To answer that, you'd have to go into the meaning of happiness and the generation of such. People usually don't find happiness in material goods or the acquisition of such. People on their death beds are never complaining about how much money they didn't make, but rather on the friendships they soured, the people they harmed, etc. - i.e. the happiness they chose to forego in favor of something else. Charles Dickens' "A Christmas Carol" resonates with many.

As to the source of happiness, there are going to be lots of opinions...

Well said.

Probably because progressivism is so anti-thought. Never seen a progressive policy that can withstand the light of simple truth and fact.

"Choosing to believe" is the key word. It is the ultimate wildcard of human cognition. Since there is no higher being, the mind manufactures that concept out of thin air, without evidence. Self-preservation through mutual respect and interaction for mutual benefit is both the ideal and the practical. "Nothing more than self-preservation" is like saying the life is nothing more than the ultimate value. Just a mere trinket...

This could come down to a "chicken or egg" debate. I choose to believe that in antiquity, social ethics were derived from belief in a higher being. The "objective, rational" ethics of which you speak are nothing more than self preservation behaviors that avoid being bonked on the head by someone you otherwise might have screwed..

Objective, rational ethics came first, since they do provide for co-existing in society. These then were latched onto by religious and legal authorities to muscle them into public use and aggrandize their own powers. In time those beliefs devolved into indoctrinations detached from reality.

Ethical and moral principles do not require sectarian enforcement. Positing an invisible bigger chief than the earthly rulers was just a clever ruse to make people obey (for their own good, of course).

I read no mention of Reconstruction after the Civil War and how it impacted the South by setting it back decades in education. Here is a case for reparation if there ever has been one. I also read no mention of how the North has lost their vise grip hold on manufacturing to the South in automobile production. I read no mention of the lower cost of living in the South because it doesn't have the level of corruption that places like N.Y., Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia, etc have. I read no mention of the fact that if the South is so bad then why do these pseudo intellectuals have to insist that their way, a $17 trillion debt, is so superior. All of the above plus a 100 other reasons make the South look pretty good. And oh, by the way, the secular are chasing the wind while faith is something that can save you.

"For centuries, the battle of morality was fought between those who claimed that your life belongs to God and those who claimed that it belongs to your neighbors—between those who preached that the good is self-sacrifice for the sake of ghosts in heaven and those who preached that the good is self-sacrifice for the sake of incompetents here on earth. And no one came to say that your life belongs to you and the good is to live it."

"For centuries, the battle of morality was fought between those who claimed that your life belongs to God and those who claimed that it belongs to your neighbors—between those who preached that the good is self-sacrifice for the sake of ghosts in heaven and those who preached that the good is self-sacrifice for the sake of incompetents here on earth. And no one came to say that your life belongs to you and the good is to live it." Ayn Rand

"Majorities in all highly developed countries do not think belief in god to be necessary for morality, with one exception only: the USA."

Do we Americans really believe that "it is necessary to believe in God in order to be a moral person?" How ignorant!

brd76, I agree with you that the rehabilitation or reconition of criminals in prison _could_ (indeed, _should_) be without religion. We do not run things there. You goto a warden and tell him that you want to educate criminals with atheism and egoism and you will get laughed out of the office. It will be the best joke he's heard in years. Their view is that egoism defines the prisoners: they failed to be socialized to the common morality. If they were practicing Christians, who had given their lives to Christ, they would not be in prison. QED. At least, that is the common view in penology and corrections.

It's really simple... Atheists can live on the basis of "some" form of morality, but, a morality without a firm standard to base it on (aka, the eternal Word of God) is no morality at all. Their morality is a house built on a sand island in the middle of the ocean, it's got zero foundation.

They can invent whatever form of morality they want to when they don't believe in God. Hitler had a morality he believed was right. So did Pol Pot, Stalin, the Caesars, etc.

My husband and I were born and raised in the north but have lived and worked all over the country.

There is a peculiar difference between the work ethic of those of us in the upper Midwest vs. the overwhelming work ethic of the folks in the South. It is comparable to the difference between Germans and Greeks. In a colder climate you have very little time to store up the fruits of your labors (farming) in order to prepare for winter. In the south, much like in Greece and Italy, the attitude toward work is "tomorrow is another day and the work will still be here then". Because of the long growing season and the heat of summer there is a tendency to "take it easy" and rightfully so. Heat stroke comes easily with overexertion.

The "fact" that the South is "religious" has nothing to do with lack of wealth ... it has to do with their work ethic. Sometimes fishing is just more important than working.

The "prickly" atheists, just like the "prickly" religionists are in the great minority. I have no data, but I'd be willing to guess 10% certainly less than 15%. They sling the mud, but everyone gets dirty. However, "atheist" is almost always treated like a swear word, where as religion is almost always given respect. That is due, of course, to thousands of years of conditioning, carried down from the shamans of the past to the priests of today. While Rand's philosophy will work for both people of faith and people of no faith, belief in religion qua religion negates much of her ideas.

