what studies, and what is their definition of non religious?

The definition of non-religious being used is someone who is Atheist, Agnostic, or non-religious. (yes, there are people who identify themselves as non-religious)

Unfortunately, Every link I'm finding is to a message board, with the original link long gone..

But the best post one I can find is: (originally posted on Pitzer College's site)

thank you for the reference, it is interesting,, I still would like to see more of the actual DATA supporting the claim,,,

in my humble opinion, u dnt need anybody to prove that god is exist
u just need to believe from deep down in ur heart that god is exist everywhere, then he would prove to u that he is exist :)
and not everything that exist are able to touch, i think
once again, that's just my humble opinion

Same with Santa Claus right?

umm i don't think that god wearing a red uniform and fat oww oww
some says god is everywhere and massive, unlimited-some songs say so as well
so i'm assuming that god is every matter sorrounds me

Sounds familiar, I think I may have run across that study in school. You guys have to be careful though to keep in mind the apparent correlation between theism and social health in this quote only points to a relationship, not a cause. One could argue that in the nations developing technologically faster are facing declining crime and social pestilence because these indicators of societal health are being solved and eliminated. Conversely, one could argue that in areas that were colonized by Europe and the U.S. are facing more social health problems because of the nature of economic trade developed there. But also there is a strong religious presence in those countries, be it in violent reaction to outsiders (the Middle East) or the product of forced conversion (Africa, S. America).

Keeping on topic, I'm an agnostic myself. There's something there, but I'll be damned if I'll believe to stories thousands of years old, especially considering Man's scam artist streak.

Yet, you have to "just believe" in both..

As one of my favorite de-motivational posters says (paraphrased) "Remember everything you learned of jesus when you learn that Santa isn't real."

"Remember everything you learned of jesus when you learn that Santa isn't real."

Sure is a good idea.

Santa (as portrayed to children under current dogma) is a fabrication built upon a truth, wrapped around the life of a man. (a man that went about helping people).

Jesus (as portrayed by many religious organizations) is a fabrication built upon a truth, wrapped around the life of a man that went about bringing hope and comfort.

What your children learn will shape how they see truth.

What truths you teach them will shape how they live life.

How they live life will shape the world far into the future.

Wait?! Hold on one second...are you trying to tell me Santa isn't real?!

Woops

oh man,, the gift givers never stepped up to admit their presents?

my parents stepped up and admitted the gave the gifts,, noone else has stepped up to claim creation though,,,

good point :) and very true. No one else can claim creation. There is only one creater, our great God.

I've always wondered how someone could be atheist, regardless of other religions. Cause something can not come from nothing, if there is no God where did all the planets come from? Where did anything come from? I've told you once, and i'll tell you again God created everything, no other explanation. And you can take that to the bank.

In my opinion, that's an intellectual cop out. Saying "well we don't know where else it could have come from so it must be gawd" is not a rational stance. It's like me hearing a radio for the first time, the only way i know that i hear singing is from people, so rationally there must be little people in the radio.

Just because you don't know the explanation doesn't mean it's by default Gawd. Every religion claims a creation story, the first one crazier than the next. You don't know any more than the hindus or Native Americans how the world was created.

I'm not claiming to know how the world is created, i'm just saying that neither do you.

This so-called "reasoning" makes no sense.

If you are convinced that something cannot come from nothing, then you'd be stuck with having to explain how God came to be.

Your appeal to a "god" doesn't explain anything. All it does is pass the buck to another level.

All you're saying is the following: I can't understand how the universe could come into being without a creator. But I CAN accept the idea that a Great Magician exists who could bring the universe into existence.

This makes no sense at all.

An atheist would just laugh and say, why not let the buck stop with this universe? What's the point in passing it on to yet another level of 'magic'. It's 'magic' in BOTH cases!

On the one hand you're claiming that something cannot come into existence from nothing, and on the other hand you're demanding that God did just that. That didn't get you very far in terms of reasoning.

I believe i like how your mind works good sir.

when comparing santa clause, or the voices in the radio with God

the difference is,, Santa claus is DISPROVEN,,and can be traced to its origins

voices in the radio, can likewise be researched and tracked to their perspective owners


GOd, however , is yet to be disproven and his CREATION cant truly be TRACED to any individual thing or person,,

Lol, God isn't proven. What's your "trace"? The beauty in a childs laugh? The warm summer breeze on your face?

Well now that depends on how you define "God" does it not?

For some religions, the "God" they describe has indeed been disproved at least in the sense that the stories associated with that God have been disproved.

For example, no one believes in Zeus anymore because that mythology had Zeus living on a mountain and when we looked on that mountain we found no God living there.

Similarly, the Biblical God has also been disproved, because that story has mankind's "fall from grace" be the cause of imperfection and death in the world. Yet, we now know that imperfections and death have always existed, even long before mankind showed up on the planet. So the very basis of that mythological tale of a "god" has been shown to be false. Not at all unlike, Santa Claus, or voices in a radio.

So, in this way, we have at least ruled out certain creation myths as clearly not being true representations of the "real" creator of the universe (should one actually exist).

Eastern Mysticism is really about the only religion that's left that hasn't yet been proven to be false. Also, because of the type of philosophy it is, it would be extremely difficult to prove it to be false. But the religions that arose from Middle Eastern folklore and mythologies based on Greek and Hewbrew tales have indeed all been proven to be false. Even though the general public still desperately clings to them and refuses to acknowledge the truth of this.