Has atheism made the world a better place?

[The Emerald Legion]

You're putting the cart before the horse. Education -> making atheists already assumes a good education system. Highlighting an already prosperous state. They're not rich or educated because of atheism.

In addition, medicine & education are not Atheistical inventions.

Further, I would suggest not education, but the freedom to pursue self is the factor for more atheists. Most education on religion & atheism is utterly poor.

Edit:

1944 1%
1947 3%
1953 1%
1954 1%
1965 2%
1967 1%
2011 7%
2013 11%
2014 11%
2016 10%

The proportion of US population that was atheist. The US was definitely developed in the 1940s, Atheism didn't lead to prosperity, it was a consequence of that freedom of self.

Yet it is the better access to technology, education, and medicine that leads to a decline in religion due to people no longer praying for bountiful harvests or for their loved ones to get better, as seen in poorer countries.

And as I stated previously, the US is a special case.
But when you go by state, the least religious the state, the more freedoms they have for more people, especially LGBT communities, and getting access to birth control.

Not really no. California is one of the least religious states and they're well known for being a bureaucratic hellhole of restrictive governance.

LGBT communities in their entirety make up only 4.5 percent of the US population. While protecting them from discrimination is obviously necessary, that's hardly the key factor in public happiness.

[Nakena]

But when you go by state, the least religious the state, the more freedoms they have for more people, especially LGBT communities, and getting access to birth control.

The correlation is really relevant to abrahamism mostly.

[Gikyvernisi]

But I mean that with atheism we went further, like more anthropology, biology, chemistry and other things that some religions didn't allow studying.

Did you just imply chemistry was forbidden to the religious?

By some religions, in the past

[Celritannia]

Yet it is the better access to technology, education, and medicine that leads to a decline in religion due to people no longer praying for bountiful harvests or for their loved ones to get better, as seen in poorer countries.

And as I stated previously, the US is a special case.
But when you go by state, the least religious the state, the more freedoms they have for more people, especially LGBT communities, and getting access to birth control.

Not really no. California is one of the least religious states and they're well known for being a bureaucratic hellhole of restrictive governance.

LGBT communities in their entirety make up only 4.5 percent of the US population. While protecting them from discrimination is obviously necessary, that's hardly the key factor in public happiness.

And yet, California has good laws protecting LGBT rights, and access to birth control.

No, but the more religious a state, the more restrictive they are on certain people, like LGBT people, and those wanting better access to birth control and abortions.

[Ifreann]

But do you think that everyone in this large region actually suffers from the various dysfunctions present there? Do you think that the billionaires living in penthouses in Dubai are miserable because of the war in Iraq? Because of poverty in Israel? Because ISIS executed some people in Syria?

No more than I think some billionaire living in a penthouse in New York would be miserable because of the poverty in the slums not too far from their penthouse.

"Everyone" was too strong a word, but I figure it should be pretty obvious I meant "most," not "all." The point was, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

None of the dysfunctions in the Middle East are totally ubiquitous. Most people there probably live more or less ordinary lives, and if that counts as living in misery then everyone everywhere lives in misery.

[Celritannia]

Also, according to this poll, California is the 4th happiest state. And as you go down the list, the most religious states are the least happiest.

[The Emerald Legion]

[url=wallethub.com/edu/happiest-states/6959/]Also, according to this poll[/url], California is the 4th happiest state. And as you go down the list, the most religious states are the least happiest.

It's wallet hub. They're tracking wealth. Not happiness. And assuming the two are the same.

[Gikyvernisi]

[url=wallethub.com/edu/happiest-states/6959/]Also, according to this poll[/url], California is the 4th happiest state. And as you go down the list, the most religious states are the least happiest.

I think the URL is wrong

[Lower Nubia]

You're putting the cart before the horse. Education -> making atheists already assumes a good education system. Highlighting an already prosperous state. They're not rich or educated because of atheism.

In addition, medicine & education are not Atheistical inventions.

Further, I would suggest not education, but the freedom to pursue self is the factor for more atheists. Most education on religion & atheism is utterly poor.

Edit:

1944 1%
1947 3%
1953 1%
1954 1%
1965 2%
1967 1%
2011 7%
2013 11%
2014 11%
2016 10%

The proportion of US population that was atheist. The US was definitely developed in the 1940s, Atheism didn't lead to prosperity, it was a consequence of that freedom of self.

