ATHEISM & SOCIETAL HEALTH

I recently came across a rather interesting article for discussion. So, I'll post the part of text in the overall article that stuck out to me the most.

"Indeed, countries containing high percentages of non-believers are among the most healthy and wealthy nations on earth (Paul, 2004). Of course, we must always distinguish between those nations where non-belief has been forced upon the society by dictators (“coercive atheism”) from those societies wherein non-belief has emerged on its own without governmental coercion (“organic atheism”). Nations marked by coercive atheism -- such as China, North Korea, Vietnam, and former Soviet states -- are societies marked by all that comes with totalitarianism: poor economic development, intellectual censorship, widespread corruption, ubiquitous depression, etc.. However, nations marked by high levels of organic atheism – such as Sweden, the Netherlands, and France -- are among the healthiest, wealthiest, most educated, and most free societies on earth.



Consider the Human Development Report (2004), commissioned by The United Nations Development Program. This report ranks 177 nations on a “Human Development Index,” which measures societal health through a weighing of such indicators as life expectancy at birth, adult literacy rate, per capita income, and educational attainment. According to the 2004 Report, the five highest ranked nations in terms of total human development were Norway, Sweden, Australia, Canada, and the Netherlands. All five of these countries are characterized by notably high degrees of organic atheism. Furthermore, of the top 25 nations ranked on the “Human Development Index,” all but one country ( Ireland) are top-ranking non-belief nations, containing some of the highest percentages of organic atheism on earth. Conversely, of those countries ranked at the bottom of the “Human Development Index” -- the bottom 50 -- all are countries lacking any statistically significant percentages of atheism.



Concerning the infant mortality rate specifically (number of deaths per 1,000 live births), irreligious countries have the lowest rates, and religious countries have the highest rates. According to the CIA World Factbook (2004), out of 225 nations, the top 25 nations with the lowest infant mortality rates were all nations containing significantly high percentages of organic atheism. Conversely, the 75 bottom nations with the highest infant mortality rates were all very religious nations without any statistically significant levels of organic atheism.



Concerning international poverty rates, the United Nations’ Report on the World Social Situation (2003) found that of the 40 poorest nations on earth (measured by the percentage of each nation’s population that lives on less than $1.00 a day), all but one (Vietnam) are highly religious nations with statistically minimal or insignificant levels of atheism.



Concerning homicide rates, Fajnzylber et al (2002), looked at 38 nations (excluding those in Africa) and found that of the top ten nations with the highest homicide rates, all but one (United States) were highly religious nations with statistically insignificant levels of organic atheism. Conversely, of the bottom ten nations with the lowest homicide rates, all but one ( Ireland) are highly secular nations with high levels of atheism. Fox and Levin (2000) looked at 37 nations (again excluding Africa), and found that of the top ten nations with the highest homicide rates, all but two (Estonia and Taiwan) were highly religious nations containing statistically insignificant levels of organic atheism. Conversely, of the bottom ten nations with the lowest homicide rates, all but two ( Ireland and Kuwait) were relatively secular nations with high levels of organic atheism.



Concerning suicide rates, this is the one indicator of societal health in which religious nations fare much better than secular nations. According to the 2003 World Health Organization’s report on international male suicides rates (which compared 100 countries), of the top ten nations with the highest male suicide rates, all but one (Sri Lanka) are strongly irreligious nations with high levels of atheism. It is interesting to note, however, that of the top remaining nine nations leading the world in male suicide rates, all are former Soviet/Communist nations, such as Belarus, Ukraine, and Latvia( viii ). Of the bottom ten nations with the lowest male suicide rates, all are highly religious nations with statistically insignificant levels of organic atheism.



Concerning literacy rates, according to the United Nations’ Report on the World Social Situation (2003), of the 35 nations with the highest levels of youth illiteracy rates (percentage of population ages 15-24 who cannot read or write)( ix ), all are highly religious nations with statistically insignificant levels of organic atheism.



