Essay talk:Atheism and world peace

Is this supposed to be an essay? Sorry if it is. Just looks more like an article than an essay to me. --DamoHi 03:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It started out as an article.  04:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec)It was an article, but I think the consensus is that it leaned too much toward "salvation through unfaith alone" for main space. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * (EC) An article it would remain were I to have anything on the matter to say. Don't think it is really up with Conservatives ramblings is it?  I have read similar studies saying similar things.  --DamoHi 04:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "...whether religion or atheism is a source of world peace." See stats 101. I won't deny that more secular (and BTW, the conflation of "secular" with "atheist" is another problem for this hypothesis as well) nations are more peaceful and economically prosperous today -- now let's see the same measures circa 40-70 years ago with the Soviet Union, Mao's PRC, etc. still kicking around. In addition, there's no way to know if the causal effect is the other way around. Perhaps religiosity diminishes with increased economic prosperity and peace-time living. The state replaces the church as a means of social and financial support so to speak (indeed, that's one of the reasons the religious right wingnuts oppose welfare, and maybe they're onto something from the angle of self-preservation). Like any demographic trend, it's no doubt multicausal. I've seen nothing to suggest a causal link, just a bunch of correlations. Plus the "atheists are more intelligent" claim is sourced to the notorious Satoshi Kanazawa, of course. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Also there is a cooration with education and atheism/secularism in european nations. how do you know it's not the literacy rate, or the education that "causes" the peace.  I'm also curious about the actual stats used.  Russia and china are techinically athiest.  neither is what I'd call individually peacful.--[[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]Godot   Moi j'dis, laisse beton 04:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Good points regarding Stalin and Mao, although I would probably take the Hitchens position that the cult of personality and blind adherence to doctrine that we saw in those systems approximates many of the features of a religion, though lacking a supernatural element. Might be a case of moving the goalposts and wouldn't satisfy some sections, but I have always found his argument novel.  In any case, can't we put some of these criticisms together and make something worthwhile?  DamoHi 04:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "i would take Hitchen position re cult of personality" the trouble with that is now you aren't talking atheism, you are talking "religion".  more importantly, it's no longer science or good studies when you do a "oh, well, then we'll change the goal posts".  I think that's why you are seeing lots of people say "interesting, but not really good or complete studies".  as for "putting something together".  do it, say "try this, guys".  see what the result is.  Most editors here are pretty reasonable if you work on the topic. [[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]Godot   Moi j'dis, laisse beton 04:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The Hitch hand-wave is just a transparent No True Scotsman in this case. We're looking at the correlation between religion/atheism and positive/negative traits, so once you pull the "Stalin/Mao/etc. was No True Atheist" card, what's to stop the theists from doing the same with "their own" as well (e.g., Hitler, who was allegedly, as Dinesh D'Souza would have us believe, a rabid atheist and enemy of religion). As far as those figures' actual motivations, I would agree. Solzhenitsyn was right -- it was ideology, not religion or atheism. But in this context, it's really no different than a cheap apologetic tactic. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * OK you win. On reflection I can see that there is a strong element of self congratulation involved here.  And I can also see that the argument I referenced from Hitch, whilst it has its place is inappropriate here.  DamoHi 04:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * By the way, this suggests there is an article "waiting to be written" about "current studies and atheism" to sorta provide links to the stuff you list here. I would just be a bit more critical of the cautions and faults of such studies.  But they are there,  people are writing about it, and it could be a really good article. [[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]Godot   Moi j'dis, laisse beton 04:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Eh? The studies and data are pretty solid AFAIK (except for Kanazawa's nonsense), their interpretation is not. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:55, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Correlation does not imply causation
I would certainly accept that atheism correlates with a lot of positive things. For example, and as the essay states, it correlates with wealth, education and intelligence.

But nobody (I hope) is going to suggest that being an atheist makes you more intelligent or automatically makes you better educated.

So there is no logical reason to assume that atheism itself produces more peaceful countries. It might be that war makes people more religious. Obviously I don't know this is the case or not but we must be aware that correlation does not imply causation.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 10:04, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Thanks for you input. Feel free to add to this essay if you want to. Nashhinton (talk) 00:50, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Religiosity isn't (necessarily) the opposite of atheism.
Religiosity is a scale-based measure with degrees, and atheism can be thought of as a zero on that scale, but the evidence in the essay fails to even establish correlative evidence that that zero point is ideal, just that there is a trendline in that direction. Your methods are sloppy. Ikanreed (talk) 14:37, 8 July 2014 (UTC)