Yet it is the better access to technology, education, and medicine that leads to a decline in religion due to people no longer praying for better harvests or for their loved ones to get better, as seen in poorer countries.

And as I stated previously, the US is a special case.
But when you go by state, the least religious the state, the more freedoms they have for more people, especially LGBT communities, and getting access to birth control.

Yet it is the better access to technology, education, and medicine that leads to a decline in religion due to people no longer praying for better harvests or for their loved ones to get better, as seen in poorer countries.

This is utterly tenuous. The real factor in people becoming atheists is that there is no social obligation to become one. People don't like spending a Sunday going to Church. So they don't. People don't enjoy reading up on the matter (pro-atheism/pro-religion) so they don't. It's not like here where people have hardcore formulated opinion on the matter. Most people are very much neutral on the matter, and thus if either position gets in the way of that neutrality, they won't bother with it.

It's pretty obvious. British education on religion & atheism is awful, the statistical chance it's making atheists rather people being inherently agnostics or unconcerned or neutrals is very low.

And as I stated previously, the US is a special case.

The US is a special case, but not when it comes to the proportion of atheists in the developed world (it lags behind a little). Which it follows consistently, like other developed countries, especially going back in time (as in an increased atheism since 1930's).

But when you go by state, the least religious the state, the more freedoms they have for more people, especially LGBT communities, and getting access to birth control.

Is this because those states are more secular? Secular is not atheist. I note also that these rights are not as overarching to most peoples lives than you're emphasising. Women even in the UK rarely have an abortion - the emphasis is on contraception (which became acceptable in the Church of England around the 50's and to a certain extent in the 30's) - contraception such as the day after pill. While LGBTQ rights are focused on marriage in the developed world - rather than allowing such couples to exist, which impacts <1% of people.

[Celritannia]

[url=wallethub.com/edu/happiest-states/6959/]Also, according to this poll[/url], California is the 4th happiest state. And as you go down the list, the most religious states are the least happiest.

I think the URL is wrong

Nah, I just coded it wrong.

[Celritannia]

[url=wallethub.com/edu/happiest-states/6959/]Also, according to this poll[/url], California is the 4th happiest state. And as you go down the list, the most religious states are the least happiest.

It's wallet hub. They're tracking wealth. Not happiness. And assuming the two are the same.

Really? Because it is looking at Emotional and Physical Well being, Work Environment, and Community and Environment. Not really economic based there.

[Celritannia]

Yet it is the better access to technology, education, and medicine that leads to a decline in religion due to people no longer praying for better harvests or for their loved ones to get better, as seen in poorer countries.

And as I stated previously, the US is a special case.
But when you go by state, the least religious the state, the more freedoms they have for more people, especially LGBT communities, and getting access to birth control.

Yet it is the better access to technology, education, and medicine that leads to a decline in religion due to people no longer praying for better harvests or for their loved ones to get better, as seen in poorer countries.

This is utterly tenuous. The real factor in people becoming atheists is that there is no social obligation to become one. People don't like spending a Sunday going to Church. So they don't. People don't enjoy reading up on the matter (pro-atheism/pro-religion) so they don't. It's not like here where people have hardcore formulated opinion on the matter. Most people are very much neutral on the matter, and thus if either position gets in the way of that neutrality, they won't bother with it.

It's pretty obvious. British education on religion & atheism is awful, the statistical chance it's making atheists rather people being inherently agnostics or unconcerned or neutrals is very low.

And as I stated previously, the US is a special case.

The US is a special case, but not when it comes to the proportion of atheists in the developed world (it lags behind a little). Which it follows consistently, like other developed countries, especially going back in time (as in an increased atheism since 1930's).

But when you go by state, the least religious the state, the more freedoms they have for more people, especially LGBT communities, and getting access to birth control.

Is this because those states are more secular? Secular is not atheist. I note also that these rights are not as overarching to most peoples lives than you're emphasising. Women even in the UK rarely have an abortion - the emphasis is on contraception (which became acceptable in the Church of England around the 50's and to a certain extent in the 30's) - contraception such as the day after pill. While LGBTQ rights are focused on marriage in the developed world - rather than allowing such couples to exist, which impacts <1% of people.