Concerning gender equality, nations marked by high degrees of organic atheism are among the most egalitarian in the world, while highly religious nations are among the most oppressive. According to the 2004 Human Development Report’s “Gender Empowerment Measure,” the top ten nations with the highest degrees of gender equality are all strongly organic atheistic nations with significantly high percentages of non-belief. Conversely, the bottom ten are all highly religious nations without any statistically significant percentages of atheists. According to Inglehart and Norris’s (2003) “Gender Equality Scale,” of the top ten nations most accepting of gender equality, all but two (United States and Colombia) are nations marked by high levels of organic atheism; of the bottom ten (those least accepting of gender equality), all are highly religious nations marked by statistically insignificant levels of organic atheism( x ). According to Inglehart (2003), countries with the most female members of parliament tend to be countries characterized by high degrees of organic atheism (such as Sweden, Denmark, and the Netherlands) and countries with the fewest female members in parliament tend to be highly religious countries (such as Pakistan, Nigeria, and Iran).



In sum, countries marked by high rates of organic atheism are among the most societally healthy on earth, while societies characterized by non-existent rates of organic atheism are among the most destitute. Nations marked by high degrees of organic atheism tend to have among the lowest homicide rates, infant mortality rates, poverty rates, and illiteracy rates, and among the highest levels of wealth, life expectancy, educational attainment, and gender equality in the world. The only indicator of societal health mentioned above in which religious countries fared better than irreligious countries was suicide."

Because some fuckers in here suggest I "implied" something, I've edited:

DISCLAIMER: By presenting this article, I do not suggest that atheism is the "cause" of anything. But that this is an example which refutes the religious myth that religious societies are healthier and have better quality of life.

 

Chicken or egg issue.

Did they achieve success because of this "organic atheism"? or did this organic atheism arise after success.

I think itll be pretty incredulous to deny that Europe underdeveloped (think colonialism) the rest of the world and is now prosperous as a result of that.

Pretty incredulous to say that that success was a result of "atheism". If anything it was the incredible marriage of christianity and capitalistism that made them believe the whole world was theirs for the carving.

 

Funny thing was, they got MORE TOLERANT, MORE HEALTY, MORE PROGRESSIVE, MORE CHARITABLE since becoming more ATHEISTIC.

Christianity is what kept them in the intolerant DARK AGES!

Thank goodness, they "saw the light!"

 

That's not true. And the article you posted does NOTHING of the sort to offer proof, or even significant amounts of evidence, to suggest that it is true.

It's exactly as Ozy said, it's a chicken or egg issue -- you aren't addressing the real issue here.

Idk about you, but I was a healthy kid. I had healthy mentalities, even when I was Christian. And the more a grew and learned, the healthier I got. And then I decided that Christianity wasn't for me and became agnostic.

Your argument is a fallacy. Correllation does not imply causation. Just because the healhiest nations are the most atheistic, doesn't mean that it's BECAUSE they are the most atheistic.

C'mon Lib, I expected you to know this ... don't tell me you're regressing!

 

Now, goddamnit that pisses me off!

I NEVER FUCKING SAID ATHEISM CAUSED IT! And I don't think that the article states that either.

You people need to stop reading shit into things without further inquiry.

I merely posted the article and said it was

1) an interesting article for discussion.
2) That the "funny thing" (i.e. IRONY, NOT CAUSATION) was that these societies became more tolerant..etc...etc. since becoming more atheistic.

NEVER STATED IT WAS THE CAUSE. NEVER.

I never even insinuated some "causal" relationship!

 

I have to say that I don't know where in hell anyone got the idea that I had said that "atheism" CAUSED all this great shit. I merely acknowledged that the irony of the situation was that progress comes when people stop doing retarded...er, I mean "religious" things.

 

okay, but the article was kinda worthless then:

great, big deal.

Look, libertine, your explanation of your position tells me your a bright enough guy.

It seemed silly of you to point this article out, because who cares if atheistic nations are now successful? was it because of atheism or did atheism arise as a result of the success.

that's an issue that can get people to consider your argument that religion is a hinderance to development.

i'm just helping you out here.

and also, just for the future. It's also somewhat silly to say "atheism in society" leads to development when it could just be secularism. you'll have to show that in your argument as well.

thank you

 

"Funny thing was, they got MORE TOLERANT, MORE HEALTY, MORE PROGRESSIVE, MORE CHARITABLE since becoming more ATHEISTIC." - Libertine

You said "since becoming more atheistic."

