Materialism is the cause of the development of Atheism

Pro's contention, as I understand the resolution, is essentially that Materialism causes Atheism.His argument proceeds with the following contentions: Religion created two classes of persons - priests & non-priests; Among the non-priests, the less one had, the more appealing religion was; Because religions require one to give up material goods, some persons who did not want to do so became atheists to preserver their wealth; Religion changes over time, and sometimes these changes spark atheism. It seems that the only pertinent one of these contentions is the third - that religious asceticism sparks atheism in those who do not want to part with their wealth. Pro's argument makes two serious errors. 1. Causal Fallacy This objection to Pro's argument is twofold. Pro presents no evidence to counter the objections of post hoc ergo propter hoc and cum hoc ergo propter hoc - after this, therefore because of this, and with this, therefore because of this. At this point in the debate, Pro's burden is to provide a prima facia case that can overcome these objections. Evidence of this nature would necessarily need to establish a causal relationship between materialism and atheism. It could be the case, for example, that atheism causes materialism - the atheist, after all, has nothing else to believe in, so why not focus on worldly possessions? Could not the poor schmuck, upon discovering that religion really did not hold the answers for him, then focus on securing his worldly comfort instead of the afterlife? 2. Inconsistent Observation The second objection is related to the first. Pro's contention would lead to the expectation that income distribution in religious groups would be quite bottom-heavy. But this is certainly not the case across all religions. Pew examined the breakdown in the US (http://pewforum.org...) Here's a quick summary... Almost half of Jews and Hindus in the US make more than $100,000 a year. The overall US distribution of $100,000+ is 18%. But only Mormons, Muslims, Evangelical Protestants, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Historically Black Protestant churches have below 18% of their membership making $100,000+ per year (and of those, the first two are only off by 2%). The overall US distribution of < $30,000 is 31%. Only Evangelical Protestant, Muslim, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Historically Black Protestant churches are above that rate. Even ignoring the fact of minority income distribution, these findings are inconsistent with Pro's theory. Furthermore, Pro's contention would lead to the supposition that religiosity decreases proportionally to material wealth. But another pew study (http://pewforum.org...) shows that geography may play a significant role. Further, it is common knowledge that atheism is more prevalent among European countries, particularly the Scandinavian ones - this suggests that not only is geography important, but cultural and racial heterogeneity may play a role as well. Also along this venue is this chart (http://andrewgelman.com...), which demonstrates that even if there is a relationship between income and religiosity, explanations like politics may play a role. There are, of course, outliers like New Mexico and South Dakota, but even if there is a trend, it is a very, very shallow one. To sum up this point, if Pro's contention of the relationship between materialism and atheism were true, one would expect to see religious groups' income distributions to be at least the same as that of the US (for example) as a whole. As a minor 'other cause' there is also the fact that some studies have shown a correlation between intelligence and atheism (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Yet another problem in this vein rears its head for Pro - even if we suppose that there is a correlation between income and atheism, this does not establish a correlation between materialism and atheism. In other words, simply because someone is rich does not mean they are preoccupied with their material possessions. In fact, one could make the argument that if materialism is as Pro says, "a preoccupation with or emphasis on material objects, comforts, and considerations," then it is in fact the poor that are more materialistic. The rich already have material objects; their material comforts are met; and they need not think of material considerations because they can throw money at it. But to the poor, a pair of shoes, may have a disproportionate value when compared to the rich - it is certainly more important for the pauper to extend the life of his material possessions than it is for the prince. The poor worry about where their next meal (a material consideration) or their warm bed for that night (a material comfort) may come from... the rich do not - I ask Pro... who is preoccupied in this situation? Conclusion Readers, it seems that Pro's definition and argument leads us to the conclusion that materialism actually causes theism! Or more appropriately, lack of material possessions causes materialism, which causes theism as a replacement for unfulfilled materialism. Pro has not shown a causal relationship between materialism and atheism. Furthermore, statistics show that at least for some religion, the wealthy make up more of a percentage of the religion than the poor. Also, Pro has not shown that other considerations like geography, intelligence, or politics are not the cause of atheism. Thus, the resolution is: NEGATED.