US ambassador killed over a film

[FireIceTalon]

Religion doesn't provide context, it provides an excuse to let people's misery and suffering perpetuate itself - it is a crutch, and an excuse to not have to think for ones self. Instead of realizing the true cause of their ills, they run to a church or religious text - its like putting a band-aid on a gaping wound, because the problem is still going to be there the next day. Nor does it necessarily teach compassion - quite the opposite from what I can see as I explained in my prior post. If someone is starving to death, are they going to sit there and pray to some fictional god that someone will feed them soon? Maybe you would. Fuck that, I'm getting off my ass and I'm going to find something to eat, by ANY means necessary, except sitting there praying to some invisible sky wizard and hoping things get better. LMAO. Religious doctrine doesn't allow people to have the self-determination that they need AND are certainly capable of having - and we were doing just fine looooooooooooong before the Pope could take his first shit.

And quit saying we are naturally greedy, murderous beings - its a complete load of crap with no truth or basis to it, that is easily disproved historically and anthropologically. Your reasoning and outlook on our species is absolutely ridiculous if not downright repulsive, and reduces us to a bunch of ignorant savages incapable of rational thought, that need mythology and fiction to keep ourselves civilized, guided, and alive - which is total bolognese. The truth is, religion does the opposite of these things, and for any good it has done, there is a lot more bad. It puts people in Ivory towers, and blinds them from understanding how the world really works. I don't need a crutch to help me get through the day - reason, rationality, logic, and ethics is enough.

[Jester]

Well, you don't tend to re-read and meditate over your freshmen physics texts -- unless you are a freshman in physics -- and then it's not a matter of desire, but more one of practical hate. People don't tend to gather every Sunday in large groups to hear a credentialed local expert talk about Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle.

Okay, so it's like sports? Or music? Entertainment rather than work? (For what it's worth, I gather together with my academic tribe all the time to hear credentialed experts. Pretty sure Physicists do the same.)

The issue [with Judaism] was that it was exclusive. You needed to be born into it.

I think the issue was that it was a tribal religion practiced by nobody particularly important in a not-terribly-prosperous part of the world wedged in between much more powerful empires.

What makes morality false?

Nothing. But religious education throughout the ages has made factual claims as well as moral ones. Almost all of those are demonstrably wrong.

Partly, that is true. Religion often provides context for each persons existence, but moreover I think it provides comfort in the face of adversity. The more a person suffers, the more they need comfort, be it from society, or beyond. What all modern religions have in common is their message of compassion. When someone is entirely alone, then, they are still not alone. You may see that as placebo, but you cannot dispute the results. I see that there is a need. We are still greedy, murderous barbarians at heart. Anything that unites us toward a interconnected compassionate society is a good thing.

Is there actually any evidence that atheists and agnostics deal with adversity one whit less well than religious believers? I hear this argument all the time, but I don't understand what the empirical basis is. Sure, there's loads of anecdata about nonbelievers who find god in times of adversity, or believers who find comfort in their belief. But there is an equally large mountain of anecdata of believers who lost their faith because their god(s) was cruel or powerless to help them in their time of suffering.

Nevertheless, since comfort has absolutely nothing to do with veracity, does it not seem troubling that these comforting beliefs are justified as true on the basis that they are comforting? How many wrong things could you justify believing on that basis?

... and, what has the other side produced in this regard? Secular humanism? How's that working?

Um, fantastically?

The most atheistic countries in the world are the ones with the highest incomes, the highest education rates, the highest life expectancy, the lowest crime rates, the highest reported degrees of trust and happiness, and so on. The least atheistic countries are poor, miserable and oppressive.



Looks like a pretty phenomenal track record to me. What's the contrary argument? That you don't personally find it satisfying?

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Looks like a pretty phenomenal track record to me. What's the contrary argument? That you don't personally find it satisfying?

Three, actually. 1st, You err classically in linking causation and correlation. Can we make Africa wealthy by extirpating religion? Can we make it warmer by selling more ice cream?

