digg

Join DiggAbout

Wealth and Religiosity [GRAPH]

flickr.com — Religiosity is measured using a three-item index ranging from 0-3, with 3 representing the maximum religious position. Respondents were given a +1 if they believe faith in God is necessary for morality; and +1 if they say religion is very important in their lives; and +1 if they pray at least once a day.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • DermDoc, on 02/19/2008, -32/+14I am totally blown away -- I always thought kuwait was richer than the US.
    • jdb252, on 02/19/2008, -12/+18The U.S. is far and away the richest country in the world - by mean, not by median of course. We have some extremely rich rich people.
    • Lukesed, on 02/19/2008, -2/+14You're thinking of the UAE.
    • amightywind, on 02/19/2008, -10/+23Even the poor here have air conditioning and a flat screen TV.
      • cabooglio2, on 02/19/2008, -18/+11Yeah, the poor are livin' it up.

        ... dumbass.
        • jmpeagle, on 02/19/2008, -2/+20he's saying we have a skewed view of what "poor" is in the U.S. compared to 3rd world countries
        • highstriker, on 02/19/2008, -1/+13He actually has a bit of a point. I know several poor families who still found money to buy a playstation or a x-box along with numerous video games to go with them. Such spending choices/habits are a large reason why many (though certainly not all) people in the U.S. are poor.
        • DarkSamus, on 02/19/2008, -2/+1and the award goes again to
          WALMART!
          • toytoyota, on 02/19/2008, -1/+6Wal Mart saves the average family thousands a year.
      • Terr01, on 02/19/2008, -4/+3Source? Stats? Anything even vaguely empirical that isn't just an opinion-based repackaging of "welfare queens", or narratives which are memorable yet factually incorrect?
      • mbelrose, on 02/19/2008, -4/+2For once, you're right. Most poor people have working air conditioning units. Unfortunately, a lot of them can't afford the electricity to run them. We have a few of the "fortunate" poor people die in my town every summer.
      • martynda, on 02/19/2008, -1/+4That's because they buy it on credit, not because they can actually afford a $1.5k tv on 20k a year.
      • akamurph, on 02/19/2008, -4/+2W.E.L.F.A.R.E.
      • LokitheComplex, on 02/19/2008, -1/+2Technology has made consumer objects cheaper.
        So while material objects have become cheaper economic inequality has gone up.
    • jmpeagle, on 02/19/2008, -0/+3well not all 180+ countries are listed, a few with higher per capita GDP's were excluded such as Norway,

      Also, I believe thesenumbers are nut adjusted for purchasing power because Kuwait is ranked higher in mean purchasing power
      https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world ...
      • twrife, on 02/20/2008, -0/+1Obviously they just weren't in the study...
    • GliTCH82, on 02/19/2008, -4/+7This is a no-brainer. The moment you start to think that God controls wealth and it has less to do with your efforts, you become poorer. When you realize that God has nothing to do with it and it's all entirely the fruits of your labor, you start banking.
      • MessiahCakes, on 02/21/2008, -1/+1Read: "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism" before you feel too comfortable making groundless, speculative arguments.
        The thesis of that book is also a speculate argument, but unlike yours, it has supporting points and historical details.
  • ThinkBox, on 02/19/2008, -2/+50Full report in PDF format
    http://pewglobal.org/reports/pdf/258.pdf

    More info about the report here -
    http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID= ...
    • KraftDinner101, on 02/19/2008, -16/+7About as useful as this graph as well: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/04/FSM_ ...
      Correlation does not imply causation - That graph is meaningless.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_ ...
      • commernie, on 02/19/2008, -2/+10Correlation does not NECESSARILY imply causation. Correlation is a very useful measure in statistics, and so the graph is far from being meaningless.
      • Fracture98, on 02/19/2008, -3/+12No, it doesn't. But it does not claim to. It simply presents a correlation between two variables and makes no claims as to the cause. That in no way makes the graph meaningless.
      • Rbstr, on 02/19/2008, -1/+10One of the possible causes of correlation is causation.
      • bowe, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1The only causation claimed is inside your head fella.
      • wastelander, on 02/19/2008, -0/+3It never ceases to amaze me that people continue to throw up this "correlation doesn't imply causation crap" as if they are making some sort of brilliant observation. Only people who know nothing about science or statistics would ever make such a claim of correlation being "proof of causation". It does provide evidence of a connection between two phenomenon and with further analysis/research/testing the nature of this relationship can be further clarified. Often a correlation is because of a 3rd unmeasured variable that influencing both leading to this connection. For example in the classical example of "Pirates and Global Warming" one possibility is that the correlation could be due to advances in technology making (old-style) piracy obsolete while at the same time facilitating the generation of green-house gases (this is one of many possible scenarios; obviously time itself is the big confounder here). If you had measures of education, perhaps intelligence, birthrate? (religious peoples having more children causing greater poverty) or any number of other contributing factors you could use statistics to determine which of these factors had the greatest influence (ie:perhaps wealth was simply acting as a "proxy" for education). Yes, you should be carefully in interpreting results such as these; but that doesn't make them any less meaningful or interesting.
        • Fracture98, on 02/19/2008, -0/+2I think you're being dugg down because this is the internet and you used more than 40 words in a row. You're right, though.
    • JDRay, on 02/19/2008, -1/+2"Let me show you this chart..." -- H. Ross Perot
  • Napoleone, on 02/19/2008, -51/+8I would argue that the true reason why Western Europe is so wealthy, relative those other countries, is because of the Marshall plan and because they don't have anywhere near the same amount of military spending the United States does, which basically subsidizes their defense. Because of this, I'm sure the Japanese are right there with Western Europe, even though they're a very religious people.

    I don't agree with the conclusions of this study, but I still think religion is a terrible thing.
    • JigoroKano, on 02/19/2008, -7/+11Defend them from what? America?
      • Bobski, on 02/19/2008, -6/+2WTF?
        • JigoroKano, on 02/19/2008, -0/+6What other country needs defending from?
          • oldhick, on 02/19/2008, -2/+1Russia and China were the two threatening Europe after WWII, thus NATO was created. But that bit of history probably doesn't fit your punchline.
          • JigoroKano, on 02/19/2008, -1/+2I'll admit that there are still a few places that need defending against Russia, but in those cases Russia is getting U.S. support.
    • Tebixan, on 02/19/2008, -0/+6Japan's religiosity is mixed right in with Western Europe on that chart, they are the lone black diamond, just hover your mouse over it to see the nation it represents.

      The majority of the Marshall plan was spent rebuilding what was a destroyed continent. At the time, experts thought there would be mass starvations across Europe if they didn't get any help because the infrastructure was not in place anymore to support the people of Europe.

      Additionally, Japans reconstruction went very very slowly in the years shortly after WW2, since we did not help them out at the time. However, when the Korean War broke out, we used Japan as the primary staging ground and source of supplies. By the end of fighting in the Korean war, we had invested far more money in Japan than we did in any of the Marshall plan nations.
  • JimmySpaza, on 02/19/2008, -87/+16Weird how Africa is generally Muslim and very religious whereas America is generally Christian and only somewhat religious...and America is the richest.

    But, the atheists will say that America's Christianity means nothing.

    Do you really think that it is a coincidence that America became the most powerful nation on the planet with the world's longest continuous serving government...in less than 200 years? Do you really think that America's Christian heritage has NOTHING to do with it?

    Or could you atheists be wrong and God, as described in the Bible, really exists and has blessed America?
    • XNihil0Zer0, on 02/19/2008, -11/+65Norway is ahead of the USA in per capita GDP, 44,648 to 43,223.

