Why are least religious countries much better than religious ones? (Buddhists, protestant)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Atheism is the result (and NOT the cause) of increased standard of living, education and peace in a society. People generally become apathetic when they have nothing much to worry about.
Atheism is the result (and NOT the cause) of increased standard of living, education and peace in a society. People generally become apathetic when they have nothing much to worry about.
So why then is the US so much more religious than Canada or Western Europe? And why are those countries rated higher in non economic indicators than the States?
So why then is the US so much more religious than Canada or Western Europe? And why are those countries rated higher in non economic indicators than the States?
The U.S. is only religious on the national level but if its wealth and religiosity were to be broken down by state it will virtually be the same case as other countries. The richest US states are the least religious and the poorest US states are the most religious. The rich US states of California, New York, Maryland, New Jersey have only 34% or less of their population being religious which is about the same percentage of religious people in Scandinavian countries, while the poorest US states which are the southern states are also the most religious states. Religiosity and wealth is almost universally negatively correlated.
The GDP of a city, state, or country is basically equal its city, state, or national income.
Sorry, but that's nonsense. When a large corporation relocate its legal place of business to Ireland it will boost the GDP of Ireland enormously. The same effect: A large corporation spends a few billions for industrial property rights. In 2014 the GDP of Ireland was 193bn Euro, in 2015 it was 256bn Euro. That's an increase of 33% in just one year. Do you really believe that Ireland was able to increase its economic output in just one year by 33%? The individual consumption in 2014 was 104bn Euro. In 2015 it was 109bn Euro. That's an increase of "just" 5%. GDP is not basically equal to the national income.
It's even more absurd to compare GDP figures for cities or metro areas. A city with many HQs from large corporatoins will basically always have a much higher GDP. The GDP of Düsseldorf with a pop of about 600,000 is higher than the GDP of Cologne with a pop of about 1,000,000. Calculatory the GDP per capita in Düsseldorf is more than 50% higher than in Cologne, but the income per capita is just slightly higher by around 10%. Düsseldorf has just a lot more HQs from large corporations. Many cities in the Ruhr area have a much higher GDP per capita than cities in rural areas. But those rural areas are mostly much richer than these poor cities in the Ruhr area.
Quote:
So, contrary to your insinuation, that small countries like Qatar, Luxembourg, and Ireland have higher per capita GDP's than the United States and China the two nations with the largest GDP's on earth indicates quite a lot.
The GDP of Qatar is extremely high, because of its oil and the exploitation of extremely poor migrant worker.
More than half of the employees in Luxembourg are commuters from Belgium, France and Germany. Luxembourg is effectively like a city with many HQs from large corporations. GDP is extremely high but the residents in Luxembourg aren't so rich like the GDP figures sugest.
The GDP of Ireland is boosted by the presence of the HQ of large corporations. The Irish don't benefit from HQs holding property rights.
All these countries are outlier and absolutely inappropriate for the discussion in this thread.
Quote:
And many people from Mexico work in the United States. If the United States and Luxembourg had zero jobs to attract foreign workers then foreign workers would not seek employment and paychecks in these countries.
The number of Mexicans commuting everyday to the U.S. for work is negligible low in relation to the total number of employees in the U.S. That's completely different in Luxembourg.
Quote:
As I stated earlier--and I've learned this taking a course in Developmental Economics at a secular, state run university in Milwaukee--that economists look to the per capita GDP of a nation to gauge how rich (average) the citizens of a country are.
During your studies you should normally learn about the flaws of GDP figures and that they aren't a good measurement for how rich the citizens of a country are.
Quote:
For example, if in Qatar, Luxembourg, and Ireland its 20 people respectively produce $100 in goods and services, and in each nation respectively 2 individuals receive $20 each as a portion of that $100 and the rest of the 18 people receive a $3.33 portion of that $100 those 18 people are richer than the average citizens of China and the USA.
GDP is basically measured as the sum of all expenditures. These expenditures for example can be pushed by raising house prices or by buying up property rights. Nothing was produced, but the GDP sugest that the economic output has risen.
As it is Ireland and Qatar have no Skid Row such as LA does. And metro LA has a GDP roughly equal to that of the Netherlands. With the City of LA being run by liberals and Democrats and during a period a black Democratic President antagonistic to Christianity sat in holy reign for 8 whole years. Yet liberal run LA's sprawling Skid Row has been described as the United States only Third World City, with people living in what economists term "absolute poverty."
Qatar has surely more poverty than Los Angeles. There are more than 1,500,000 migrant workers in Qatar. Compared to less than 100,000 local workers. Many migrant workers are treated inhumanely and it's estimated that about 4,000 migrant workers will die, just for the football world championship construction projects.
BTW it's just stupid to compare the GDP of a metro region with that of a whole country.
Quote:
In terms of purchasing power of money Qatar is regarded as the richest nation on earth even by US left wing media. And Qatar is not only religious but it is run by both Islamic law and an absolute monarchy.
These purchasing power adjustments are quite nonsense. It's completely flawed. The concept needs a common basket of goods that is valid for all countries around the world. But such a basket of goods doesn't exist. Eurostat, the statistical agency of the EU isn't even able to collect the prices for basic goods within single EU countries to make reliable price comparisons. Can you imagine how absurd this endavour would be in countries that are completely different from each other?
Quote:
Consumption in and of itself does not indicate a person or country is richer. If that were the case every midrange rapper blowing his money on jewelry bling, buy expensive cars, and buying a home larger than Warren Buffet would be richer than Warren Buffet. It would also indicate that during the US housing bubble, citizens living off credit, derivatives scams constructed in the financial markets, as well as the current Chinese housing bubble, that consumption driven by debt necessarily indicates a person or people are wealthier than a person or people that practice greater fiscal discipline and banking systems that avoid moral hazards. Ridiculous.