I could grab a chart on poverty or violence and try to link it to atheism, but it's similarly intellectually dishonest.


2nd, I would argue that our prosperity is partially due to our social cohesiveness (more likely due to the circumstances of Empires and exploitation), but our success is mainly due to a common morality and ethic allowing us to move beyond tribalism. Prosperity came first, which then afforded our society the means to educate the masses, and then came enlightenment and the increasingly progressive rejection of religion. It is ironic and clear to anyone who looks into the history of education, that most institutions were initially theologically driven. It isn't shocking that cradled in the bosom of prosperity, humanity would reject a philosophy contrary to the worship of Mammon.

3rd, you are cherry picking your statistics. According to the most recent Pew Research Poll, roughly 5% of the US are atheist, and another 5% would be agnostic. Leaving about +85% that believing in God, or some higher power controlling the universe. Aaron Levenstein said that statistics are like a bikini. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital.

Nevertheless, since comfort has absolutely nothing to do with veracity, does it not seem troubling that these comforting beliefs are justified as true on the basis that they are comforting? How many wrong things could you justify believing on that basis?

If we are talking about a person like Corrie Ten Boom finding the courage to oppose Nazi's, and the strength to survive a concentration camp, then I'd say the ends justify the means. I can give you studies if you'd like that show specific measurable benefits. Notre Dame - National Study of Youth and Religion.

But religious education throughout the ages has made factual claims as well as moral ones. Almost all of those are demonstrably wrong.

I disagree. Mostly the antiquarian "factual claims" are mostly unverifiable, but often the places described are found, and much of the history, and anthropology fits. Like I said above, certain things, like the first 11 chapters of Genesis are so old they pre-date a written account. No credible modern theology holds the details of those stories as accurate. And, we can only guess as to what the *real* story might have been, if there even was a *real* story. Other things, like the story of Exodus, seems to fit (Thutmose III), but it would be nice to have greater Egyptian evidence describing the "uprisings" he quelled. The death of Thutmose III seems about right to fit with Passover.

I gather together with my academic tribe all the time to hear credentialed experts.

Religiously? :-)

[FireIceTalon]

I could grab a chart on poverty or violence and try to link it to atheism, but it's similarly intellectually dishonest.

The only problem with YOUR chart is that it simply shows the murders per capita, it doesn't tie it to anything else. I would say that it is a much safer bet that the nations with higher murder rates are more correlated with economic and social inequality, rather than atheism? Let's use a comparison of France and Russia as an example. Both have very highly atheist populations, yet Russia has at least 10 x as many murders per capita than France. There is also A LOT more economic and social inequality in Russia than France. The arrows point to material conditions, not atheism, as the culprit. As far as linking poverty and crime to Atheism, not sure this works in your favor either - almost all the western European nations are equally or more secular than the US, most of them have less murders per capita than the US, and most of them have less disparities in social and economic inequalities as well. I'd say that is pretty empirical evidence.

2nd, I would argue that our prosperity is partially due to our social cohesiveness (more likely due to the circumstances of Empires and exploitation), but our success is mainly due to a common morality and ethic allowing us to move beyond tribalism. Prosperity came first, which then afforded our society the means to educate the masses, and then came enlightenment and the increasingly progressive rejection of religion. It is ironic and clear to anyone who looks into the history of education, that most institutions were initially theologically driven. It isn't shocking that cradled in the bosom of prosperity, humanity would reject a philosophy contrary to the worship of Mammon.

We completely disagree on this. As I've said many times, morality is completely subjective, and it doesn't necessarily unite people - quite the opposite in fact. What may be moral to you is completely absurd to someone else, and vice versa. Personally, I think most religious moralism is garbage, because it presents a very narrow, ideological doctrine (full of many paradoxes) and it subjects all of society to that specific doctrine. Its just another way of saying people are not smart enough to have self-determination and organize society on their own, how they feel fit, which historically is not true - they most certainly are capable, and they don't need a religious (or any ideological doctrine for that matter) to do it. Religion by its very nature is anti-democratic, and as I've stated in the past, all forms of authority have the burden of proof of justifying their existence. There is no evidence for me to conclude that religious doctrine of any kind is necessary for people to live cohesively, and do so prosperously, and certainly not to create a rule-of-law system based around the corresponding moralist philosophy. If anything, religion is very destructive to that process, and the Crusades all the way to now is a pretty strong reflection of this. Your whole point tries to suggest that ideas precede and change material conditions - it is in fact the reverse. They can have effect on peoples relationship to the material conditions, but they do not change or create the material conditions themselves. They are a result of material circumstances, not a cause.