      But, the christians will say that Norway's atheism means nothing.
      Do you really think that Norway's secular heritage has NOTHING to do with it?
      Or could you christians be wrong and God, as described in the Bible, doesn't exists and hasn't blessed America?
      • Octaman, on 02/19/2008, -0/+19Don't forget Luxembourg, they rank #1 with a whopping 81,511.
        • XNihil0Zer0, on 02/20/2008, -2/+1Luxembourg barely qualifies as a country. On a related note, if Sealand sells for anywhere near the asking price its GDP will be over $5,000,000.
    • ramo13, on 02/19/2008, -6/+13O really ?
      please do explain the fact the saudi arabia is very rich and muslim ?
      religion has nothing to do wealth, oh and how could you imply that the reason africa is poor that they are religious ? you know scrap that. how do you explain the fact that half africa is christian + they are poor ? i hope you can see the fault in your logic now.
      • Jb611, on 02/19/2008, -2/+4Oil.
      • penguinxp, on 02/19/2008, -0/+2could be described by the fact that strongly religious people sit around waiting for god to do something, and point the blame at said god when good fortune does not come their way. if you dont believe god will help you, or dont believe in a god at all, you are more likely to MAKE YOUR OWN WAY in life.
        personally i think strong religious views dampen free thinking, which isnt good for a society, it makes people do things out of fear, and constricts positive growth.
        • pjr12345, on 02/19/2008, -1/+3I agree. It's obvious that propensity toward religion hampered our founding fathers. If only they had been atheists this country would be...
          well...
          likely a tyrannic dictatorship.
    • Gerz1219, on 02/19/2008, -6/+30God blesses America in the Bible? Please quote the chapter and verse, because I was pretty sure that the writers of the Bible, being fiction authors, didn't think to mention America by name, since it wouldn't exist for almost 2,000 years. Sort of like all those sci-fi novels from the 50's about the Soviet Union starting World War III during the 2016 Olympics.

      Unless you're a Mormon, in which case I'll just point and laugh. Of course, if you're a Mormon, then your already weak argument completely collapses, because most Americans are Protestants and not Mormons.

      Looking at this graph, I drew two conclusions. One is that there generally appears to be an inverse correlation between a nation's wealth and its religiosity. Secondly, it appears that there are two major outliers to this trend -- Kuwait and the United States. It might have something to do with both countries being founded by religious fanatics, and both countries containing enormous deposits of natural resources.

      Or maybe the Christian God blesses America. That's also a reasonable conclusion.
      • ronix, on 02/19/2008, -31/+2Don't issue out a challenge like that without having read the Bible.
        You've been p0wned:
        Citing Genesis (12:3), ... God "will bless those who bless the Jews and curse whoever curses the Jews." If you can't connect the dots, I hope atheism helps ya. Hang on to the spaghetti monster faith. And maybe next time you'll shut your mouth before you let everybody know how ignorant you pompously are.
        • MacEnvy, on 02/19/2008, -1/+21I didn't see the word "America" anywhere in that passage. It could just as easily have been referring to any country that doesn't explicitly hate Jews. That's pretty dumb.
        • Gerz1219, on 02/19/2008, -1/+17Funny, that seemed less like an explicit reference to "the United States of America," and more like an extremely vague reference which could apply to any country that recognizes Israel diplomatically.

          And why Germany's high GDP, if that quote is to be taken at face value? Is it one of those ten year curses? Either way that quote doesn't work, so I shall continue in my pompous ignorance.
        • diggitydoc, on 02/19/2008, -1/+14saudi arabia much?
          by the way, excellent sentence structure!
        • djk21108, on 02/20/2008, -1/+1Just an overall silly comment. People do not become richer when they bless Jews, they usually just become under attack from Muslim countries who wish Israel destroyed...
    • quill, on 02/19/2008, -3/+8The USA is an enormous piece of land with natural resources that were totally untapped until relatively recently in human civilization. It's also temperate with lots of fresh water. Comparing its growth curve to crowded, old European countries or the arid, old continent of Africa is idiotic unless you take all factors into consideration. Religion has very little to do with it. Likewise, there's nothing necessarily special about American ingenuity. The environment and resources were more perfect than anywhere else on Earth.
      • LokitheComplex, on 02/19/2008, -0/+2Actually according to Jared Diamond the Americas were at a disadvantage.
        • djk21108, on 02/20/2008, -0/+1I
        • pineutrino, on 02/21/2008, -0/+1For the native inhabitants of the Americas, that was certainly true - there were very few plants that could have been efficiently farmed as crops, and animals available for domestication were few and far between. But European colonisation of the Americas over the last few centuries has brought an avalanche of introduced plant and animal species, nullifying that disadvantage.
    • cabooglio2, on 02/19/2008, -3/+1That god... he's all about the cheese.
    • Chrispyc1211, on 02/19/2008, -5/+14I'm a little confused as to how America's success story requires Christianity. Where does it even come in? An effective constitution requires intelligent and rational men to draft it. God's blessing doesn't mean *****.
    • lostarchitect, on 02/19/2008, -4/+14or, maybe africa's poor because they were colonized, enslaved and subjugated for hundreds of years. yeah, maybe that's it.
      • subterfuge, on 02/19/2008, -4/+1they had a head start of a few tens of thousands of years. they get no concessions from me. they're also in RELIGOUS WARS.
        • lostarchitect, on 02/19/2008, -0/+3good thing concessions from you mean nothing, then.
    • mGARANDEUR1, on 02/19/2008, -8/+2Buried for being a meaningless graph.
      • subterfuge, on 02/19/2008, -0/+5buried for being unable to see the meaning of the graph and for refusing to read the other posts to try to discover the meaning of the graph
    • brstilson, on 02/19/2008, -5/+24"Do you really think that it is a coincidence that America became the most powerful nation on the planet with the world's longest continuous serving government...in less than 200 years? Do you really think that America's Christian heritage has NOTHING to do with it?"

      Yes, yes I do think it's a coincidence. America's "Christian" heritage is a myth cooked up by McCarthyist paranoia in the 1950's. There was no "under god" in the pledge of allegiance before then and no "in god we trust" on our currency either.

      Oh, and don't even try to bring up Pascal's Wager. It's been proven invalid for the last 300 years.
      • davdev, on 02/19/2008, -2/+3actually I believe "In God We Trust" goes back to the Civil War, but your general point is correct
        • pintomp3, on 02/19/2008, -1/+11under god was added to the pledge in 1954.
    • commernie, on 02/19/2008, -2/+12Don't you get tired of being dugg down into the negative double digits?
      • highstriker, on 02/19/2008, -1/+8While I can guarantee that I disagree with him on just about everything, I'd hate to think that people would solely change their opinion just to be popular, and if this guy was to ever change his opinion, I'd hope it would be for something more substantial and logical than wanting people to like him.
        • pintomp3, on 02/19/2008, -1/+9he shouldn't change his position for popularity, but he has posted the same nonsense so often and seems to ignore every rebuttal and fact in the replies. at some point you would think he would incorporate the cornucopia of information into his views and start to change them. in his case, it seems he is either a troll or chooses to remain ignorant.
          • highstriker, on 02/19/2008, -1/+2Very true, but I'm used to people making that choice. Some people in my own family have voiced opinions similar to his, and well- it makes me sad, but people believe what they want to believe, whether it's logical/true or not...
          • Terr01, on 02/19/2008, -2/+6A slight correction: It's not changing their opinion that's the problem, it's that they never update their argument.

