Atheist countries are more benevolent
Pope Benedict clearly stated that states need religion and religious values and that he is worried that Britain is falling into the same style of aggressive atheism that created the Nazis. However today might it not be argued that it is the secular societies that are the most benevolent? They are almost certain to be the most liberal and are less discriminatory. It is often argued that religion in various parts of the world hold back countries development, especially in terms of tolerance, whether that religion is Christianity or any other religion. Islam especially in Afghanistan and Somalia provides some of the starkest examples.
Please cast your vote after you've read the arguments.
You can also add to the debate by leaving a comment at the end of the page.
What is an Atheist country? Sweden has 23%,Norway has 17% and Switzerland has 9% non-creationists respectively
While Adolf Hitler was not Christian nor arguably famously atheist.
The religion of the Nazis did not really accommodate God therefore in that sense was Atheist. And of-course wasn't monotheist (Judaism,Christianity & Islam) therefore was Atheist in that sense also. It did not include any deities and so was not poly theist either. (is there any other sense in which an idea or a person can be Atheist?)
"Hitler and his henchmen brought forth a new telling of Nordic and Germanic mythology coupled with extravagant pageantry, in an attempt to both unite the people of Germany under a new faith and to replace the peaceful social conventions of Christianity. This new Nazi faith was indoctrinated into both men and women at a very young age, delineating separate rolls for each as the progenitors of this master race.Let's take a look at some of the characteristics of this Nazi faith:
A belief in racial superiority, as expressed in the blonde-haired, blue-eyed Aryan race.
A belief in the state as superior to the individual.
A belief in Hitler as a messianic leader.
A belief in military service and military endeavors as the most noble of human undertakings."-
counterargument to counterargument:
Actually Buddhism is considered to be atheist by a large number of scholars. [[http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/types/buddhistatheism.shtml]]
While Hinduism is not a theistic religion it does include deities/gods and is not Atheist in the first sense.
Having a religion does not exempt atheism. [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism]]
Or maybe 'atheist-friendly' for example the Czech republic or Switzerland or Norway or Sweden or Estonia where most people believe in a life force that they do not call God; while not being strictly against the concept,idea or existence of God.
Switzerland is the neutral country of neutral countries and her tolerance of different faiths/non-faiths, people,cultures and so forth as well as the tolerance evident in other countries that accommodate and boast of high Atheist populations; can account for both high reported atheist factions and for a general sense of peace.
That is to say, neutrality and tolerance can be a common cause for peace and reported Atheism(people are not afraid to voice uncommon views). While the two effects though correlated do not necessarily pose a causal relationship.
The fact that they had a 'religion' so to speak made them non-Atheist. Just as Hindus and Buddhists are not atheists.
Atheists are more likely to respect female rights
Countries that lean towards atheism rank highly on prosperity index
By comparison the countries that have over 50% believing there is a god in that poll and are in the EU (so as to be fair) have an average rank of 25.5 (excluding Cyprus and Malta).
Norway still the world's best place to live (With 70% atheists)
Also one of the happiest people in the world.
Norwegians have the second-highest level of satisfaction with their standards of living: 95 percent say they are satisfied with the freedom to choose the direction of their lives; an unparalleled 74 percent say other people can be trusted.
The history of atheist countries is not good.
Often these atheist regimes espouse some progressive and modern principles but they go too far and become extreemist. What this really shows is that it is not extreemists of any sort that we want. It does not matter if the extreemists are atheists or religious extreemism is bad in all its forms.
Atheist countries have higher suicide.
RESULTS: Religiously unaffiliated subjects had significantly more lifetime suicide attempts and more first-degree relatives who committed suicide than subjects who endorsed a religious affiliation. Unaffiliated subjects were younger, less often married, less often had children, and had less contact with family members. Furthermore, subjects with no religious affiliation perceived fewer reasons for living, particularly fewer moral objections to suicide. In terms of clinical characteristics, religiously unaffiliated subjects had more lifetime impulsivity, aggression, and past substance use disorder. No differences in the level of subjective and objective depression, hopelessness, or stressful life events were found.
This in my mind indicates that Athist countries are worse off than religoius countries as this indicates that their lives are worth less to them and living their lives causes additional stresses that religious people do not have to deal with.
What do you think?