3rd, you are cherry picking your statistics. According to the most recent Pew Research Poll, roughly 5% of the US are atheist, and another 5% would be agnostic. Leaving about +85% that believing in God, or some higher power controlling the universe. Aaron Levenstein said that statistics are like a bikini. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital.

Appeal to nature (or authority) fallacy. Most people do it, therefore it must be right.

If we are talking about a person like Corrie Ten Boom finding the courage to oppose Nazi's, and the strength to survive a concentration camp, then I'd say the ends justify the means. I can give you studies if you'd like that show specific measurable benefits. Notre Dame - National Study of Youth and Religion.

A pro-religious source. Yea, of course they are going to say it was religion, and that it was "God's Plan" that got her released from a Nazi camp, rather than it being sheer dumb luck and error on the part of the Nazi's. Since, after all, a week after her release the rest of the girls who were imprisoned with her were murdered. This is the type of shit that distorts history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corrie_ten_...7s_Release

[kandrathe]

I would say that it is a much safer bet that the nations with higher murder rates are more correlated with economic and social inequality, rather than atheism?

No. It shows almost nothing. It's also deceptive since our murder rates mostly derive from small areas rife with poverty, gangs, and drug violence. The chart distorts by distributing all that murder in small areas to large areas hardly even populated. You'd also find the same distortion in Jester's chart on Atheism -- where we know that it's concentrated more on the coasts, and less so in the heartland. And... I think it's perhaps a stretch to spread world atheism (about 2.5%) across a global map trying to draw correlation conclusions. We might just as well compare wealth to the chances of being in a rock band.

Nations aren't individuals, with the propensity to be atheist or even inherently wealthy. You need to tie wealth, or whatever characteristic to atheism in individuals, whereby the preponderance of wealthy people are atheists, or that the preponderance of religious people are poor. It's still a correlation, and requires further examination for cause. Similarly, to tie a correlation to murder, one would need to examine the religiosity (more than stated denomination, e.g. weekly attendance) of murderers in comparison to the same proportions in the general population. A high proportion of atheists are very highly educated, and highly educated people tend not to be incarcerated for murder -- unless they are off the deep end like Ted Kazinski. If you want to cut down on crime, send more poor kids from bad neighborhoods to college.

We completely disagree on this.

That is fine with me. I believe we have a long history of weaving a morality and ethic from Judeo-Christian origins, inherited from Britain, into our civil and criminal codes, not to mention the less desirable normative side effects like the definition of "marriage". In the whole, I think our attempts at balancing law and freedom are successful -- compared to the various other examples throughout history. I'll offer John Locke's influential 2nd Treatise on Government as evidence of the inculcation of religiosity in the fabric of our civil society and governance. To me, this is not a bad thing. Quite the opposite. It is challenging to protect the rights of a minority. Especially when they are purposefully cantankerous and irascible.

3rd, you are cherry picking your statistics. According to the most recent Pew Research Poll, roughly 5% of the US are atheist, and another 5% would be agnostic. Leaving about +85% that believing in God, or some higher power controlling the universe. Aaron Levenstein said that statistics are like a bikini. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital.

Appeal to nature (or authority) fallacy. Most people do it, therefore it must be right.