            When someone doesn't even add a rebuttal or pre-buttal, or continues to cite information as evidence which has been proven objectively and factually false...
        • MalenfantX, on 02/20/2008, -0/+1You don't stay a Fundie Christian by integrating new information into your world view. The Spaz is unfortunately incapable of learning.
      • SuperWinner, on 02/19/2008, -1/+2He ever created a new account to get dugg down because I think the old one got banned!
        • MalenfantX, on 02/20/2008, -0/+0He'd be gone even faster if there was an "Is the poster being stupid" click in addition to the Offensive one.
    • HayString, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1The US is so rich because of our abundance natural resources.
      • JimmySpaza, on 02/20/2008, -1/+1Africa has a greater abundance of natural resources than America. It could theoretically produce enough food for the entire world...if it wanted to.
    • pineutrino, on 02/20/2008, -0/+3I've often observed how excessively religious people, deliberately or not, use their religion as an excuse to either ignore the complicated historical/sociological/political/etc. realities of the world, or to outright deny their existences. Buried, mainly for the rebuttals above, and I'll also point out that one of the main reasons the USA's been so prosperous over the last century is because it's the only world power to escape having its cities carpet-bombed during World War 2. That's one hell of an advantage.
    • ruddy, on 02/20/2008, -0/+2although he didn't present his view point in the most PC manor, there is some validity to his statement. as we know, the government has an incredibly influence on the success of a nation, and many times the influencing factor in a government is religion. Not that this proves or disproves jesus christ, I think the basic principles of Christianity were good for this nation. There's no doubt that this country was established with a christian influence, and I don't think thats a bad thing either. Consider the alternatives..
    • Yoda900, on 02/20/2008, -1/+1Don't be discouraged by the replies here, JimmySpaza. You've got a very good point.

      You have to consider, though, the nature of protestantism as seen in America. We might like to split denominations, but we don't kill each other. Muslims do.
    • askegg, on 02/20/2008, -0/+1Did you notice how both the USA and Kuwait are *way* outside the standardised line?
  • AtheistRev, on 02/19/2008, -49/+50I forget who said this but: "Religion is what keeps the poor from killing the rich".
    http://www.atheistrevolution.com
    • Pitofdoom, on 02/19/2008, -3/+15Russia 1917
    • KraftDinner101, on 02/19/2008, -13/+7Man, enough with the site spamming. I'm all for Atheism, but this is not the way to spread it.
      • BattleScars, on 02/19/2008, -2/+11A lot of Churches have giant billboards outside saying "Jesus Saves!" Yet a URL at the bottom of someones post promoting atheism is obviously way more intrusive and annoying.
        • Radan, on 02/19/2008, -3/+6Yes, because this is exactly the opposite of what most Atheists stands for. Not trying to spread your belief (or lack of belief in this case) through organised propaganda and brain washing is one of the things that differs Atheism from religion.
          • Terr01, on 02/19/2008, -0/+5You're lapsing into the subjectivity zone. Atheist is primarily distinguished from theism by the denial of the supernatural.

            "Brain washing"? Over the internet? That's some damn powerful viral videos then, eh?
        • diggitydoc, on 02/19/2008, -0/+2all your cyberspace churches are belong to us!
        • stonewaljacksn, on 02/19/2008, -4/+2Radan, thank you. Spreading a "lack of belief" makes atheism a growing religion. It is no different from spreading a "belief". For self proclaimed "thinkers", many atheists clearly can't think abstractly enough to see this.
          Battlescars, you are nothing but a rebellious extremist if you insist on resorting to the SAME tactics. This, my friend, is why people will keep atheism closed in a bubble. People do not change anyone else by ADVERTISING their way of life, instead they end up complaining to their atheist friends about how nobody listens to them. This is why Dick Dawkins is a douchebag. LIVING what you would preach is what is contagious.
          • diggitydoc, on 02/19/2008, -2/+2yeah atheistic activism is having it both ways, agreed. (buy my new book: god sucks, today)
      • AtheistRev, on 02/19/2008, -0/+4Spamming would consist of nonsensical links and irrelevant comments. http://www.AtheistRevolution.com is my signature and you are correct; it is to promote an Atheist Community. Promotion is a good thing for Atheism. Just "being non religious" does not help the end game, which would be an end to organized religion as we know it. Believing in God, having faith, or praying is not the problem. The issue is policies being made based on religious belief and information being manipulated by religious leaders. The way to battle this is to stop the money flow. The way to do this is the decrease the number of individuals who are members of a particular religion and donate the money.
    • stonewaljacksn, on 02/19/2008, -8/+5so people who worship the almighty dollar and consumer culture dont worship any spiritual God. surprise, surprise.
      • subterfuge, on 02/19/2008, -4/+5i dont know of anyone who worships the dollar or consumer culture. i do, however, know a lot of people who understand there are no gods.
        • stonewaljacksn, on 02/19/2008, -2/+2You have no understanding of human psychology or capability of thinking abstractly if you think people dont "worship" the almighty dollar.
          The question of where to find "meaning" will always be an innate form in every single human. Some are inclined to find it in spiritual things, some in material things. No matter which YOU choose, you are equally as wrong as you are right, because its all something we construct on top of a foundation of "meaninglessness"
          • MalenfantX, on 02/20/2008, -0/+0As the only sentient beings in the universe that we're aware of, of course we construct all meaning. I think it's better to construct the purpose of your life based on something that's real, rather than superstition.
      • diggitydoc, on 02/19/2008, -2/+3OMG consumerism is like teh awesum!
      • HypocriteDigg, on 02/19/2008, -0/+4No you dumbass!!! It's because more educated countries tend to have better economies, and along with education comes reason.
        • TekTrixter, on 02/20/2008, -1/+1Except in the US
        • TritonX, on 02/20/2008, -0/+2@TekTrixter
          Well, their economy is down the sink, and their education is really not what it used to be, so I guess he's right.
    • subterfuge, on 02/19/2008, -3/+1should i care? more money for me!
    • MessiahCakes, on 02/21/2008, -0/+1I always thought it was the police and the military, depending what country you're from.
  • Pitofdoom, on 02/19/2008, -17/+3America, the untapped "FREE" natural resource, religion had nothing to due with ocean separation.
    Ism's had nothing to due with technological development. Caesars religions builds nor saves anyone.
  • thepeacemaker, on 02/19/2008, -10/+145Perhaps one can argue that religion does not lead to poverty rather poverty leads to religion. When a person loses hope in the justice system or in economic prosperity they place their hope in what they believe is a higher power who will eventually render justice. What keeps us humans going forward even in the worst of circumstances is hope, and perhaps that is where religion steps in and keeps a person from totally losing it and going insane. Placebo is widely prescribed to patients even though by itself it may be useless but the psychological effect that it has can sometimes improve the condition of the patient.
    • smokeymcdank, on 02/19/2008, -1/+30A correlation does not necessarily point to a causal relationship. Other than that i agree.
      • penguinxp, on 02/19/2008, -2/+2agreed. correlation =/= causation

