Atheists In The World

[Aunt Hilda]

http://freethoughtkampala.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/atheismmap_thumb.png?w=488&h=248
The less developed the country is, the more likely that country is super religious.
Coincidence?

[SkyBurn]

As I've said before, atheism rates directly correlates to education levels.

Coincidence? I think not xD

*cue the butthurt religious*

[Smaug]

Coincidence?

No, certainly not.

[arcticwolf]

As I've said before, atheism rates directly correlates to education levels.

Coincidence? I think not xD

*cue the butthurt religious*

I am a Buddhist, are you calling me an uneducated dumbshit? I beg your pardon! :laugh:

[Manuel]

I am a Buddhist, are you calling me an uneducated dumbshit? I beg your pardon! :laugh:

He said there is a (positive) correlation between atheism and one's level of education (which is true) but it's not causal.

[Annihilus]

top 10's from Wiki

Belief in a god

Malta 95%
Portugal 91%
Cyprus 90%
Romania 90%
Turkey 90%
Greece 81%
Poland 80%
Italy 74%
Ireland 73%
Croatia 67%

----------------

Belief in a spirit or life force

Estonia 54%
Sweden 53%
Czech Republic 50%
Latvia 49%
Denmark 49%
Iceland 48%
Norway 47%
Slovenia 46%
Finland 41%
Bulgaria 40%

----------------------

Belief in neither a spirit, god, nor life force

France 33%
Czech Republic 30%
Netherlands 27%
Belgium 27%
Estonia 26%
Germany 25%
Sweden 23%
Luxembourg 22%
United Kingdom 20%
Denmark 19%

[gregorius]

arm0z fucked everyone we strong we smart we edoekated

arm0 strong!

[Aunt Hilda]

^ read a book

[gregorius]

^ read a book

no books are for lame people

[Aunt Hilda]

no books are for lame people

no need to say more :D

[DarkSecret]

I don't believe it's about education, it's about courage of questioning a higher power than you!

[Annihilus]

^ read a book

he did:

http://www.netbiblestudy.net/worship/Bible-.gif

[Aunt Hilda]

he did:

http://www.netbiblestudy.net/worship/Bible-.gif

I doubt it :P

[gregorius]

no need to say more :D

missy, if you think reading books will make you educated you have alot to learn.

and seriously ill bet on both balls I have im better educated than you :rotfl:

[Aunt Hilda]

missy, if you think reading books will make you educated you have alot to learn.

and seriously ill bet on both balls I have ik better educated than you :rotfl:

suuurrreee... be a nice, wee lad and read the bible like heh-SOOS wants you to!

[Methusalem]

Correlation does not imply caution but logical thinking does not exist among atheists.

[Annihilus]

Correlation does not imply caution but logical thinking does not exist among atheists.

explain

[Manuel]

explain

What do you want him to explain? He's just making stuff up.

[gregorius]

suuurrreee... be a nice, wee lad and read the bible like heh-SOOS wants you to!

take a hike with your books proleet

[Aunt Hilda]

take a hike with your books

ok, i will

[arcticwolf]

Correlation does not imply caution but logical thinking does not exist among atheists.

This must be the funnies (most ridiculous) shit I've read in a very long time! This takes the cake. LOL

[Aunt Hilda]

Correlation does not imply caution but logical thinking does not exist among Highland Warriors/Semitic/Cushitic people
.
fixed

[SkyBurn]

fixed

HEY! Don't insult the Semitic peoples! :p

But no, ZnZn has no idea what he's on about. I don't think he grasps the idea of the burden of proof.

[Methusalem]

explain

Atheists believe that 'God' does not exist but....
If 'God' is an allmighty, unassailable, irrefutable, superior being, how can humans disprove or prove his existence?
Also their is no burden of proof to prove the existence of an allmighty instance since it is impossible, irrational and illogical to prove or disprove the non-existence or existence of an allmighty, unassailable, irrefutable, superior being a.k.a. God for a subjective, powerless human being endued with a limited human sense.

