i think, the reason is because of the way people raise children in developed countries. the more violence a child experiences, the more vulnerable for religious infection it gets.

read lloyd demausse about parenting and childhood in history.

he shows clearly: the lesser violence in the childhood -> the more developed the country will be

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

There are probably as many reasons as people as to why someone is atheist or isn’t. But, I do agree general trends point toward more education less superstition.

For me it took longer to let go of superstitious beliefs than god beliefs. Don’t know why. God /jesus didn’t make sense to me but I still wanted to besearch help from the universe or some power beyond myself to protect me from tornados and other sorts of mayhem. This stuff had a little more tenacious a hold on my brain.

I hope this author is right but I do think the article is a little simple.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Majority:

The article is a prelude to a complete study to be published in August.  Stay tuned.  Read the study when it is published and then maybe you won’t think it’s simplistic. 

What if we lived in a world where nobody felt like they had to appeal to a magical, invisible friend because they have no agency in their own lives?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

“Anthropologist James Fraser proposed that scientific prediction and control of nature supplants religion as a means of controlling uncertainty in our lives.”

I find it interesting that no one expected the Bible to be the fundamental, inerrant, unalterable, unquestionable WORD OF GOD until scientific prediction and control started working. Fundamentalism arose because of science. Without science, that gives people the expectation of a high level of control over nature, no one had any expectations that the god character should be precise. The scientific worldview created Fundamentalism.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

“A means of controlling uncertainty.” This idea certainly rings true. But to me, religion has always been more about managing the fear of death. The irony that’s lost on most is that the deeper into religion one is, the more he or she is already dead inside.

Hopefully, someday another word besides atheist will enter the lexicon. Who goes around saying they don’t acknowledge the existence of something? I don’t get up every morning thinking I’ll let everyone know that I don’t believe in Santa Claus.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

To avoid misunderstanding, let me make clear my own position. I - paleoskeptik, as opposed to neo-skeptic. Neo-skeptics question about everything except what science says, paleoskeptiki doubt the most, period. This - so the question of complete indifference to me whether atheism replace religion or substitute religion of atheism. Paleoskeptiku (as opposed to neo-skeptic) the arguments of atheists as full of holes as the arguments of the faithful. http://softx64.com/

You don't have permission to flag this entry.