Atheist nations are more peaceful?

...well this guy thinks so. Moderately interesting, although I find his statement that it's "highly statistically significant" a little bewildering. What does just one statistic really illustrate anyway?

Something to discuss all the same. Although given previous 'discussions' about these things, I'm hoping it won't descend into verbal warfare. ;)

[Attachment 5332]

Blog post here: Epiphenom: Atheist nations are more peaceful

Based on this: Vision of Humanity

[Attachment 5333]

An interesting read nonetheless.

I didn't need some new report to tell me that dumb people are irrational and violent. :P

Quote from rec;365511:
I didn't need some new report to tell me that dumb people are irrational and violent. :P

This is how we descend into slanging matches young man... :P

I was more looking for discussion into whether people think this is true and why.

:D

ugh, then do a stat to see peaceful vs ave individual wealth.

edit. sorry grandinferno...

Do I think its true no. why, I believe there's more factors involved than religion to how violent countries can be. Stats like these change all the time and its a combination of social-economic effects which overall change all the time. ie smoking, cancer, heart attacks, vehicle death.

I was going to post something thought provoking .... then rec got stuck in yet again.....

Quote from psyave;365515:
ugh, then do a stat to see peaceful vs ave individual wealth.

No no... this is good. This is what I'm talking about. Discussion! Not bagging. Not really sure what you mean though bud... Clarify a bit? ;)

Quote from psyave;365515:
edit. sorry grandinferno...

*shrugs* Did I miss something?

saw your second post about debate so i edited my shite :P

The strange thing though, is even 'Athiest states' have laws and morals built on religious ideals :)

at the risk of quoting slashdot's tags: correlation is not causation

Quote from Milenko;365547:
The strange thing though, is even 'Athiest states' have laws and morals built on religious ideals :)

The strange thing is that those religious ideals are based on being human. :)

The only difference is that religion gift-wraps these ideals, offers false hope and then charges for it.

As much as rec is borderline flame baiting I do agree with him.

Which came first? Morals or Religious Ideals?

CHICKEN AND EGG OH NO!

Studies have observed that morals, not dissimilar to our own, exist even in the world of primates. So I dare say that morals came first, as the ape in the jungle has no idea about Christianity.

Oh, and there's nothing boderline about it. I am flame baiting.

... C*nts.

Quote from rec;365559:
Oh, and there's nothing boderline about it. I am flame baiting.

... C*nts.

roflcopter

Quote from rec;365559:
Oh, and there's nothing boderline about it. I am flame baiting.

... C*nts.

I stand corrected :p

statistically significant is a statistical term. for something to be statistically significant, the p-stat has to be less than a generally accepted standard - usually 0.05. in english what that means is that the probability that the results drawn from the test occured due to random chance is 0.05 or less. what he's saying is that the p-stat for the test he ran was less than 0.001 which means the probability that the results he drew from that test were caused by random chance were less than 1/1000.

tldr version: statistically significant means proven beyond statistically reasonable doubt

edit: also remember all this proves is correlation, not causation. (i'm agnostic btw)