Maybe race has to do with that too? any other logic comment you want to make?

EDIT: Thats the same as saying african countries poverty has a relation with the sharing the same race.

May I ask, then, what is the primary cause of South American nations being much lower in terms of GDP, despite having a similar history to North American immigrants?

Many.

Less population is one, less territory, Spain used spanish colonies mainly as exporters of their natural resources and didnt make any efforts on making them develop.

Spanish conquerers were mainly poor, alcoholic, and scum in spain, British pilgrims came with their families and werent scum in their colonies.

Also, natives were hostile and werent killed because the catholic church considered them as children like souls and had to be shown the power of god, british pilgrims just killed them.

There are many more reasons, basicaly on how spain and england administrated their colonies, there is little similarity between both.

Oh, and Im sure the primary cause wouldnt be religion, that is just nuts.

Did I say it was the primary cause? No. I was just arguing there was at least some correlation. One would assume that if religion plays any part in someones' life, it should have an impact somewhere along the line, no?

I'm assuming from my first post, stickball accepts my criticism.

Now, as for the problems in South America and Africa... I'm pretty sure the main problem there is the countries being used as corporate playgrounds with their respective countries (mainly America) supporting their dominance in the economies over there. So really you could say globalization is the reason they are in such bad situations. Tie that in with political corruption and there ya go.

Hell you could even go as far to say that capitalism is the reason there are so many problems in SA and Africa. I wouldn't argue against it.

"May I ask, then, what is the primary cause of South American nations being much lower in terms of GDP, despite having a similar history to North American immigrants?"

It was catholicism we were talking about right? Why would you ask for an unrelated cause(primary) if you suposedly thought religion wasnt?

Also, if you would at least say in which way religion would interfere in economics(beside people buying religious toys and consuming these things) I could argue, but I think what you are saying is the same fallacy than saying people being black is the reason for africa being so poor.

I think you just hate Catholicism for past things that didnt even affect you.

It'd be true most likely. Not so much capitalism but the "global free market"

The problem is smaller countries want "developed" countries money... and in doing so makes themselves dependent on said countries.

Protectionism with small poor countries is good.  Big rich countries is bad.  Unfortunitly it seems that the poor countries rarely use it and the rich countries often do.

Oh mrstickball.

"Catholocism (even speaking from a Christian point of view, as much as I love Christianity) has always been a blight on Christianity. Their list of crimes against humanity may only be surpassed by communism and Islam. Protestants haven't murdered people in droves like the Catholics ever had."

Oh really? A blight you say. Protestants have never been responsible for the kind of murder that Catholics have. Well I really have to disagree; the Thirty Years' War for instance saw brutality on both sides when Protestantism was quite young.

If actions of individual Protestants don't count, as you maintain later on (reversing the position in this quote about 'Protestants and Catholics'), then I'd like to know what your standards are on what is "officially" condoned on the Protestant side, to be compared with what is laid at the feet of Catholicism by way of the Catholic Church. At least that's how I presume you're measuring this.

"Of course, maybe I'm biased. They killed a lot of protestants because we thought differently."

Oh, and Protestants never have massacred Catholics.
(If that was meant as a genuine admission in addition to as a cheap shot, then I thank you for your honesty.)

"Don't you think that when you have nations that are 70%+ Catholic, and have been that way since their founding that their religion would have at least a slight correlation between their their religion and any other area of life, much less economy?"

You mean like half the countries of Europe?

[edit:  NOTE:  I just noticed that you might have been dropping the Africa angle and only pursuing your claim about South America; if so, you can ignore the following section if you want -- CAN, but IMO it's still interesting info.]
Also how many African countries are 70%+ Catholic? I didn't know, so I looked it up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholicism_by_country#Africa
Central Africa -- the smallest of five subdivisions by population -- is 45% Catholic. The rest ranges from less than 20% to less than 2%. So ... I have to ask which countries, exactly, you're talking about.
[edit:  end section.]

(Note: Now that I look at it, Central and South Europe are as Catholic or more Catholic than Central and South America.)

"May I ask, then, what is the primary cause of South American nations being much lower in terms of GDP, despite having a similar history to North American immigrants?"

lol wut. Show me this similar history, you can only paint the broadest of brushstrokes to say they have had similar history at all. Oh they got colonized? Just like 80% of the world outside European powers.

I really have to disagree with this one. The notion that religion is something that society or individuals "need" seems less dirty truth and more well, dirty.

 I know it's always been around and most people still follow one, but there are millions of happy healthy and very nice atheists out there who don't need something to put their faith into.

It always just seems a little bit... Patronizing to both sides. It suggests people that follow religion do it not out of conviction or choice, but because they're intellectually or mentally incapable of getting along without it, while at the same time suggesting that a society without religion wouldn't work. And I'm not sure what exactly would go horribly (or even mildly) wrong with a society that turned away from religion completely.