than the US.

OK, the US is bad but the US is officially secular, right? So other religious countries must be kicking ass, right?  We'd expect to see several of them in the top 20 GDP adjusted givers, right? Maybe they'd make up half of the top 20, or even three quarters?

Oops.  Of the top 20 countries ranked for "commitment to development,"  the only one that could be construed as having levels of religiousity even approaching the US is Ireland.  The top 20 foreign aid givers are overwhelmingly Western European godless atheist secular humanistic hellbound sinners. Keep in mind that the numbers are by percentage of GDP, so Bangladesh could be #1 here if they just gave a higher percentage of the little bit of money they do have.

What's that? Religious countries can't afford foreign aid? Iran can't afford aid? Brazil? Saudia Arabia? India? Get real. 

Ahem!  A majority of Americans. 

OK, so let's ask the big question here - what do you theists think the consequences are for people in these countries who are non-believers? Are they going to hell? If their high levels of non-belief have apparently brought them prosperity and not punishment, what is the case for the existence of God?

Belief in god does not provide an objective moral system.

The claim that the existence of god can provide an objective set of morals fails because the morals are still based on preference. In this case, it would be god's preference. The fact that it is the preference of a non-human entity doesn't change the fact that the morals are subjective.

What objective standards does god have for the moral systems theists claim he provides? If you cannot provide a coherent set of objective reasoning for god to impose his morals, then they are purely subjective. If you can provide such reasoning, than that morality would exist even without god.

As a side note, the original article (not the thread subject) spoke about the health of the societies. This is an objective measure, and you would need to argue against the increased health of those societies regardless of if you think a healthy society is "better."

Excellent point. 

Let's see what we have here...

Being Dualists, that makes the most sense.

What do you mean 'no evidence'? First, how do you know there is 'no evidence' and what, might I ask, constitutes as 'evidence' for you?

Subjectivism rules out any distinctions whatsoever, so there is no 'concept of good and evil' in an Atheistic worldview. Your whole idea of 'just as strong and better grounded' is an absurd assertion to make because none of these criterion exists for you; they can't.

You just said that morality is subjective, so therefore you cannot also admit to it being objective. This is clearly contradictory.

But all you can do at the end of the day is 'feel' that way. Nothing more and nothing less.

By what standard (being a Subjectivists) can you even differ to begin with?

No. Perhaps you should stop assuming that somehow just because someone is a Theists that they can't think up to the same level of intellect as you. Your tone is very demeaning. I'm presenting an argument here that I feel is valid and all you've done thus far is talk to me as though I'm not capable of making a rational thought.

I would appreciate the same.

No I didn't, see below. I'll bold what I said:

Please point out where I said anything of the sort. I never said that "religion causes people to be poorer" or anything in that light. I never made any comment that religion is the cause of poverty. You asserted that. I said that poor people may be more religious; that's all.

How does it 'beg the question'? To accuse someone of 'begging the question' is to say that they are making a circular argument. And btw, we have seen religious countries 'righting their economies'. Before the rise of these atheistic secular states, it was the religious running the economies. One particular example is the rise of Islam. When 'the prophet' came on the scene he united the tribes and created an economic and millitary power not yet seen in that area for centuries. Other examples can be noticed in Europes Protestant ethic as well as the early United States. I honestly don't understand how you think so poorly of religious people as not even having any sort of accomplishments.

We have seen that. You're just applying your anti-religious bias to all spheres of life. I suggests reading up on some history and religion and religious thinkers benefits to mankind.

Oh, such as the Red Terror, right? Stop one siding everything as though religion is the 'bad guy' and 'anti-religion' are the 'good guys'. It only shows how little you know on the subject.

What about it? We went into a depression and then came out of it due to the sucess of WWII.

Guided by a religious hand, nonetheless. Further, before the Reformation, much of the education (in the form of an early university) was promoted by the Orthodox Churches. Great mathematicians and scientists came out of the Church as well as Muslim countries. The developement of nations was the primary responsibility of religious authorities in respect to their fellow man and the benefit of all humanity. Aside from the atrocities comitted by the religious at certain points in humanity, there is substantial evidence to show, within history, the benefits of religion on the economic and political health of nations. I really cannot understand your blind prejudice here.

