The basic defense of Zuckerman mounted in the comment section is among the msot lame of all arguments I've seen:
(1) Zuckerman doesn't say "atheist nation" but secular nation.
(2) I'm bad
(3) that my attack on Zuckerman is lame. why? because I'm not an atheist and I"m me.
Of course some of them don't really get what I'm saying, that one of the specific argument, of course they put it in terms negative to me I don't make sense I'm not being clear.
Lets review now, my arguments against Zuckerman amount to this:
I. We can't draw conclusions from his data about the level of unbelief in the word, but he does not bother to distinguish between hard core actual unbelief vs non religious affiliation. That becomes important latter because it throws off all his findings. How can he establish that anything is actually "secular" or "atheist" when he doesn't bother to distinguish between true unbelief and mere lack of affiliation?
II. The data I present specifically shows that the most "secular" areas such as Japan, and northern Europe are actually not really so secular in terms of the belief level. No distinction is made between a confession state, meaning one in which the citizens must declare their belief and membership in a tradition to get anywhere, vs. just the fact of belief in some form of higher power. Atheism is northern Europe is soft for the most part,affiliated believers make up almost 50% in most countries. Actual non belief in most of these countries, people who say "I do not believe there is any sort of higher power" only make up about 20% at most.
III. Most important: The heritage of most of these N.E countries is very Christian. The social progress they enjoy is the result of that heritage. They had a good educational system as a result of being Christian.
No atheist comments come close to answering any of this. All they can do is tell me how silly I am but they can't answer the arguments.