        i can see some truth in peacemakers statement though. it does make sense.
        • MessiahCakes, on 02/21/2008, -0/+2Kinda like Marx's description of religion as the cry of a wounded animal.
          Alas, these explanations are very dear to my heart, but in the end, their associations don't really tell us anything about religiosity and/or economics and/or the relationship between the two. They tell us what we want to hear. You can't really quantify religious inclinations that easily, I think. Especially because they don't change clearly and uniformly across income brackets in one country, let alone all of them. They may change in accordance to other variables that may be associated with income, such as age, industry, education, etc. Besides, different religions may not consider simply praying or considering God the moral center as being 'Religious' per se. Kinda like the old joke where you ask someone from ancient greece if they were religious, and it wouldn't matter if they believed in the gods, or anything else. They were religious. Well, work with that a bit. The 'God in the center of your moral axis' thing is just wayyyy too monotheistic and western.
          So, not only is the link is entirely fictitious, because it just plays off of overplayed and uncreative enlightenment values that we take for granted, without really analyzing. But it also secretly speaks only of western religion, most notably Christianity, given the chosen countries. Anything that hits that close to home, without a firm basis, and without trying very hard, must be wrong. Deeply, deeply wrong.
    • Chrispyc1211, on 02/19/2008, -5/+5Absolutely; I hope that's how people take this study.
      While smokey makes a reasonable point, and correlation doesn't always point to cause, this is one case where it's rather indisputable. While modern poor countries are more religious, countries in the past were more religious as well. England and France in the 18th century, say, were extremely religious. Obviously, there was a national religion, but the universal poverty of the people of these nations led to a society centered as much around the church as it was around the monarchy. Poverty has always cultivated religion.
    • MaximusD, on 02/19/2008, -6/+21Coming from the Christian tradition, many of us see it as wealth is destructive to faith, and can be a false idol. There is no doubt, no matter what religious perspective you are coming from, that money and power breed corruption. Perhaps Religion isn't a "placebo" given to the poor, but rather a treasure lost upon those who horde their resources and benefit from the suffering of their neighbors.
      • stonewaljacksn, on 02/19/2008, -2/+5amazing. you win.
        • Daniel591992, on 02/19/2008, -0/+2This thread makes me feel dumb.
      • Acolyte357, on 02/19/2008, -3/+4"but rather a treasure lost" and it helps the poor by keeping them in constant hope that God(s) will solve their problems or it tells the poor that these material problems don't matter, so that the corrupt can gain more power? ***** paying Caesar his due, stand up and fight for what is bring taken from you. Religion helps keep the weak poor and the powerful rich.
      • MalenfantX, on 02/20/2008, -1/+1How is "Faith" not a false Idol. People who come from the Christian tradition should get over their superstitions.
        Of course Religion is a tool to gain money and power over the superstitious.
    • likwidfuzion, on 02/19/2008, -1/+1Since Obama preaches a lot about "Hope," does that mean he's our black Jesus?
      • Daniel591992, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1Jesus could've been black.
        • likwidfuzion, on 02/19/2008, -0/+4White Jesus: Amen.
          Black Jesus: Word.
    • sk11, on 02/19/2008, -1/+3It's about control: wealthy people have far greater control over their lives, poorer people can't rely on money to help them out.
    • HypocriteDigg, on 02/19/2008, -2/+2It has to do with EDUCATION and HEALTH! When people become educated, and are healthy enough to be able to become educated, they tend to have better economies. Another ability that education provides is the ability to think for yourself!
  • suzywang3000, on 02/19/2008, -6/+42AthiestRev hits the nail on the head. They have come to the backward conclusion of this correlation. The richer you get, the less you feel the need to believe in a higher power.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of ...
    • EdwardNigma, on 02/19/2008, -10/+1Yes, and what does this prove?
      • diggitydoc, on 02/19/2008, -0/+7i dont think it proves anything... it is a statement.
    • SuperWinner, on 02/19/2008, -2/+1No wonder I am so rich.....
    • HypocriteDigg, on 02/19/2008, -1/+5MY conclusion. The more educated you are, the more money you can make, the better you can use your knowledge and money to help others, thus bringing your fellow men UP. Not to mention the ability education provides for one to think for themselves and not rely on mythology.
  • bernandoo, on 02/19/2008, -9/+27you can argue that without religion all that is left is material.. so one without religion would strive to accumulate as much wealth as possible, whereas a poor religious person might be content where they are.

    or nonreligious people have more time to make more money. or nonreligious people are more educated so they make more money.

    regardless, being religious/not religious is more likely a byproduct of whatever factors are driving the real cause.
    • drlha, on 02/19/2008, -2/+17Religion is not required to understand that happiness in life isn't just due to the amount of wealth you have.
    • Chrispyc1211, on 02/19/2008, -0/+2Unfortunately, wealth is not completely based in effort, as we like to believe. Such a worldwide correlation cannot be based strictly upon all religious people being more content than the non-religious. Wealth is a far more static statistic: it's much more difficult to modify at will. Therefore, it's much more reasonable that religion follows wealth than vice-versa.
    • Nanobe, on 02/19/2008, -0/+9I'm an atheist, and although I have quite a bit of money in savings and have been offered jobs that pay almost twice what I'm making now for not much more work, I'm content where I am with my flexible hours and few material goods, investing my spare time in creative outlets. I've never understood the point in obsessing over unnecessary material things, nor why so many religious people assume atheists always do so.
      • TritonX, on 02/20/2008, -0/+1Do you really expect religious people to be logic? They've been fooled on one issue, they is nothing preventing them from believing other lies since the door is wide open for them to be manipulated.
  • SpaceDreamer, on 02/19/2008, -16/+8Although I hate religions, I don't think this graph is a good point against religion,
    because "wealth" here is just inherited. It doesn't indicate intelligence.
    For example, someone who is completely stupid and incapable to get a job, and lives in the UK
    will receive benefits that will ensure a wealth much higher than anything a clever person could get in a third world country.
    • drlha, on 02/19/2008, -1/+6Who is making any comment here about being "stupid" or "clever"?
    • sovietamerica, on 02/19/2008, -1/+2in US, you would be equivalent of a redneck living in a trailer leeching welfare, or a black person living in a ghetto also leeching welfare.
    • davdev, on 02/19/2008, -0/+3i agree. I would love to see a valid scientific study that not only measure Intelligence, but also Education (not the same thing) vs Religiosity. I would expect to see as Education increase, religious affiliation decreases.
    • Tebixan, on 02/19/2008, -0/+2The wealth here is measured by per capita GDP (average value of work), it is not cumulative. So someone without a job would actually decrease the "wealth" on this chart, since they would drag the average down.
  • Nougat, on 02/19/2008, -4/+25GDP defines wealth now? It helps to define the wealth of a nation, but not the distribution of that wealth among the citizens - a statistic I think is more important.
  • tehxen3, on 02/19/2008, -6/+53Correlation does not imply causation. They might be religious because they are poor, not necessarily the other way around.
    • vulapine, on 02/19/2008, -1/+4Or they may be completely unrelated as we see with the US.
      • Lythium, on 02/19/2008, -0/+4The data is too consistent for it to be "completely unrelated" (with the exception of the two aberrations, which will exist in damn near any statistical curve anyway). I think tehxen is 100% correct, though - as are the others who posted the "correlation does not imply causation" argument. My reaction to the data was NOT "if we abolish religion, people would be rich" - that's naive, reductionist, and plain stupid.
        • vulapine, on 02/19/2008, -1/+1I'm simply stating that there is no conclusion that can be reached from these data. It would be like comparing the approval rating of the figure head or leader of a country with its GDP and drawing a conclusion. Countries that hate their elected or appointed leaders are richer, however the dataset comes out. You might also take the religious scale and sample that with obesity rates. The more religious someone is, the less likely they are to be obese, or however that works out. Two random datasets can give us some interesting things to talk about, but are otherwise meaningless.
    • Vapor17, on 02/19/2008, -2/+2Ramen
    • catch22, on 02/19/2008, -0/+2If correlation did not imply causation, wouldn't an external factor be the cause? Government stability or instability, for instance, clearly could affect wealth and religiosity, with easy explanations for the few outliers.
    • elcapitanp, on 02/20/2008, -0/+1Correlation doesn't PROVE causation, but correlations CAN be causations, and are often.
  • CrudeDarkness, on 02/19/2008, -3/+15and in the upper right corner, Dubai.
  • Rhodamine, on 02/19/2008, -4/+5MSALEEM at #1? I thought he and all the other top diggers were being oppressed?
    • Lythium, on 02/19/2008, -0/+3Now we see the violence inherent in the system.
  • EvoPsy, on 02/19/2008, -3/+17I'm thinking education is probably the real factor at work here. Wealth just happens to be strongly correlated with that as well.
    • SuperWinner, on 02/19/2008, -3/+5more education = less religion too. win! win!
    • bobbydiamondz, on 02/19/2008, -1/+2Wait a minute... are you celebrating the USA's education system? Or are we the exception that proves the rule?
  • elnerdo, on 02/19/2008, -10/+18So.. the conclusion is "No correlation"? Because that's what it looks like to me.
    • empiric, on 02/19/2008, -0/+3Well, to be fair, we can conclude from it that Kuwait wins... or loses... or something.
    • Kerch, on 02/19/2008, -2/+3Look harder.
    • JorgeGT, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1give us the rho^2 parameter.
    • chrisaug18, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1It would be a little more imformative if it only included developed countries
    • LokitheComplex, on 02/19/2008, -0/+2Does it not mean on average the richer a country is the less religious it is.
      You could break the US down into religosity and wealth and you'd probably see the correlation too.
  • taltoris, on 02/19/2008, -17/+11Misleading.
    Buried.
    • djdementia, on 02/19/2008, -2/+3It's straight data, if you think straight data is misleading your right brain (statistical, logical side) is interpreting it in such a way that your left brain (emotional) disagrees with. Your comment = buried.
    • bobbydiamondz, on 02/19/2008, -0/+2I think it's funny that this comment comes immediately after the 'the conclusion is "No correlation"' comment. One person feels it shows no correlation, and another feels it shows enough correlation to be deemed misleading. Or maybe it is misleading about it's non-correlation.
      • elnerdo, on 02/20/2008, -0/+1Actually, it makes perfect sense. I said that there's no correlation. It's true, but the graph draws in an "average" curve, which implies that there is a strong correlation. That's why it's misleading.
  • thinman1189, on 02/19/2008, -4/+22I want to move to Sweden.
    • bmson, on 02/19/2008, -11/+3No you don't