That statement implies that the growth of atheism happened before they became more tolerant. It's a suggestion of causation.

Note the CAPITAL WORDS. At this point, you're only echoing a correllation that was made five times above in the article. Your attitude ("funny thing was") and your capitalizing of the related states, is suggesting that you're hammering the correllation over again, as if to imply some hidden relationship (possibly causation?) between the two.

If that's not what you meant, then maybe you've become just a bit more ... angry, than usual? I know how you like to argue on the Christianity boards, but this is our board -- agnosticism and atheism. Unless you're trying to make some point about a hidden causation, we're all aware of the implications of what the article you posted said, and then said again, and then said again after that, and then again after that. It doesn't need to be repeated like a broken record, we don't need to have the "irony" pointed out when it's already blatantly obvious. We're not Christians here.

On a side note -- hey! We're not Christians here!! :X W00t! Pass me the sin pie! Anyhow ...

You talk about the "irony" of the situation, "since becoming more atheistic," but the article said NOTHING about atheism happening to the countries before health or wealth. Even if repeating it again and again didn't suggest a causal relationship, you ARE reading too much into the correllation and drawing conclusions that do not follow -- which is still a fallacy, non sequitur.

The chicken/egg point still stands. It hasn't been shown, or even suggested (except by you) that atheism happened before the nations got whealth.

 

people in less-off socioeconomic groups are more likely to turn ot religion to find solice in their lives. i thought this was a well-studied topic?

at any rate, i cant see where the article shows that a relative rise in organic atheism preceeded relative rises in all these beneficial statistics, nor where the article states how studies determined how they distinguished between organic and forced atheism in individuals. can you point this out, libertine? it might just be the italics throwing me off

from just reading that article, i personally would conclude that unhealthy, poor, illiterate people living in countries of high crime rates and high infant mortality rates are more likely to maintain religion in order to cope with their situation.

however, it seems logical that atheists will be less sexist than religious people.

of course, it could be the case that people with religion are less likely to bother increasing their country's state because when they die they will go to heaven and it wont matter.

 

As Bill just demonstrated -- there are a hundred conclusions which can be drawn from the article posted.

Unfortunately, atheism preceding whealth is not one of them.

 

First of all, you don't OWN this forum, Zero and neither do your buddies! I know you like to think you do ("I know how you like to argue on the Christianity boards, but this is our board -- agnosticism and atheism."), but this is a free speech area, pal. I'm not going to extend some sort of immunity to agnostics! So unless you're a mod, get over it. NOW, that's all of my anger about that subject...

moving on...

Secondly, I posted the article and said it was interesting for discussion and that I (personally) find it ironic that all this happens in those areas as well.

You can keep your delusion that I "implied" causation WHEN I MOST CERTAINLY DID NOT!

You say I am angrier? You're goddamn right I am. I am even angrier after reading your remark to my previous post. If there is one thing I can't stand it's someone who tries to tell ME what the fuck I "meant". That's arrogance at the highest degree.

You are very intelligent, Hikky, but don't let it go to your fucking skull and think that you can tell Libertine what the hell he "meant" or "implied". That shit doesn't fly with me, bud.

Read the article and form your own conclusion, and if you and I disagree we can debate it, but don't try to tell me what I was "really" trying to say.

The article never implied that AFTER atheism things got better or that atheism was a cause of anything. I didn't say it was the cause, either. History shows that the nations got more and more tolerant and became healthier societies than in the old Dark Ages of religious domination and I just find that interesting, that's all. You can attribute it to whatever cause you want, I don't care.

I merely find it ironic because many of these religious fools in here think that religion = better quality life. I think the article shows a different story! Organic atheistic societies not only appear to have AS MUCH quality of living as the religious nuts, but EVEN BETTER.

So, if you read it and reply, fine. If you want to continue to argue and tell me what I "really" meant or implied, I am not going to argue with you over it. It's pointless. Because you'll just rattle on and on thinking I'll concede and that's not going to happen. I don't tell you what you "meant", so extend me the same courtesy if you want there to continue to be some mutual respect between us. If not, you may continue to badger this non-issue... by yourself.