[Methusalem]

fixed

Racist.

http://www.kleinepause.net/files/kp/0bc13884116c5dafd8bb47995feecf38/bilder-image/kleinepause.4mal.de-son-disappoint-04.jpg

[SkyBurn]

Atheists believe that 'God' does not exist but....
If 'God' is an allmighty, unassailable, irrefutable, superior being, how can humans disprove or prove his existence?
Also their is no burden of proof to prove the existence of an allmighty instance since it is impossible, irrational and illogical to prove or disprove the non-existence or existence of an allmighty, unassailable, irrefutable, superior being a.k.a. God for a subjective, powerless human being endued with a limited human sense.

Therefore, Jesus/Mohammed/insert-figure-here must be right, and we should agree with their ancient values and outdated customs. Even if we don't believe in them from our hearts.

[Aunt Hilda]

HEY! Don't insult the Semitic peoples! :p

i was TRYING to use his own logic.


Racist.


lol, how ironic.

[Methusalem]

Therefore, Jesus/Mohammed/insert-figure-here must be right, and we should agree with their ancient values and outdated customs. Even if we don't believe in them from our hearts.

Noone says that you have to. It is possible that God does not exist as it is possible that God does not exist. Religious and atheist people don't know what they are talking about. They are just believers.

[Annihilus]

Atheists believe that 'God' does not exist but....
If 'God' is an allmighty, unassailable, irrefutable, superior being, how can humans disprove or prove his existence?
Also their is no burden of proof to prove the existence of an allmighty instance since it is impossible, irrational and illogical to prove or disprove the non-existence or existence of an allmighty, unassailable, irrefutable, superior being a.k.a. God for a subjective, powerless human being endued with a limited human sense.

With this logic everything exists, I visited a smurf village a couple of days a go and it's true smurfberries are yummy:thumb001:

[DarkSecret]

Atheists believe that 'God' does not exist but....
If 'God' is an allmighty, unassailable, irrefutable, superior being, how can humans disprove or prove his existence?
Also their is no burden of proof to prove the existence of an allmighty instance since it is impossible, irrational and illogical to prove or disprove the non-existence or existence of an allmighty, unassailable, irrefutable, superior being a.k.a. God for a subjective, powerless human being endued with a limited human sense.

Yeah that's why I am agnostic...In case that he exists I prepared my defense speech. lol

[Neanderthal]

boks r for stoopid ppl and gays i hate books

[Methusalem]

Atheists claim that they know that God does not exist. But that's highly irrational.

[Aunt Hilda]

Atheists claim that they know that God does not exist. But that's highly irrational.

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mb9wazovH71rnvwt1.gif

[arcticwolf]

Therefore, Jesus/Mohammed/insert-figure-here must be right, and we should agree with their ancient values and outdated customs. Even if we don't believe in them from our hearts.

Finally something logical from you! :laugh:

Einstein was an atheist therefore all he dreamed up is a bullshit according to the intellectual ultra logical ZnZn. LOL

[Methusalem]

With this logic everything exists, I visited a smurf village a couple of days a go and it's true smurfberries are yummy:thumb001:

Nope only allmighty beings beyond human imagination would exist with this explanation.

[gregorius]

boks r for stoopid ppl and gays i hate books

thats right my bro

[DarkSecret]

boks r for stoopid ppl and gays i hate books

I haven't seen such a funny sentence like this in my life. Thanks haha:D Books have been my best friends in my life and will be forever. It's wonderful to see the world and even more on a simple paper.

[Aunt Hilda]

Atheists believe that 'God' does not exist but....
If 'God' is an allmighty, unassailable, irrefutable, superior being, how can humans disprove or prove his existence?
Also their is no burden of proof to prove the existence of an allmighty instance since it is impossible, irrational and illogical to prove or disprove the non-existence or existence of an allmighty, unassailable, irrefutable, superior being a.k.a. God for a subjective, powerless human being endued with a limited human sense.

reminds me of the Invisible Pink Unicorn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/49/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn.svg/236px-Invisible_Pink_Unicorn.svg.png

[Methusalem]

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mb9wazovH71rnvwt1.gif

Arguing with atheists is like arguing with feminists, nazis, leftists, islamists, mormons, scientology people, vegetarians etc. etc.