      They are a feminist country.
      They were great, but now they are the "***** hole" of Scandinavia.

      Norway, Iceland and Finland are doing much better than Sweden.
      • BattleScars, on 02/19/2008, -0/+3You've never seen a porno have you?
        • bmson, on 02/19/2008, -0/+3I have...
          But believe me, they don't make Swedish porno films, now days.
          All these Swedish porno girls are usually from Germany (and they look German) and shot in Hollywood.

          P.s.
          I'm from Iceland so I don't have this Scandinavian blond fetish, that's the norm here...
      • pintomp3, on 02/19/2008, -1/+4i for one welcome our swedish female overlords.
      • tschau, on 02/19/2008, -0/+4Fortunately, you can be the "worst" country in scandinavia and still be doing pretty damn well.
        Yeah, I'd prefer Norway too though.

        By the way, Finland isn't part of scandinavia.
      • Radan, on 02/19/2008, -2/+3I beg to differ. While do not normally take on measures such as nationalism, as it is something that we Swedes do not socially accept, but I'd really like to know on what basis you stand on with those arguments. Note, that I deeply apologise that even though we are widely considered as one the worlds most democratic countries (unlike for example some rather large collection of states in the west), we continue striving towards a more equal and democratic society. Though, in other hand, I think it's actually a good thing that you has such a passionate hate of our country, as I believe people like you would only run it to ground if you ever got the idea of moving here.

        Please, if you are going to bash my country, then be so kind and come up with some reasonable arguments first, other than us being a "feminist ***** hole", as you seriously don't want me to even start pointing out the flaws of your lovely US of A.

        God eftermiddag på dig. Jäkla skitjävel.
        • bmson, on 02/19/2008, -0/+2Well I'm not from the States.
          I'm from Iceland believe it or not...

          I might have been a bit harsh. But still, Sweden gets way to much credit....

          The company taxes in Sweden are so high that IKEA had to escape Sweden and they move there money to Stichting INGKA Foundation in Switzerland that is the world's wealthiest charity organization in the world (Tax avoidance)

          Ingvar Kamprad drives an old Volvo because the Swedish public can't stand that some people are richer than other.
          And IKEA had to escape Sweden and move there headquarters to Holland.

          Then we have the Swedish way of fighting prostitution.
          Allowing women to sell them self but suing guys that buy there "service".
          This has been a tragic story in Sweden, prostitution have gone underground and prostitutes are doing much worse than they did few years ago.
          Feminists are so smart...

          Do you want more?

          P.s.
          I've nothing against the swedes :)
          There are 3 swedes where I work, strange but good people...

          p.p.s.
          You always kick our as in sports, so I might be a little bitter...
        • AndreasTh, on 02/19/2008, -0/+2Gah, please leave USA bashing out of this. Where did you get the US of A from anyway? He seems to be from Iceland?
          I don't agree with him that our country is a feminist ***** hole though...
          I love many things about our country, such as the scary welfare system + free education (okey, we pay taxes but I'm alright with that. We don't have to be ruined if we get really sick).
          If I get rich (...) I'd gladly share to keep the standard of the community and society up (I'm living here you know), and to help others out, just like I don't want to be left on my own if I get into some deep *****.
          It's almost like the all mighty golden rule from the bible "treat others as you would like to be treated.", on a grand scale.
          But ofcourse I'm not religious and I don't think religion invented that rule...
          But it's a good rule..

          Damn, I'm really blabbering here. Sorry about that :P

          In short, I like Sweden and I think we live a nice life here. We have a nice democratic society and so on, but please, it's not like we are the top country in every aspect or anything... We've really got alot of hype on digg these days.
          Some countries have more problems than others and we're quite lucky here.
          But we also have our problems...

          But I think mister Iceland is just jealous because we have evolved to pirates while they're still vikings ;)
          Kidding.
          I'd love to visit Iceland someday... ...but it would be really expensive to be there... :P

          Have a good night/day everyone! // Ha en god natt/dag alla // Harur enur brarur natturur/dagurur (swedicelandic) =)
      • stonewaljacksn, on 02/19/2008, -0/+2I'm curious as to what makes it a "feminist" ***** hole. Seems liek a pretty cool place to me.
        But, I must say, I am not surprised at all that some of the most Atheistic countries are some of the most SOCIALIST. Replace the all providing God with the all providing mommy/daddy STATE anyone? strange things.
        • MalenfantX, on 02/20/2008, -1/+0maybe Socialism goes with education in the same way that religion is rejected by modern educated people.
          This "all providing" business seems to point to a problem with your cognitive process. If you exaggerate things in your own mind, you can never think clearly, and will reach incorrect conclusions.
    • cabooglio2, on 02/19/2008, -3/+2I'm right behind you.
    • Keles65, on 02/19/2008, -11/+1MOVE THEN PLEASE!!!!! I"LL SEND YOU THE MONEY!!!!!!!!!!! We need more Leftist commies to move out!
      • diggitydoc, on 02/19/2008, -1/+6wow... i thought people gave up on being afraid of Communism. i'll take your money.
      • MalenfantX, on 02/20/2008, -0/+0Leftist commies? Are you really that dumb? The 1950's called, they want your parania back.
    • Tetraca, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1A lot of people probably do, especially here on digg. You'll probably have to get through pirates, geeks, and a miscellanea of misfits all with bad American accents.
  • iucraigmc, on 02/19/2008, -10/+4"Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God! 25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." Mark 10
    I'd say this study is consistent with Jesus' teachings.
    • plainOldFool, on 02/19/2008, -4/+2I've heard this Gospel explained in homily that this passage refers to an actual gate called the "Eye of a Needle" which is extremely narrow. It is difficult for a camel to go through this passage, but was done regularly. The idea here being that a rich man can get to heaven, but it takes a lot of work.
      • noonjab, on 02/19/2008, -0/+2Yes. Too bad this interpretation is completely made up. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_of_a_needle#Alter ...

        "Although there is no historical evidence that such a gate ever existed, through frequent repetition the idea has attained the status of virtual dogma in some circles..."

        Either way, the point of his saying this is that IT IS VERY DIFFICULT for a rich person to enter the Kingdom. Why would people want to make it harder for themselves to reach heaven? Kinda throws a major wrench in the whole 'Prosperity Theology' scene....
      • plainOldFool, on 02/19/2008, -0/+0There is very little historical evidence of the Ten Commandments, the Stone Pillar edition, ever existed. What's your point?
        • noonjab, on 02/19/2008, -0/+2Here's my point: The biblical text itself says nothing about a gate and there's no historical evidence of a gate by that name. When "Christians" claim that Jesus was talking about a gate (rather than, say, an actual needle) it's usually because they are ultimately trying to justify their own wealth.

