everyone (else) seems to be hating on atheists

[Aiza]

Actually, Pol Pot WAS a Buddhist. And he also went to a Catholic school.

No he wasn't, nor does that link say that he was Buddhist. (Because he wasn't and actually heavily persecuted Buddhists and envisioned a society free of Buddhism).

Also no idea why some atheists try to mention Pol Pot went to "Catholic school". Catholic schools are open to all people regardless of religion. Bringing it up just seems silly.

Huh. Became slaves of the state... Like sheep...in a flock...dependent on the shepherd for their very existence for without the shepherd they do not eat, or drink, or have a place to live... Sheep...hm...where have I heard this analogy before...

But yeah, all that "controversial" book tries to talk about is Buddhism's effect on the culture of Cambodia and indirect effects on Khmer Rogue. The Khmer Rogue itself was anti-Buddhist, as you would know if you were familiar with the regime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution...hmer_Rouge

An area being prosperous is likely to have a population that is both more educated and less religious on average.

Sure, and then some atheists try to jump to "therefore religious are less educated" while those studies which properly control for those aspects (income, area) find quite the opposite.

The link between holiness and poverty is one that is highlighted in many world religions, of Catholicism/most of Christianity (going back to Jesus Christ) as well as Buddhism IIRC. Wealthier people in general are also similarly much less empathetic, more selfish, less religious (not to be confused with theistic per se), and paradoxically enough, give less to charity than poorer folk.

When I become a (Dominican!) Sister, I will take a Vow of Poverty, owning absolutely nothing myself but sharing it in community with my other sisters.

Who allowed it?

The state in order to bring up the morale of Russian people during WWII (many of whom were still secretly Christian). To then say that implies the state "left the Orthdoox alone" is just ridiculous because it was after decades of suppression.

Do you not think this is an effective way to find out the source, if any?

It might be an effective way to "find out the source"(though you give a very big "if"). Its not an effective way to write a legitimate source of information.

It is also the ONLY verifable study of the actual topic, the representation of atheists in prison. It's not much, but it does have the advantage of not lumping in atheists with people who don't go to church much, which is more than any of your sources have done.

Except it doesn't talk about atheists at all. It talks about people with "no religious training whatsoever", which would include both theists and atheists. Its even less meaningful than those studies about religion, because while a small amount of atheists are still religious, most atheists probably had some form of religious training, particularly in 1928. Its no more "about atheists" than the other studies. This one just appeals to atheists more I suppose.

Oh, I know that one. I think the population of people who think they're atheists but believe in God are the main source of Christians who say they used to be an atheist.

Whatever helps you sleep at night!