[Annihilus]

Nope only allmighty beings beyond human imagination would exist with this explanation.

Well if almighty beings exist they can create what ever the hell they like including smurfs.

[gregorius]

I haven't seen such a funny sentence like this in my life. Thanks haha:D Books have been my best friends in my life and will be forever. It's wonderful to see the world and even more on a simple paper.

me like ipadz more, im leftist save teh treez

[Baluarte]

China looks well developed

[DarkSecret]

me like ipadz more, im leftist save teh treez

I can't manage to like reading something on an electronic device. I think I am gonna be old-school about that...

[Manuel]

Atheists believe that 'God' does not exist but....
If 'God' is an allmighty, unassailable, irrefutable, superior being, how can humans disprove or prove his existence?
Also their is no burden of proof to prove the existence of an allmighty instance since it is impossible, irrational and illogical to prove or disprove the non-existence or existence of an allmighty, unassailable, irrefutable, superior being a.k.a. God for a subjective, powerless human being endued with a limited human sense.

Huge if. There are people who deny that the traditional Abrahamic God (Jewish, Christian, Muslim) can exist because the attributes ascribed to Him are contradictory in light of human experience.

That argument goes right back to Epicurus's trilemma.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

If the argument is correct then the concept of God (conventionally conceived) is incoherent - contradictory. Like a square circle or a married bachelor.

Now maybe the argument is right maybe it is wrong but it's certainly not illogical and it does show that at very least, "perfect", "all mighty", whatever beings can not exist (not that they do not exist, they can not exist by definition).

[gregorius]

I can't manage to like reading something on an electronic device. I think I am gonna be old-school about that...

i dont read, i know everything i need to know

[SkyBurn]

Okay, little pointer, because I'm seeing the whole "Atheists are illogical because they fully believe that he doesn't exist blah blah":

Few people are full atheists. Not even Richard Dawkins thinks he's the atheist where he knows God does not exist. That's highly illogical.

Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive. Almost every atheist is an agnostic-atheist, but drop the first bit because it's implied. We don't know that God does not exist. But the chances are pretty damn high when you look from a logical perspective.

[Methusalem]

Huge if. There are people who deny that the traditional Abrahamic God (Jewish, Christian, Muslim) can exist because the attributes ascribed to Him are contradictory in light of human experience.

That argument goes right back to Epicurus's trilemma.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

If the argument is correct then the concept of God (conventionally conceived) is incoherent - contradictory. Like a square circle or a married bachelor.

Now maybe the argument is right maybe it is wrong but it's certainly not illogical and it does show that at very least, "perfect", "all mighty", whatever beings can not exist (not that they do not exist, they can not exist by definition).

That's still not a proof just a pseudo-explanation based on a subjective premise ('God is willing to prevent evil'). 'God' could be as well not willing to prevent evil.

[Aunt Hilda]

That's still not a proof just a pseudo-explanation based on a subjective premise ('God is willing to prevent evil'). 'God' could be as well not willing to prevent evil.

reminds me of this quote


Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
- Epicurus [341–270 B.C.]

[Manuel]

That's still not a proof just a pseudo-explanation based on a subjective premise ('God is willing to prevent evil'). 'God' could be as well not willing to prevent evil.

If you're saying God is "perfect" (as you did), you have to give an account of his perfection. Asserting he is not willing to prevent evil (whilst maintaining that he is perfect) is just that, an assertion. If you want to argue, give reasons, don't just assert shit.


reminds me of this quote


- Epicurus [341–270 B.C.]

Way ahead of you...

[Methusalem]

Okay, little pointer, because I'm seeing the whole "Atheists are illogical because they fully believe that he doesn't exist blah blah":

Few people are full atheists. Not even Richard Dawkins thinks he's the atheist where he knows God does not exist. That's highly illogical.

Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive. Almost every atheist is an agnostic-atheist, but drop the first bit because it's implied. We don't know that God does not exist. But the chances are pretty damn high when you look from a logical perspective.

Makes no sense.