          People who take the Bible to be completely true consider the Bible itself to be evidence that the Ten Commandments were handwritten by God on stone. Even those people have no good reason for thinking that Jesus was talking about a gate when he said "The eye of a needle".
    • BattleScars, on 02/19/2008, -1/+3The irony is that you are probably relatively wealthy yourself.
    • banmaster, on 02/19/2008, -2/+3***** jesus and ***** his teachings! A more putrid guide to how to lead your life than the bible has never been written.
      • noonjab, on 02/19/2008, -1/+1Interesting. Which of Jesus' teachings do you find so objectionable?
    • davdev, on 02/19/2008, -1/+2And yet most "pastors" at these megachurches are super rich. I wonder if Falwell got it? Or how will Bush do?
      • SuperWinner, on 02/19/2008, -0/+2It didn't say religion was not prosperous in poor countries, just that the people aren't.
      • TritonX, on 02/20/2008, -1/+1It's because they know it's ***** made up to control the population. That there is no such thing as heaven or hell, so they'd better enjoy their only life here on earth.
    • apokalum, on 02/19/2008, -0/+3HAY GUYZ LETS DIGG THIS GUY DOWN BECUZ HE QUOTED THE BIBLE
      • MalenfantX, on 02/20/2008, -1/+1If you're not in a mythology class, it IS a pretty good indication that you're dealing with an idiot.
    • penguinxp, on 02/19/2008, -1/+1is the genocide in darfur consistent with jesus teachings? cause they are awfully poor, so i guess that means even though they are killing each other off by the thousands, they will have no trouble getting into heaven. but bill gates is screwed because he did something worthwhile with his life and made some money?
      it all makes sense now!
      • Yoda900, on 02/20/2008, -1/+1Penguinxp, your comment shows that you have no idea what is actually happening in Darfur. Try thinking before digging.
    • Yoda900, on 02/20/2008, -1/+1Great, great observation. Keep at it, man.
    • TritonX, on 02/20/2008, -1/+1Another proof that christians, muslims, jews, name it all, are just preachers of death. They put more value on their afterlife(we are still waiting for evidence of it) than their only proved and useful life here on earth.
      • iucraigmc, on 02/20/2008, -0/+1We just don't put value in wealth. What is useful in this life is wisdom and loving your neighbor as you love yourself. I find it hard to believe you disagree with this idea.
        • TritonX, on 02/20/2008, -0/+1Did I say I didn't agreed with that idea? I don't agree in putting any value in the afterlife. I'd sure like the bad guys to get punished for eternity, but that's wishful thinking.
    • iucraigmc, on 02/20/2008, -0/+1This quote illustrates that the heart of the Christian should not be in the desire for wealth. It does not state that being wealthy is evil. The problem is the more wealthy one becomes the harder it is to need God because the more powerful you become. That is why it is harder to get into heaven, because it is harder to do what it is God will ask of you because of your attachment to the wealth of the world. If God asked you to give up everything to save another man, it will be much easier to do so with nothing than with trillions of dollars. It's not that complicated, people tend to read real deep into it.
      • TritonX, on 02/20/2008, -0/+1I'd view it from a philosophical point of view. If you are wealthy, you have much more opportunity to influence society and your environment in good and bad ways. Sometimes you have to chose between the lesser of two evils. If you have nothing, you can't do *****, so anything you will do won't hurt no one because you have no influence on anything. Who gives a ***** what god thinks anyway ?
        • iucraigmc, on 02/20/2008, -0/+1You are correct, more wealth gives more influence on society and environment, but if the focus of the wealthy persons heart is on wealth instead of loving their neighbors, then the wealth is useless. The idea here is that being a wealthy Christian is not at all evil, but a Christian who strives for only wealth is. I agree that all Christians should strive to be wealthy, but not because the wealth measures who they are, but because their wealth can be used to better their environments and societies. Jesus' quote simply states that the allure of wealth and the amount of wealth a Christian possesses opens them to more influence to be selfish instead of self-less, so one should be aware of this as they become more wealthy.
  • amightywind, on 02/19/2008, -12/+2God answers American's prayers for money, which is why they are ranked high on both scales.
    • MalenfantX, on 02/20/2008, -0/+0I'm still amazed at the stupid things you post. First, Gods are myth. Second, why would an all-powerful/all-knowing being give a damn about prayer or money?
  • TOMCRUlSE, on 02/19/2008, -10/+0TOM CRUISE FTW!
  • pjr12345, on 02/19/2008, -16/+4Mark 10:25 comes to mind:

    "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

    ...Assuming one is positioned in Christ.
    • MalenfantX, on 02/20/2008, -0/+0positioned in Christ? Is that a sex thing?
  • xMedic, on 02/19/2008, -4/+1US is way off.
  • verusdies, on 02/19/2008, -3/+5yarrrh Sweden FTW
  • CrazedLeper, on 02/19/2008, -5/+6The moral of the story: "Got a soul? Cash it in!"
  • dunderballer, on 02/19/2008, -3/+7I am surprised that Israel scored low on the religiosity test.
    • Daiken, on 02/19/2008, -0/+5You shouldn't be...
    • davdev, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1In my experience Jews are usually far less religious than their Christian or Muslim counterparts. Sure they still celebrate their ceremonies and traditions, but for the most part they are not very religious. Of course I don't many Hacidic (sp?) or ultraconservative Jews so that may not be a completely representative sample of Judaism
    • diggitydoc, on 02/19/2008, -0/+2living in Jerusalem must be a striking example of the scourge of fanatical religiosity.
      Israel: yeah, we forgot about the holocaust...
    • tschau, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1They're pretty much a cultural group at this point, not a religious one. If you care to differentiate them.
    • stonewaljacksn, on 02/19/2008, -2/+2money money money money. MOOOOONAAAAAAAAYYY.
      money and religion do not mix well. remember that whole Jesus flipping the moneychangers table over... Not trying to be anti-semitic or anything you know....just calling it as i see it.
  • digdug2008, on 02/19/2008, -1/+1Cosa Nostra at works.
  • mercurywaxing, on 02/19/2008, -9/+2This is really just a set of meaningless statistics.
    • Mejari, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1Actually, if I'm not mistaken, it's a set of Data. All they've done is collect data and average it by GDP. No true statistics has been done on it in that graph. And no set of data is truly meaningless, because it does say something about the people who the data was collected from, if nothing else.
    • SuperWinner, on 02/19/2008, -0/+2Yeah, just like science, meaningless evidence... /s
  • doyoulikeworms, on 02/19/2008, -1/+7I'd like to see a similar graph of the individual states of the US.
    • davdev, on 02/19/2008, -0/+4Massachusetts, New York and California - Rich and Secular
      Mississippi, Alabama and Louisiana - Poor and religious
  • natefriedman, on 02/19/2008, -5/+0Absolutely
  • MaximusD, on 02/19/2008, -6/+11As a future minister, I only register a 1 on this religion scale. Religion is very important to my life. I pray often, but not everyday. I don't think you have to believe in God to live a moral life -- I know plenty of kind-hearted atheist. I think this "religiousity" meter is flawed -- but then again there is no true measure for that sort of thing. I agree the poor tend to be more religious, but not because of a lack of education or even because of their often desperate situation (3 billion people live on less than $2 a day). It's because wealth can be such a highly corrupting force, and especially if you live in a nation where your wealth is predicated on the exploitation and marginalization of others. To truly walk the religious path (at least in Christianity), you would have to expend your wealth and power for the sake of the poor and needy, not your own self interest. And that's really hard to do.
    • banmaster, on 02/19/2008, -7/+6So, how does it feel to have so easily brainwashed yourself??
      • Arbreng, on 02/19/2008, -5/+2Wow, ***** you. You are every bit as bad as the fundamentalists you hate. How does the hypocracy feel?
    • Puisapres, on 02/19/2008, -5/+4An honorable vocation. I wish you luck.
    • SuperWinner, on 02/19/2008, -5/+3You could spend your life doing something useful and constructive yet you waste it on some made up farce like religion? What a sad day you are facing 30 years from now when you realize you wasted your life on a lie. Glad I'll never have to face that day my friend, good luck to you.
      • ComradeGoby, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1Indeed.