The individual consumption approach of Eurostat is a relatively new method to measure the national income.
The whole GDP thing is very questionable. It's just the sum of all estimated expenditures. Doesn't matter whether those expenditures are underpinned by real values or how durable those values are or how these expenditures are financed.
No one with specific background knowledge argues with these absurd GDP rankings. Or is at least aware that those rankings are quite meaningless. A reputable economic scientist would never take these GDP figures seriously.
So why then is the US so much more religious than Canada or Western Europe? And why are those countries rated higher in non economic indicators than the States?
I'm not sure about what is cause and what is effect. Normally better educated people are overall less religious. And a society with better educated people will most likely be able to achieve a higher living standard. Best examples are probably the Scandinavian countries.
On the other side, poor people (relatively to their compatriots) are probably religious because it helps to make their life more bearable.
Personally I have made the experience that people with difficulties in logical reasoning tend to be more religious. Unlikely that those people can contribute as much to the econmic output than smarter people.
On the other side, poor people (relatively to their compatriots) are probably religious because it helps to make their life more bearable.
Personally I have made the experience that people with difficulties in logical reasoning tend to be more religious. Unlikely that those people can contribute as much to the econmic output than smarter people.
Like all generalizations, you can find exceptions to these, but they are reasonable rules of thumb in my view.
Religion is great at providing false hope. And that is not even really a dig. As my late prior wife used to say, "I'll take a false sense of well-being if it's all I can get". If your life is circumscribed by structural obstacles to breaking out of prejudiced stereotypes and it becomes clear that you are never going to get ahead, then a belief-system that defers comprehensibility, safety, justice, peace of mind and closure to some point after death becomes very appealing indeed.
So, sure, this tends to apply to the impoverished and those with difficulties in thinking. It also applies to the chronically ill, or to any group with greater than usual burdens that argue against them ever transcending the human condition in any imaginable story arc the makes a soft landing before, rather than after, death.
But as a former theist, I can testify that religion is nowhere near the help you think it is. Once you're clear of it and pry its assumptions out of your brain, you find that unbelief is no less conducive to living a good life and in many ways is MORE conducive. A lot of the siren appeal of religious ideation is simply a product of operant conditioning and the historic majority position of religious thinkers. It is nowhere near as indispensable as people of faith tend to think it is.
Like all generalizations, you can find exceptions to these, but they are reasonable rules of thumb in my view.
Religion is great at providing false hope. And that is not even really a dig. As my late prior wife used to say, "I'll take a false sense of well-being if it's all I can get". If your life is circumscribed by structural obstacles to breaking out of prejudiced stereotypes and it becomes clear that you are never going to get ahead, then a belief-system that defers comprehensibility, safety, justice, peace of mind and closure to some point after death becomes very appealing indeed.
So, sure, this tends to apply to the impoverished and those with difficulties in thinking. It also applies to the chronically ill, or to any group with greater than usual burdens that argue against them ever transcending the human condition in any imaginable story arc the makes a soft landing before, rather than after, death.
But as a former theist, I can testify that religion is nowhere near the help you think it is. Once you're clear of it and pry its assumptions out of your brain, you find that unbelief is no less conducive to living a good life and in many ways is MORE conducive. A lot of the siren appeal of religious ideation is simply a product of operant conditioning and the historic majority position of religious thinkers. It is nowhere near as indispensable as people of faith tend to think it is.
All I have to do is look at the lives of the rich and famous to see that your argument doesn't hold up. Here we have a select group of people who were fortunate to have their life path directed towards very positive outcomes. They don't have to sit at the kitchen table and stress how they are going to pay the bills. They have money, fame, beautiful partners, beautiful houses etc... They have no obstacles. They got ahead and yet look how many feel the need to resort to drugs or alcohol as a desperate measure of escape or seeking happiness. It is most hollow at the top.
Also countries like South Korea are highly religious and I wouldn't consider them to be a impoverished nation.
All I have to do is look at the lives of the rich and famous to see that your argument doesn't hold up. Here we have a select group of people who were fortunate to have their life path directed towards very positive outcomes. They don't have to sit at the kitchen table and stress how they are going to pay the bills. They have money, fame, beautiful partners, beautiful houses etc... They have no obstacles. They got ahead and yet look how many feel the need to resort to drugs or alcohol as a desperate measure of escape or seeking happiness. It is most hollow at the top.
Also countries like South Korea are highly religious and I wouldn't consider them to be a impoverished nation.
More than half of South Koreans have no religious membership. Not sure how when more than half of the population does not state any religion you claim they are highly religious.
All I have to do is look at the lives of the rich and famous to see that your argument doesn't hold up. Here we have a select group of people who were fortunate to have their life path directed towards very positive outcomes. They don't have to sit at the kitchen table and stress how they are going to pay the bills. They have money, fame, beautiful partners, beautiful houses etc... They have no obstacles. They got ahead and yet look how many feel the need to resort to drugs or alcohol as a desperate measure of escape or seeking happiness. It is most hollow at the top.
My argument was not that wealth = happiness. Nor even that religion has no appeal to the wealthy. Rather my point was that poverty, want, sickness and ignorance tends to make people more vulnerable to the false promises and comforting lies that religious faith offers.
Where is the low-hanging fruit for conservative Christianity and Islam these days? The third world generally, for example, Africa.
Here again note, I am saying just that and nothing more. In no way am I suggesting that fundamentalism has no purchase in wealthy and educated populations. I am talking about where the easy pickings are.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