Agnosticism is the view that the existence or non-existence of any deity is unknown and possibly unknowable.


Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.

You can't serve two masters. Either you are an illogical atheist or a logical agnostic.


But the chances are pretty damn high when you look from a logical perspective.

Logical from a subjective anthroprocentric viewpoint maybe.

[Annihilus]

That's still not a proof just a pseudo-explanation based on a subjective premise ('God is willing to prevent evil'). 'God' could be as well not willing to prevent evil.

Logic dictates that chance can never be zero, so yes god can exist, but I must add if god does exist it must be put on trial in The Hague.

[DarkSecret]

i dont read, i know everything i need to know

Yeah you don't need to read to learn how to go to toilet.

[Methusalem]

If you're saying God is "perfect" (as you did), you have to give an account of his perfection. Asserting he is not willing to prevent evil (whilst maintaining that he is perfect) is just that, an assertion. If you want to argue, give reasons, don't just assert shit.



Don't get mad and shit buddy. It is also just an assertion that God is willing to prevent evil. don't get mad if you ain't able to argue.

[gregorius]

Yeah you don't need to read to learn how to go to toilet.

exactly,

[arcticwolf]

Logic dictates that chance can never be zero, so yes god can exist, but I must add if god does exist it must be put on trial in The Hague.

What he is missing in his ultimate logic :laugh: is that there is a possibility that intelligence just exists as a part of reality, there is absolutely no logical need for a personal God or a plan at all. I don't think he grasps the idea.

[Manuel]

Don't get mad and shit buddy. It is also just an assertion that God is willing to prevent evil. don't get mad if you ain't able to argue.

I'm mad because?

It's not an assertion to say that God is perfect (which means among other things morally perfect, all good) and then say that God is willing to prevent evil because that is what morally perfect, all good beings would do. It's a perfectly good reason to prevent evil if you're a morally perfect, all powerful being worthy of worship.

[SkyBurn]

Makes no sense.

Like pretty much all your arguments above; seriously, I think you're confusing yourself.


You can't serve two masters. Either you are an illogical atheist or a logical agnostic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism

Just skim the first paragraph. It is far from an impossibility. I'm not making this shit up.


Logical from a subjective anthroprocentric viewpoint maybe.

I can't possibly know many things about the universe and higher powers. So why would I assume religious details about these things like you do?

[gregorius]

bookz :puke:

[Methusalem]

I'm mad because?

It's not an assertion to say that God is perfect (which means among other things morally perfect, all good) and then say that God is willing to prevent evil because that is what morally perfect, all good beings would do. It's a perfectly good reason to prevent evil if you're a morally perfect, all powerful being worthy of worship.

Perfect in which sense?

[Scholarios]

North Korea is the most atheist country in the world, let's be honest.

[gregorius]

helhammer u feelin' me brah?

[Manuel]

Perfect in which sense?

That was precisely my point when I quoted you but you choose to ignore it and play the superior card. This was what I asked.


If you're saying God is "perfect" (as you did), you have to give an account of his perfection.

I'm going with the traditional Abrahamic God and the attributes ascribed to Him.

[Methusalem]

Like pretty much all your arguments above; seriously, I think you're confusing yourself.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism

Just skim the first paragraph. It is far from an impossibility. I'm not making this shit up.


So they are basically agnostic with a religious touch?^^


I can't possibly know many things about the universe and higher powers. So why would I assume religious details about these things like you do?

Don't get what you mean.

[Aunt Hilda]

I wish you guys would pay more attention to the phrasing of my premise ''The less developed the country is, the more likely that country is super religious. ''

[SkyBurn]

So they are basically agnostic with a religious touch?^^



Don't get what you mean.

You should improve your comprehension skillz :p

[Neanderthal]

I wish you guys would pay more attention to the phrasing of my premise ''The less developed the country is, the more likely that country is super religious. ''

mexico is great country we have tacos and hookers and marihuana what is better than that??