      • MaximusD, on 02/20/2008, -0/+2Yeah. 30 years from now I'm going to be like: "I totally wasted my life in homeless shelters, funding orphanages, visiting the sick and dying in the hospital, marrying loving partners and living life in accordance with my deepest convictions." Oh, that's right. In your mind I don't actually do any of that stuff. I just sit around all day and study fairy tales.
        • covertbadger, on 02/20/2008, -0/+1"marrying loving partners"

          Bigamy at Christmas, what am I to do?
          Spend it with the family? I can't, I've got two!

          Sorry, couldn't resist. Carry on.
        • TritonX, on 02/20/2008, -1/+1"I totally wasted my life in homeless shelters, funding orphanages, visiting the sick and dying in the hospital"
          And you need to be a minister to do this? Are you doing this because you were told it is a good things to do not to taste the fire of hell, or you will do it because it makes you happy to make someone smile when they are suffering? Either way, if you think about it, religion have nothing to do with it. You will still be studying fairy tales and somehow and preaching it as the truth coming from a supernatural being, that is evil.
        • MalenfantX, on 02/20/2008, -0/+0It seems like you feel you're doing these good deeds because of your superstitions, but from your post, it sounds like you're a good person who caught some religious insanity. It's very common, and spreads easily, so I don't blame you for this. Why not engage in critical thinking, lose the superstitions, and just be a good person because you want to?
    • Tetraca, on 02/19/2008, -1/+2Wealth can get people out of poverty just as much as it can get people in it, but you need to know how to push the right buttons and you need to work on not a national level, but a global level.
      Business is greedy and can turn a lot of profit. They moved the manufacturing jobs mostly away from the U.S. as we turn to a service based industry. They've moved to China, India, Vietnam, et cetera. These countries are industrialising and advancing. Soon they'll be as advanced as us and demand as much money as us. As this happens they'll move to the next round of countries until we're all decently advanced working in service jobs...and a lot of positions as mechanics and machinists, open. During this time populations will also decrease as people have less and less need to have many children, and our planet will be able to sustain itself much better.
      [/scenario="Best Case"]
    • Ohimesama, on 02/20/2008, -2/+1You really don't pray everyday? Are you sure the Ministry is where you are called? If you don't talk to God everyday, how can you expect to speak /for/ him everyday?
      • MalenfantX, on 02/20/2008, -0/+0Doesn't really matter since Gods aren't real, and it seems like he's doing some good work.
        • Ohimesama, on 02/21/2008, -0/+1Just because you don't believe, doesn' mean that God is not real. But don't worry. He still believes in you. :)
  • pintomp3, on 02/19/2008, -4/+6i'm surprised israel is so low on the religious scale, considering it's foundation is based on biblical prophecy.
    • diggitydoc, on 02/19/2008, -1/+4and its day to day activities include oppressing people of faith...its like a smack in the face... they are only there because the world felt bad about the Holocaust, and now all they do is cut power and water and waste treatment to the Palestinians... kind of like one big concentration camp.
      i have a bunch of Jewish friends, but Zionists be crrrrrrrazy.
  • tieInterceptor, on 02/19/2008, -5/+10there is a correlation, the more educated you are the highest percentage of agnostic atheists you get. Scientists have a gigantic percentage of atheist/agnostic compared to the average populace. When your life and job is to think for yourself and look for the truth, "god did it" somehow does not cut it any more.
    And yes, if you got a country full of intelligent people you get a better country in economy and social services, no wonder Sweden, with 80% atheistic/agnostic populace is also the number one 1# democracy in the world for the last 5 years, (source: the economist, google for 'democracy chart' and 'atheist statistics' to get the sources.)
    • stonewaljacksn, on 02/19/2008, -3/+3Dude, Sweden's government controls the sale of alcohol. It is highly Socialist. It is a Mommy-State. Cool Place, but it still shows a refusal to take personal responsibility for yourself as an individual as much as unrelenting faith in Daddy-God does.
      • tieInterceptor, on 02/19/2008, -0/+2number one democracy on the world, enough said. If having high taxes that give rise to one of the best living standrards in the world and the best democracy then , charge me, I already pay 40% taxes in the uk, It can't get much worst that that.

        and every country controls de the sale of alcohol, I don't know what you mean by that.
        • Kajon, on 02/20/2008, -0/+0He means that alcohol ony can be bought from the goverment controlled shop "Systembolaget".
          Just one of the many little quirks of my country.

          But it's a safe small open minded place that just need to get a bit more liberal ideas to really flourish.
    • eightballrj, on 02/20/2008, -1/+2New concept to scientists.... God did it.....

      HOW did HE do it!?

      WHEN did HE do it!?

      I guess no one smart enough to be a scientists can be a true Christian. Oh, I so beg to differ. Again, like all the others correlation does not imply causation!
      • tieInterceptor, on 02/20/2008, -0/+2what is claimed with no evidence can be dismissed with no evidence.

        therefore , GOD DID IT, does not cut it.

        how did god do it? before asking that , you got to prove that there is a god,

        like trying to argue how many fairies can dance on the tip of a needle, that question is 2nd, after proving that fairies exist on the first place.

        the scientific method, you know, is used to make sense of the world, coming up with non-explanations is the work of the theists as you just shown.
      • eightballrj, on 02/20/2008, -0/+1Touche'(didn't feel like digging for the French characters). On the same token I say, 'without evidence how can you prove to me there is no God'? We are arguing the same point. How can you say there is no God? You say prove there is one. How can I say there is a God? I say prove that there isn't.
        • MalenfantX, on 02/20/2008, -0/+0Right, we can't prove that Gods are impossible, but it's extremely unlikely that any of man's imagined gods happen to exist.
  • Vodka2389, on 02/19/2008, -8/+8This has nothing to do with being religious. It's because countries that have freedom of religion almost always have an economic system that offers equal opportunity to all (in theory at least)

    Relation doesn't equal causation (Diggers should know this by now).
  • empiric, on 02/19/2008, -3/+0The graph needs a second sample of the same respondents in 200 years.

    • mbelrose, on 02/19/2008, -0/+5The *same* respondents? I believe the all the answers to such a survey would be "BRAAAINS!"
      • empiric, on 02/19/2008, -0/+0Feel free to believe that. Though, I'll take your answer as committing to the notion you'd have no basis for objection to any necessary physical response if and when that point of time arrives. Sound okay to you? You know, for the record.
  • lostarchitect, on 02/19/2008, -8/+2"religiosity"? is that even a word?
  • LiquidIse, on 02/19/2008, -3/+1Surprised to see we have more wealth per capita then eastern european nations
    • banmaster, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1But americans have to work FAR harder to get it. In fact, harder than even the Japanese who are renouned for their hard work.
  • naterpoke, on 02/19/2008, -7/+1Somebody help me
    45,000/ 6,000,000,000 is how much %
  • kfed2, on 02/19/2008, -8/+4As if all religions have the same effect on their respective civilizations.
    Lets make a graph showing that cultures which use the hand shake as a greeting are richer than other cultures.
    Atheism is just as much a faith based religion as any other more organized religion - the atheist bets his soul on the belief that there is no afterlife. If he is wrong and the Muslims are right, he goes to hell for a thousand years or so before getting his first parole hearing. If the Hindus are right, he finds himself hatching out of a snail egg shortly after his death. His bet is his faith.
    Also, many religions encourage sacrificial giving
    • tieInterceptor, on 02/19/2008, -1/+4such a tired old argument, are you serious?

      because not believing in fairies requires faith too... seriously, bring forth proof of a proposition before saying that it requires faith to deny it.