I do not personally believe this to be destructive or a myth. If you want morality in a society you must have religion.

Now to clarify what religion is to me, its not the same thing to everyone so without that clarification a study such as this is flawed at best.

First off the second definition for religion from Dictionary.com.

Religion: A specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects.

By this definition a person who believes their to be no god, but believes in the power of science and that man can one day understand everything about how the worlds works has a religion.

Religion is a set of moral values by which a person lives there lives and people with the same moral values gathering together to practice them. This site represents a form of religion.

Many here may disagree with me and that is OK. But if you take away some core of moral value, some idea of right and wrong from society there is no society left. Without shared moral values you cannot have a cohesive society. With a shared moral value system you have some form of religion. Some are more loose than others, but it is there.

Our founders wrote letters to each other refering to the religion of America Benjamin Franklin desribed it with these words "I believe in one god, the creator of the universe. THe the most acceptable service we render to him is in doing good to his other children. That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its contact in this. These I take to be the fundamental point in all sound religion." - Letter to Ezra Stiles, president of Yale university

At the time the 5 points he suggests here to points every sect in America agreed upon. Today it would be said differently as not everyone would agree upon the supreme creator.

However the basic morals outlined by Franklin are 100% valid for America or any society to practice or we will fail. That use to come from organized god centered religion, or so people think. It is my view that the moral code must ultimately come from within each of us, and religion helped that to occur but ultimately people made the choice to have a moral code and follow it. Without that code a society will fail. Franklin outlined it well.

Pluck at a premise of faith in either god or government and see just how "prickly" those of faith in either respond. It's astounding how angry and vile a reaction I can create in either direction with a few simple questions. Give me five minutes or less in person and I'll have them squirming in their seats, calling me names, or wishing they had a gun. So yes, my mileage is varied and from our proverbial boxes of classification we are supposed to bicker and fight while the left and the right deny further our right to think, create, and innovate. So if you like your box that's fine by me but it's also not ever going to stop me from finding the truth and seeking answers. Answers that none of faith have ever been able to satisfy based on my own personal logic and reason. My morals are based on nature and survival without causing harm or violating my integrity. I only have trust in others who prove to me that they are of like mind in that regard, regardless of their ritual behavior or faith otherwise.

Nice to hear from you. I agree with yor points and the logical conclusions

What an absurd article. One misconception after another.

Same thing applies in reverse.

Many atheists assume believers are not worth listening to either.

Both sides do it.


Atheists in my experience tend to be far more "prickly" over their "beliefs" than people of faith tend to be.

You mileage may vary.

I put "beliefs" in quotes above because I can not think of a word that better applies.

IIRC, Jim Crow laws, the KKK, governors standing on school building steps to prevent blacks from entering, and other such things all occurred when the South was dominated by Democratic Party politicians. Hmmm, probably not the connection the author wants readers to remember, chuckle.

Most religious people I've known don't make a point of waving their belief in your face. I can't say the same for the Atheists I've been acquainted with, as nearly all of them have been downright militant, angry people determined to declare religious people as ignorant, prejudiced boobs.

Of course when I tell an Atheist he is a proponent of a secular form of religion, a blown emotional gasket is quick to follow. Religion is a belief system with no factual foundation, so those on both sides of the question of the existence of a supernatural deity are followers. Only Agnostics are truly areligious, and those few I've met usually don't care if their religious associates practice their favorite rituals. I've never heard of an Agnostic behind any of the lawsuits aimed at suppressing religious practices, whereas Atheists almost always are.

I'm a Deist, based on personal experience. I have little tolerance for most organized religions, but so long as they don't impede my life practices the practitioners of those religions should be free to believe as they choose.

I also caught onto that "package deal".

On the flip side to your assessment, it doesn't necessarily have to be religion which provides one structure in their life. Morals defined by a priest, for example, tend to often be violated by said priest. Many of the most hypocritical individuals I've known are of a faith; faith in god or faith in government. As far as I see it neither entity of man nor entity of spirit can serve my self interest better than I can myself. My point here is that it is possible to be moral and innocent of crime without serving a set of rituals prescribed by another.

I'm going to ask a question actually based on the article, without attacking the author or immediately tying political labels on things. Let's see how this goes...

Report found:
"clear majorities in all highly developed countries do not think belief in god to be necessary for morality, with one exception only: the USA."

So if we use GDP per capita as a measure of development, the US is the highest-developed country in the study. Is this because capitalism combined with at least 50% "belief in god" creates a situation for success, or are we successful despite those 50%?

In the first case the religious in America may act as a check on the GDP, keeping it at a stable (and high) point. In the second case, the economy thrives despite the correlation between GDP and religious belief. Thus America succeeds while dragging along the believes, as Rearden (early on) supports the moochers because he feels it's easy for him to do so.