[Neanderthal]

europe

europe not a country bwahahaha you so dumb! people who read book iz dumb :laugh:

[Scholarios]

I wish you guys would pay more attention to the phrasing of my premise ''The less developed the country is, the more likely that country is super religious. ''

But is that really a useful correlation? The U.S. is one of the most (if not the most) developed nation in the world, but often characterized as "religious". North Korea is usually considered one of the least developed and is atheist. And how to classify African countries?

Now look at it this way, Moldova and Romania are undeveloped... is it because they are religious ? Or is there some other wider cultural issue? This point is illustrated perfectly when we look at a country like Albania, officially and strongly atheist and yet one of the poorest in Europe. However, when we realize that Albania and Moldova, Macedonia are part of the same long term historical, cultural sphere it makes more sense.

Reductionism is poison.

[Manuel]

But is that really a useful correlation? The U.S. is one of the most (if not the most) developed nation in the world, but often characterized as "religious". North Korea is usually considered one of the least developed and is atheist. And how to classify African countries?

Now look at it this way, Moldova and Romania are undeveloped... is it because they are religious ? Or is there some other wider cultural issue? This point is illustrated perfectly when we look at a country like Albania, officially and strongly atheist and yet one of the poorest in Europe. However, when we realize that Albania and Moldova, Macedonia are part of the same long term historical, cultural sphere it makes more sense.

Reductionism is poison.

You can also derive similar correlations within countries and, in the US, within the different states. E.g. Northeastern US states, California, etc vs the states within the so-called Bible belt (Southern states). I assume you'll find a positive correlation there as well.

[Lemon Kush]

But is that really a useful correlation? The U.S. is one of the most (if not the most) developed nation in the world, but often characterized as "religious". North Korea is usually considered one of the least developed and is atheist. And how to classify African countries?

Now look at it this way, Moldova and Romania are undeveloped... is it because they are religious ? Or is there some other wider cultural issue? This point is illustrated perfectly when we look at a country like Albania, officially and strongly atheist and yet one of the poorest in Europe. However, when we realize that Albania and Moldova, Macedonia are part of the same long term historical, cultural sphere it makes more sense.

Reductionism is poison.

I'm still trying to figure out what makes some countries more nationalistic than others. Ones where people will fight tooth and nail for against any foe and not bow down to anyone, even if they are outmatched. These nations, even if poorer I still consider them stronger, it's the people that count. While others aren't as nationalistic and somewhat more feminized.

[SkyBurn]

But is that really a useful correlation? The U.S. is one of the most (if not the most) developed nation in the world, but often characterized as "religious". North Korea is usually considered one of the least developed and is atheist. And how to classify African countries?

Now look at it this way, Moldova and Romania are undeveloped... is it because they are religious ? Or is there some other wider cultural issue? This point is illustrated perfectly when we look at a country like Albania, officially and strongly atheist and yet one of the poorest in Europe. However, when we realize that Albania and Moldova, Macedonia are part of the same long term historical, cultural sphere it makes more sense.

Reductionism is poison.

A few counterpoints (too lazy for paragraph format):

1. The US is successful, but also highly religious. True. But if you look at the specific states where Christianity is rampant, you'll notice that they contribute little to the economy or scientific development (think the south).

2. Nth Korea is a failure because of dictatorial communism, just as the USSR was. Other countries, like Japan, can be very atheistic and also extremely successful, because there isn't dictatorial communism at play.

3. The African countries are very religious, because they do not have much education there to teach them otherwise. They turn to Jesus/Mohammed as hope in their dire circumstances.

4. It's important to note that it's not religion which effects the education levels, but the other way round. Look at #3

5. Moldova and Romania are underdeveloped because of poor education. Poor education statistically seems to manifest as higher religious rates. However, Albania (despite apparent atheism) has been dealt a tough hand recently, and it's government is the reason for poor country quality, not entirely education.

[Neanderthal]

guess this mensche

http://x6c.xanga.com/8e2d864141432134198217/m98187354.jpg

my ceboard is brocen

[Scholarios]

1. This is so variable. The Northeast of the U.S. is NY, Massachusetts, Western PA (highly Catholic and with a heritage of anabaptists) California is also highly Catholic.