      what is claimed with zero evidence can be dismissed with zero evidence.
      • kfed2, on 02/20/2008, -0/+1I will not bother to discus the evidence for any particular religion, I will only say that all the major world religions have some significant evidence supporting them. Whether or not you accept that evidence is up to you. Even if what you say is true, there must be a reason to believe that life ends at death. If your reason is rejection of the evidence to the contrary, that is your faith. Faith is what you get when you trust that something is true based on incomplete evidence. Faith and blind faith are not the same thing.
        I studied several different faiths, including atheism. I chose the belief system that required the smallest jump between the verifiable evidence in support of the belief, and the conclusions drawn by that faith group. I did this because I am a man of little faith.
        • TritonX, on 02/20/2008, -1/+1I love the "significant evidence", but why is nobody is ever telling what these are? You want to keep the secret to yourself?
          egoists.
          • kfed2, on 02/20/2008, -1/+1It is no secret. Read what the people thought of Muhammad's Koran - this kid, probably 14 years old, goes into a cave, and comes out with information in the form of a work of literature that he could not possibly have produced.
            The Roman equivalent to a media was hurting for stories around the time of Jesus - read what people wrote about his death and resurrection. I can't remember if it was 120 or 220 books that were written about him during and shortly after his life.
            It is no secret, look it up any day you want. Just make sure you do it before you die.
    • Mejari, on 02/19/2008, -1/+3Problems:
      No reference was made to the religion, only their own religiosity. Their praying, their beliefs in the value of morality, and it's importance, each of which can be the same no matter your religion. Most religions have the same basic ideas of morality, so religiosity just tests how strictly the culture adheres to it.

      Atheism is not faith based, because faith requires belief in something without observable and verifiable evidence. Atheism is the belief (remember, not the same as faith) that there is no God, as supported by all evidence so far collected.

      Atheists bet nothing because they don't believe they have souls.

      Hindu's beliefs in reincarnation do not require belief, they require having led a good life, which many atheists do. So it's entirely possible for an atheist, just like anyone else, to move 'up' in the chain of reincarnation.
      • kfed2, on 02/20/2008, -1/+1That is the bet - that they have no soul. The belief that there is no soul is the most difficult to prove because it requires disproving a negative. Since it cannot be proven, it requires a belief in the unseen based on available evidence - that is exactly what faith is. I do believe you confused faith with blind faith. Faith = trust.
        • MalenfantX, on 02/20/2008, -1/+0Religious "Faith" is blind faith, since it's a belief with zero evidence. There's no hypotheses, no testing, nothing but superstition.
          • kfed2, on 02/20/2008, -0/+1See my post below.
            By the way, there is no hypotheses or testing in history. Historians gather evidence and use deductive reasoning.
        • Mejari, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1Why don't you get it? There is no bet!!! If you don't believe something exists, you are not betting anything!!! I am not currently betting that there is no purple dragon sitting next to me because it doesn't even occur to me that it might be remotely possible. To bet something you have to be consciously aware that there are several possibilities and you choose one of them. There is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of God/a soul, therefore, at least to Atheists, there is no bet because there are no other possibilities. However, if you would like to take a bet on whether there is a purple dragon sitting next to me send your money to P.O. Box ...
    • davdev, on 02/19/2008, -1/+1Atheist's don't bet their soles. We don't have one, so their is nothing to bet.
      • SuperWinner, on 02/19/2008, -0/+4souls, and yes there is no such thing
      • kfed2, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1You are betting that you don't have a soul - same thing.
        • thesonofdarwin, on 02/20/2008, -1/+2I don't have Jessica Alba inside me either. No betting, no faith. Cut me open and there be no Jessica Alba, or soul.
  • DeFex, on 02/19/2008, -5/+16they need to do an IQ to religiosity graph
    • Purkake, on 02/19/2008, -2/+1That would interest me as well. I doubt the results would be too unpredictable...
    • banmaster, on 02/19/2008, -2/+9There was one last year (it got on digg anyway), and surprise surprise, IQ levels was directly opposed to levels religiosity.
    • davdev, on 02/19/2008, -1/+4IQ wouldn't do it. Education level would. People can be intelligent and not educated so they may well believe what they are told.
      • MalenfantX, on 02/20/2008, -0/+0I think you got that backwards. Intelligent people can detect ***** for themselves. "Educated" people could have had their heads filled with anything. Even morons who attend Conservative Christian "Universities" think they've been educated.
    • pintomp3, on 02/19/2008, -1/+7http://ccannizzaro.com/2007/03/01/
  • brstilson, on 02/19/2008, -8/+6I think saying a nation is poor or rich due to a popular religious belief is incredibly naive.
    • tschau, on 02/19/2008, -1/+2I think you're stupid.

      There, now we've both made baseless attacks on people's opinions without backing them up at all.
    • elcapitanp, on 02/20/2008, -0/+1Think about birth control. There are people in the poorest of countries who are cranking out children, practically into the mud, because the pope or some other religious figure tells them not to use birth control. Now who is naive?
  • espempire, on 02/19/2008, -8/+345% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

  • tensvb, on 02/19/2008, -6/+4This is surprisingly consistent with New Testament: "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" (Matthew 19:24)
    Now the only question is what's the cause and what the consequence... Personally I believe poverty is the cause of people becoming religious, not other way around.
    • Kerch, on 02/19/2008, -0/+4I wouldn't read too much into that, most of the very religious nations on that graph aren't Christian after all.
  • mal1964, on 02/19/2008, -5/+11I always digg these stories on religion. Not for the stories i don't even read them,The comments are the real story and they're extremely entertaining!
  • rlh1, on 02/19/2008, -7/+2According to the graph, the US has the highest GDP, and is right in the middle of the religiosity curve. Could this have a hidden meaning that has been over looked? Could moderation in all things lead to a happy and productive life? Can man really exist and prosper without swinging to the anti-religious Communism that we have seen in the past, or the strict religious laws of Saudi Arabia? This can only be solved on Digg !
    • ZenMojo, on 02/19/2008, -0/+4You realize that the US's Happiness index is pretty ***** far down the list, right?
      • rlh1, on 02/19/2008, -1/+1I think you're probably correct. I spend 3 1/2 weeks in Europe this fall. When we were in the subway in Prague they said that they could tell that we were Americans. We asked how they knew. They said because were were smiling. I guess we are pretty far down on that happiness list.
  • hollowex, on 02/19/2008, -8/+1It's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into Heaven. Or so I've heard.
  • ajstre24, on 02/19/2008, -7/+0"Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." Matthew 19:24
  • Chahrlie5, on 02/19/2008, -1/+2The chicken or the egg?
  • Gravey9, on 02/19/2008, -5/+3that's one of the worst graphs I've ever seen.
    • MessiahCakes, on 02/20/2008, -0/+1I Agree.
      It's pretty damn reductionist. Not to mention based on entirely dubious presumptions about religiosity. I mean: praying? GOD being necessary for morality? Ugh, when they said "Religious," they really meant: "we're shafting you with the fundamentals of organized Western Religion in the medieval period. REALLY? That's not Synecdoche at all.....no, this is how ALL religiosity manifests. Tough luck."

      Sorry, not all wealthy and educated individuals are secular. They may not pray, and they may have non-religious origins for their systems of ethics, but that does NOT make them "non-religious." Unless, of course, you believe that offerings to saints, gods, ***** spirits, ancestors, etc. don't really count as religious behavior. I would love to see them measure that, and stick Japan on the Map.

      So I dug you up.
      Even though you'll get dugg back down.
  • ZenMojo, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1And we have come to the conclusion that rich people are godless, religious people have no need for wealth, poor people are superstitious, religious people are more charitable, or any other number of mere correlative possibilities unrelated to fact without further research that we want. Or you can just say, "Huh, neat graph, whatever that means" and go on about your business.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 91 of 91 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.