 

Lib. Did I say I own it? Did I even insinuate that? No.

You misunderstood what I meant.

I said "this is our board."

Meaning, this board is for people like us.

Not that it's LITERALLY our board, as in we own it.

It's just there, specifically for agnostics and atheists to gather and use.

Christ, Lib, read what I am saying!

I did not tell you what you "meant," I told you how you came off!

I even said earlier in my last post, "If that's not what you meant ..."

I realize that perhaps you didn't MEAN to imply causation, after reading the post before mine. That's why I said, "If that's not what you meant ..."

And Lib, if that's NOT what you meant, that's how you came off. That's what it appears to look like you meant.

Hello! Earth to Lib! What do you think I did? I formed my own conclusion (which was, Lib is implying causation), and then I said "if that's not what you meant," and then talked about how perhaps you're a bit angrier than usual, because what you meant isn't how you came off!

EXACTLY!!!

YOU were the one who said it!

Do I need to quote you?

"Funny thing was, they got MORE TOLERANT, MORE HEALTY, MORE PROGRESSIVE, MORE CHARITABLE since becoming more ATHEISTIC. "

Keyword: SINCE becoming more atheistic.

YOU said it first, and I'm pointing out that you drew a conclusion that didn't follow from the article! Why are you bashing me? =(

And I'm saying that, in what you wrote, it could easily be interpreted that you implied causation, especially after you said that atheism happened first!

I mean, look at what you said! Reread it!

"they got MORE TOLERANT, MORE HEALTY, MORE PROGRESSIVE, MORE CHARITABLE since becoming more ATHEISTIC."

That damn well looks like an implication of causation, and you know it!

And like I said ... if that's not what you meant to do, then you're coming off a lot angrier and more passionate than usual.

Jeez.

 

Well, we disagree. I don't think what I said, in any way, implies causation. If it appeared that way, I have placed a disclaimer at the bottom of the first post of the thread to disperse that shit.

I am not bashing you. Your reply came across to ME, as arrogant.

It was all a misunderstanding on both our parts.

Ok. Now, moving on...

As far as being angrier, I don't deny that. But, I have my reasons.

 

Yep.

Whatever, no point in crying over spilled milk. We're both arrogant assholes, end of story.

Regardless, thanks for posting the article. We DID get some useful discussion out of it.

 

who gives a shit, "this is a free speech area, pal".

midlife crisis?

desire to fuel ego not being met? have to self establish it by telling other people what they can and cant say about "Libertine"? (clearly taking a page from a completely different book to occam)

all an angry person really wants are more things to make them angry

 

Oh yeah that reminds me ...

No forum is necessarily a free speech area. Furthermore, the Hip Forums specifically isn't true free speech.

Forums and other services (online or otherwise) which you must register to use have the exclusive priviledge to enforce restrictions on free speech, simply because you must REGISTER to use them -- they are a closed community, even if that community is accepting public registrations.

Some of the restrictions that the Hip Forums places on free speech includes trolling and flaming, spam, illegal postings (such as child pornography), talking about illegal dealings (such as drug e-deals on the psychadelics forum), and generally being an asshole.

And they reserve the right to kick you out (ban) if you do not obey the restrictions.

So technically, it's not a free speech area.

(But it's close!)

LOL ... that's all I have to say to that. Typical Libertine.

Somehow it reminds me of a joke.

If you make out with a person, and you get mono ... could you make out with two people at the same time and get stereo?

 

Libertine makes a valid, and I would say even an obvious, point.


These past five hundred years of massive exponential growth of our material progress and power was made possible by the great Renaissance that dared to question the authority of religious dogma.

The Renaissance and the scientific enlightenment that it ushered in were the first steps taken by Western society towards our science inspired Atheism and away from religious dogmatism.

Science, material progress and Atheism all go hand in hand, and all begin with daring to question the authority of religious dogma.

 

Thank YOU m6m...For seeing the point without OBSCURING IT into a bunch of BULLSHIT...