2. So is it correct to say that highly religious places are a failure due to other cultural aspects that are not specifically tied to religion?

3. This seems generalized, but I agree that Christian-Judaism is a religion of hope. Christianity and Judaism are also the religions of enterprise and capitalism, however.

4. I don't believe it's a direct causation in any one direction, but a complex a non-binary relationship. See my initial premise

5. So Romania and Moldova are free of corruption in their government?

[SkyBurn]

1. Northeast is incomparable to the South in terms of religiousity (I've decided that's a word)

2. No. Lack of national education tends to result in poor country stats. Lack of education also tends to result in higher religious levels. Therefore, shittier countries tend to be more religious.

3. Everything I'm saying here is generalised :p It's hard not too in a macro-economic/religious context.

4. Not direct causation, but an indirect causation IMO

5. Romania and Moldova have corruption, which is why they're also shit. Obviously, government corruption will have a greater impact than religiousness and education in terms of a country's stats.

[Manuel]

1. This is so variable. The Northeast of the U.S. is NY, Massachusetts, Western PA (highly Catholic and with a heritage of anabaptists) California is also highly Catholic.

2. So is it correct to say that highly religious places are a failure due to other cultural aspects that are not specifically tied to religion?

3. This seems generalized, but I agree that Christian-Judaism is a religion of hope. Christianity and Judaism are also the religions of enterprise and capitalism, however.

4. I don't believe it's a direct causation in any one direction, but a complex a non-binary relationship. See my initial premise

5. So Romania and Moldova are free of corruption in their government?

See Church attendance (http://www.gallup.com/poll/125999/mississippians-go-church-most-vermonters-least.aspx)for example.

"Well over half of all residents in a number of Southern states and Utah report attending religious services weekly or almost every week, compared to below a third who attend frequently in New England and several Western states. At the extremes, the range in average church attendance between Mississippi and Vermont is 40 points."

Check the states with the lowest rates of Church attendance. Virtually all are concentrated in the Northeastern US (the usual suspects) and West. Highest among the Southern states.

I said in my first post there's no causal link ofc.

[Scholarios]

Okay, yes. Church attendance. Tied to the traditional- traditional pre-modern ways of life, that also, coincidentally involved religion. i.e. church attendance.

I'd add that the Japanese are inherently a spiritual and religious culture, though typified as atheist by some here. But they aren't all atheists. Hell, their king and constitutional head of state is literally a god. It's just that their traditional way of life allowed for modern development.

I'd add that traditionally Orthodox Europe has a difficult time to submit itself to secular authority since the separation of Church and State that characterized Romantic nationalist revolutions (where the state itself assumed the spiritual character of the people). Cesaropapism characterized the rule of the Byzantines, Bulgarians, Kievan Rus. I believe this is why Greeks and Albanians and Turks simply cannot take the rule of law seriously in their countries and why corruption is out of control. So in fact, it's not exactly religion that is the issue, but the initial tie of religion to state and the unnatural (but necessary imho) breaking of those ties in the modern era.

It's just much more complicated than people want to make it.

[Lemon Kush]

I don't think that a country should be completely irreligious, it weakens it. Usually liberals and left wingers promote this.

[RussiaPrussia]

http://freethoughtkampala.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/atheismmap_thumb.png?w=488&h=248
The less developed the country is, the more likely that country is super religious.
Coincidence?

we can finally agree on something

rest < east asia, russia

[alb0zfinest]

No those two do not correlate in this map. For instance the U.S is very developed, yet they are quite religious. And countries like Russia that are much less developed, are much less religious. Also there are some southern countries in Europe that are quite underdeveloped and are still less religious then more developed countries.
Atheism probably correlates with not being fed religious bullshit all of your life and that's it. Because I know atheists who are waiters, or door men etc etc. Which shows you don't necessarily have to be a genius to realize that a god most likely does not exists. Rather think for yourself in the matter of religion instead of letting others do the "thinking" for you.

[Philo]

Finally something logical from you! :laugh:

Einstein was an atheist therefore all he dreamed up is a bullshit according to the intellectual ultra logical ZnZn. LOL

He was a pantheist I think.