1. It makes perfect sense, when you look at the stark differences between the more developed nation and least developed nations. Education, medicine, healthcare, etc is a major example. There is no need to believe in a deity when the access to basic needs increases.

2. Again, it's a special case. It's strong religiousness is due to a number of factors, mainly families staying religious or their continued distrust of atheists from their cold war actions against the state atheistic principles of the Soviet Union.

3. Yet the most secular nations tend also to be the most atheistic. Some countries may say they are secular, like the US, but are actually culturally religious. The UK, Norway, Denmark, state they are Christian by default (Church of England, Church of Norway, Church of Denmark), but are actually more secular, with a good number of Atheists making up their populations.
Until the 60s, the concept of abortion and LGBT rights was not even though it in the UK.

[The Emerald Legion]

It's wallet hub. They're tracking wealth. Not happiness. And assuming the two are the same.

Really? Because it is looking at Emotional and Physical Well being, Work Environment, and Community and Environment. Not really economic based there.

You clearly didn't read their methodology for how they calculated those. It's text book "Your state has poor people, therefore it's bad."

[Celritannia]

Really? Because it is looking at Emotional and Physical Well being, Work Environment, and Community and Environment. Not really economic based there.

You clearly didn't read their methodology for how they calculated those. It's text book "Your state has poor people, therefore it's bad."

And why are those states which are more religious are poor?
It is because their strong Republican ties, they dislike the concept of welfare or government support.
The more happier the states, the better access they have to welfare support for those who need it.

[Lower Nubia]

This is utterly tenuous. The real factor in people becoming atheists is that there is no social obligation to become one. People don't like spending a Sunday going to Church. So they don't. People don't enjoy reading up on the matter (pro-atheism/pro-religion) so they don't. It's not like here where people have hardcore formulated opinion on the matter. Most people are very much neutral on the matter, and thus if either position gets in the way of that neutrality, they won't bother with it.

It's pretty obvious. British education on religion & atheism is awful, the statistical chance it's making atheists rather people being inherently agnostics or unconcerned or neutrals is very low.

The US is a special case, but not when it comes to the proportion of atheists in the developed world (it lags behind a little). Which it follows consistently, like other developed countries, especially going back in time (as in an increased atheism since 1930's).

Is this because those states are more secular? Secular is not atheist. I note also that these rights are not as overarching to most peoples lives than you're emphasising. Women even in the UK rarely have an abortion - the emphasis is on contraception (which became acceptable in the Church of England around the 50's and to a certain extent in the 30's) - contraception such as the day after pill. While LGBTQ rights are focused on marriage in the developed world - rather than allowing such couples to exist, which impacts <1% of people.

1. It makes perfect sense, when you look at the stark differences between the more developed nation and least developed nations. Education, medicine, healthcare, etc is a major example. There is no need to believe in a deity when the access to basic needs increases.

This is literally ahistorical, as is recorded in "The Death of Christian Britain" by Callum G. Brown.

2. Again, it's a special case. It's strong religiousness is due to a number of factors, mainly families staying religious or their continued distrust of atheists from their cold war actions against the state atheistic principles of the Soviet Union.

I'm not concerned with why america is stubbornly religious, I was using it to demonstrate religiosity since the 40's and that atheism as a self-professed ideology increased in the '40s after nations were developed to have education and hospitals. rather than vice versa.

Yet the most secular nations tend also to be the most atheistic. Some countries may say they are secular, like the US, but are actually culturally religious.

Secularism arises because ideologies emphasise freedom of religion. Which is consistent in Christian circles, more so in Protestantism than Catholicism. Atheism again arises as you identify, because of secularism, as if the freedom of religion produces atheists rather than development or education. As I said, when people have the freedom of self they're less likely to use time on something besides themself. Such a Church.

Until the 60s, the concept of abortion and LGBT rights was not even though it in the UK.

This affects very little of the population. Whereas contraceptives, which in the UK were accepted in the '50s are pretty unanimous.

[The Emerald Legion]

You clearly didn't read their methodology for how they calculated those. It's text book "Your state has poor people, therefore it's bad."

And why are those states which are more religious are poor?
It is because their strong Republican ties, they dislike the concept of welfare or government support.
The more happier the states, the better access they have to welfare support for those who need it.

Not really. It's because we've been incentivising off-shoring and then letting in unlimited illegal immigration that drives wages down for the common worker.