Also places in the last century that contributed to the 150,000,000 death count in their undermining of religion and genocide of religious followers. The "populace" was mainly religious. The 'gains' associated with them throwing off their 'yokes' was more resources for the few while millions were exterminated or starved to death.

Orwell's Animal Farm anyone?

Yes, let's observe the evidence.

First, I would just like to note that I never simply focussed on "Foreign Aid" coming from the State (nor did I focus on the U.S. alone over other countries), though this could be a factor in determining the level at which certain countries give (though of course I wasn't just focussing on government policy in my response). The article undermines your 'evidence' if you actually took the time to read it, as I have.

For instance:

The articles main focus is to show that these rich countries are more about their own gain than that of those in poverty. It also says such things as,"The European Union is linking aid to fighting terrorism as well, with European ministers warning countries that their relations with the economically powerful bloc will suffer if they fail to cooperate in the fight against terrorism. An EU official is quoted as saying, “aid and trade could be affected if the fight against terrorism was considered insufficient”, leading to accusations of “compromising the neutrality, impartiality and independence of humanitarian assistance”.

Also note:

The article goes on to say that about half of all the foreign aid given by all of the rich countries amounts to "phantom aid", or aid that is not directly associated with helping fight poverty, but rather instead is either lost or associated with investments. So whatever the other "real aid" 50% amounts to among the other countries is substantially low. Further, the 'real aid' that goes towards the poor (as pointed above) is argued to be more detrimental to poorer countries and more beneficial to the rich ones:

And...

So while I generally agree that these other, more secular countries give more foreign aid to less fortunate countries, I really don't see how using this article proves your point over my own, since the majority of the money goes to benefit the rich rather than the poor.

Foreign aid aside, I'm talking not only about the personal giving of it's members, but the religious vs. the non-religious in general (in regards to more 'secular countries&#39. There are more Churches (and other religious) helping people out there in the world without asking for anything in return and giving their own time and money than all of these places combined. And sure, bring up the Catholic Church helping people die of AIDs in Africa (or something else along those lines). Recent research has pointed in the opposite direction, showing that increase in condoms has not been the prevalent factor in reducing the AIDs epidemic in most AIDs infected countries, rather ideology has been the primary source of lower infections (people sleeping around less etc.). Here is one source for information:

http://www.pureloveclub.com/chastity/index.php?id=7&entryid=233

Consider it "christian bias" all you want, but I urge you to look at the information rather than mindlessly handwaving it to the side. I respect the sources you give me so much to read them so I expect the same in return.

Now to critique the TodAngst article.

No it isn't. Census questions ask about family religious affiliation. People are likely to respond to them by saying what church they were born into or baptised in. The opinion poll, unlike the census poll, was actually trying to get to what people's beliefs are and what their churchgoing habits are. That's how you separate religiosity out from simple church membership. The Swiss are simply not as religious or as involved in religious observance as Americans. Few people in the industrialized world are. 

On an understanding of polling and correct interpretation of the data. Also on other reading and my personal experiences in Switzerland. 

I said the only big difference. If you can't read, go away.

I've shown you the same kind of evidence that doctors have for saying cigarettes are bad for you. If that's not good enough for you, go ahead and light up.

Everyone knows that there too many uncontrolled factors here for anyone to produce the kind of proof you are demanding, so why demand it? The fact is there's a statistical corollory that is too powerful to ignore. You can't point to any other factor that predicts a country's poor performance on societal indicators, and don't say poverty because the US is in this group.

No one will ever prove causality, but it is certainly easy to make valid, plausible theories about why religion causes poor social order. Suppression of scientific education leading to delayed research and development. Displacement of moral responsiblity leading to increased impulsiveness and criminality. Sexual guilt and repression leading to marital breakdown and domestic problems. Warped childraising values leading to psychological and developmental problems. Entrenched, church-supported ruling classes widening the rich/poor gulf and stifling democracy. Church-supported oppression of women and minorities leading to civil unrest and unequal delivery of government services and health care. Faith-based wars leading to constant conflict and loss of generations of young men. Church-enforced birth control policies leading to unwanted pregnacies, overpopulation and disease outbreaks.

Frankly, it's amazing any society survives the phenomenon. 

And neither of those nations forced atheism on the people by threat of torture/death......oh wait. 

You have it backwards.