[RussiaPrussia]

"The less developed the country is, the more likely that country is super religious.
Coincidence?"
No those two do not correlate in this map. For instance the U.S is very developed, yet they are quite religious. And countries like Russia that are much less developed, are much less religious. Also there are some southern countries in Europe that are quite underdeveloped and are still less religious then more developed countries.
Atheism probably correlates with not being fed religious bullshit all of your life and that's it. Because I know atheists who are waiters, or door men etc etc. Which shows you don't necessarily have to be a genius to realize that a god most likely does not exists. Rather think for yourself in the matter of religion instead of letting others do the "thinking" for you.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ac/Gdpercapita_Russia.png

first world according to imf
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/75/IMF_advanced_economies_2008.svg

if russia is less devoloped what it your albania and the rest of eastern europe who almost all poorer than russia

russia is devoloped you dumb@ss, almost any developing country is poorer than russia. The US is only so much developed because of their monopoly on the dollar it has something like 220 million whites and east asians who are less religious while the rest something like 100 million africans and latinos are religious and of course poorer.

[alb0zfinest]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ac/Gdpercapita_Russia.png

first world according to imf
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/75/IMF_advanced_economies_2008.svg

if russia is less devoloped what it your albania and the rest of eastern europe who almost all poorer than russia

russia is devoloped you dumb@ss, almost any developing country is poorer than russia. The US is only so much developed because of their monopoly on the dollar it has something like 220 million whites and east asians who are less religious while the rest something like 100 million africans and latinos are religious and of course poorer.

odd how your beloved Russia is not first world :D
Russia is still not up to western standards. Infact in terms of GDP per capita Croatia ranks higher. And if Croatia is not up to western standards yet, neither is Russia.

They are poor, I don't think I have ever denied that.

lol so because they area little wealthier then countries labled as "developing" countries now they are developed. Lol India is labled as a developing economy yet their GDP per capita is probably like 3000. Maybe less considering the wealth inequality. So congrats you are richer then developing countries if that makes you happy, yet Russia is still far from being developed or being at par with western standards.

You are wrong, it isin't only the hispanics and african americans, there are plenty (way more then there should be) "white" (whatever that means) americans that are religious. Besides the minorities probably altered the statistics a little, but its not like only minorities were counted, so either way you end up wrong.

Even China which is underdeveloped, is very irreligious, which demonstrates that development and atheism do not
correlate.

[RussiaPrussia]

odd how your beloved Russia is not first world :D
Russia is still not up to western standards. Infact in terms of GDP per capita Croatia ranks higher. And if Croatia is not up to western standards yet, neither is Russia.

They are poor, I don't think I have ever denied that.

lol so because they area little wealthier then countries labled as "developing" countries now they are developed. Lol India is labled as a developing economy yet their GDP per capita is probably like 3000. Maybe less considering the wealth inequality. So congrats you are richer then developing countries if that makes you happy, yet Russia is still far from being developed or being at par with western standards.

You are wrong, it isin't only the hispanics and african americans, there are plenty (way more then there should be) "white" (whatever that means) americans that are religious. Besides the minorities probably altered the statistics a little, but its not like only minorities were counted, so either way you end up wrong.

Even China which is underdeveloped, is very irreligious, which demonstrates that development and atheism do not
correlate.

china is less developed but you sure its always going to be? (http://www.businessinsider.com/old-photos-of-shenzhen-2013-2?op=1)

http://www.newschool.edu/uploadedImages/ici/News_and_Events/shennan%20road%20in%20the%20centre%20of%20shenzhen (1).jpg


odd how your beloved Russia is not first world :D
Russia is still not up to western standards. Infact in terms of GDP per capita Croatia ranks higher. And if Croatia is not up to western standards yet, neither is Russia.


ahahaha you dumb? Russia has almost the same gdp per capita like greece, it also surpassed estonia now which is counted as first world country

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.PP.CD?order=wbapi_data_value_2012+wbap i_data_value+wbapi_data_value-last&sort=desc

[Shkembe Chorba]

In what book you have read that reading a book makes you atheist?