Wealthy states are largely wealthy by virtue of being hosts to the few remaining booming industries in our country. While impoverished states are impoverished because they have little to trade.

[United Muscovite Nations]

They also statistically have some of the highest rates of depression and fairly high rates of suicide compared to the most religious countries.

Nope, not really:
https://www.christiantoday.com/article/ ... 127465.htm

Btw, I'd like to point out some issues with the methodology of this. Namely, that it doesn't actually measure happiness. It compiles a composite score for happiness based on a composite of how people rate their overall quality of life, how people rate their GDP Per Capita, the level of social services, life-expectancy, freedom to make choices, national generosity, and corruption.

That's it. It's measuring perceptions, which are notoriously unreliable. For example, which country rates their satisfaction with their levels of freedom the highest? You guessed it: Uzbekistan, closely followed by Cambodia and the United Arab Emirates!

Which country rated their generosity the highest? You guessed it: Myanmar and Haiti!

Least corrupt? Singapore and Rwanda, baby!

Get the point? It doesn't measure anything reliably. It's not scientific in any way. Do we really think that Somalia is a more free country than Australia?

[Rojava Free State]

Yet it is the better access to technology, education, and medicine that leads to a decline in religion due to people no longer praying for bountiful harvests or for their loved ones to get better, as seen in poorer countries.

And as I stated previously, the US is a special case.
But when you go by state, the least religious the state, the more freedoms they have for more people, especially LGBT communities, and getting access to birth control.

Not really no. California is one of the least religious states and they're well known for being a bureaucratic hellhole of restrictive governance.

LGBT communities in their entirety make up only 4.5 percent of the US population. While protecting them from discrimination is obviously necessary, that's hardly the key factor in public happiness.

The public is overall gonna be happier when the sharia police aren't breathing down their necks. A less religious country is gonna be a better place to live than a place run based on religious principles. Even California, despite being akin to south Florida 2, isn't as much of a nightmare as Saudi Arabia is

[Nakena]

Do we really think that Somalia is a more free country than Australia?

It's literally ancapistan so yeah moar freez.

[Rojava Free State]

Not really no. California is one of the least religious states and they're well known for being a bureaucratic hellhole of restrictive governance.

LGBT communities in their entirety make up only 4.5 percent of the US population. While protecting them from discrimination is obviously necessary, that's hardly the key factor in public happiness.

And yet, California has good laws protecting LGBT rights, and access to birth control.

No, but the more religious a state, the more restrictive they are on certain people, like LGBT people, and those wanting better access to birth control and abortions.

The issue is that religion assumes it is the truth and the only truth. With religion, abortion is banned because allegedly the almighty creator of the universe is against it. You cant reason with someone who thinks the most powerful being in reality is against what you do. The law is more flexible in a state where its decided by the people and not by the word of the ancient scroll

[Rojava Free State]

Do we really think that Somalia is a more free country than Australia?

It's literally ancapistan so yeah moar freez.

In Somalia you're free to do as you want but you aren't free from violence

[Nakena]

It's literally ancapistan so yeah moar freez.

In Somalia you're free to do as you want but you aren't free from violence

Indeed, you'd better have the bigger guns and more goons.

[Rojava Free State]

Atheism has proliferated apostasy from the truth of religion. This alone makes it a negative effect on society, and more importantly it is deadly to heavenly society. Atheism destroys the joy of souls.

You cant prove your religion is true, and that's cause it's not. It's just another ancient myth

[Rojava Free State]

In Somalia you're free to do as you want but you aren't free from violence

Indeed, you'd better have the bigger guns and more goons.

It's like TF2 but not fun

[New Aeyariss]

Religion does not cause wars. Humans cause wars, then dress purely materialistic causes, such as desire to rape, plunder or kill members of the opposite group in religious clothing to justify their cause and gather moral support. When religion becomes unbelievable, ideology or nationality takes it's place. In my country, fanatical fans of Wisła Kraków and Cracovia kill each other with machetes over rivalry between football clubs, which in turn translates into rivalry of districts and criminal groups.

Ultimately, wars are always fought for power and material possessions. As the OP had proven, elimination of religion has not changed human nature. Human greed has simply put on a new clothing, clothing of radical atheism of french revolutionaries, the clothing of militant communists of the USSR, then did the same it had been doing across the centuries. And on a greater scale, because there was no God to fear this time.