What posterior did you pull that from? I'm appealing to practices of statistics and logic. An appeal to nature would be "a phenomenon is described as desirable because it is natural, or undesirable because it is unnatural,"

This is why I avoid discussing things with you (and the annoyingly arrogant over use of eye rolling) -- when you don't have any defensible retort you declare something incomprehensible. We've discussed the poll and the high percentage of US that "believe in God, or a higher power" and it's upwards of 85%. So, the US is about 4.5% atheists compared to a world average of 2.5% and we are among the wealthiest of nations. Then, considering standard error (+/- %) there is very little difference really. Really! I'd call that statistically insignificant. Beyond that, it's easily disproved by looking at the contrary correlation of wealth and religiosity of many middle eastern nations, like Qatar, or UAE. If we set the way-back machine to the 1700's, then the premise would be just the opposite.

This is the type of shit that distorts history.

I don't look at a movie like "The Longest Day" as historical reference for WWII, even though it's mostly accurate. It's not a documentary, it's a movie based on a story. All stories, however factual, are colored by the opinions / biases of the story teller. Therefore, by your definition, all history is distorted shit.

[Jester]

Three, actually. 1st, You err classically in linking causation and correlation. Can we make Africa wealthy by extirpating religion?

Wealthy? No. Wealthier? Yes. I'd be willing to put good money that, ceteris paribus, an Africa that woke up the next morning sans religion would be a more peaceful place, a happier place, and given enough time for education and reinvestment of resources wasted on religion, a richer place.

You are claiming that religion promotes harmony and cooperation. That is a causal story, backed (as far as I can tell) by shockingly little evidence. You snark that Secular Humanism isn't working out well. I show that, at first cut, the evidence suggests exactly the opposite. I don't believe that Atheism is the one and true cause of progress, surely not. But it helps, because religion sure doesn't.

I could grab a chart on poverty or violence and try to link it to atheism, but it's similarly intellectually dishonest.

It would be much more intellectually dishonest than merely conflating correlation and causation, because the correlation between poverty, violence, murder, and everything else and religion is positive, not negative. You'd have the relationship backwards.

It is ironic and clear to anyone who looks into the history of education, that most institutions were initially theologically driven.

Pretty much every country's transition from being mostly illiterate to being highly educated involved junking (or ignoring) the religious schools, and adopting a universal, secular education system. Some places and groups enjoyed a leg up on literacy (Sweden, for instance) due to religiously-based reading requirements. These, however, were the exception rather than the rule, and in any case, still follow the pattern of secularization and increasing education.

3rd, you are cherry picking your statistics. According to the most recent Pew Research Poll, roughly 5% of the US are atheist, and another 5% would be agnostic. Leaving about +85% that believing in God, or some higher power controlling the universe. Aaron Levenstein said that statistics are like a bikini. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital.

Nice bon mots, but what is this in reply to? So the US is quite religious. It's also more violent, worse educated, and shorter lived than comparably rich, but less religious, countries. What's your point?

If we are talking about a person like Corrie Ten Boom finding the courage to oppose Nazi's, and the strength to survive a concentration camp, then I'd say the ends justify the means.

Like I said. If you're okay with anecdata, you can prove whatever case you like.

I can give you studies if you'd like that show specific measurable benefits. Notre Dame - National Study of Youth and Religion.

Okay. Three points. 1) Why, then, does the international cross-section hold up so well? Why, if the US is so much more religious, and religion is so effective at social harmony, does the US have vastly worse rates of violence, incarceration, drug crime, and lower education, life expectancy, and so on, vs. other comparable countries?

2) You asked initially about secular humanism. Does this study speak to that at all? I couldn't find anything about it. People who are merely apathetically irreligious are not the same as people who actively embrace a secular humanist philosophy.

3) This doesn't tell us anything about the effect of religion on the societies. It may well be that in religious societies, those who are religious (and therefore, a part of the hegemonic social order) are less prone to deviance than the irreligious. But it could at the same time be that, overall, those societies are made worse off by religion, even as the most religious are made better off individually.

Other things, like the story of Exodus, seems to fit (Thutmose III), but it would be nice to have greater Egyptian evidence describing the "uprisings" he quelled. The death of Thutmose III seems about right to fit with Passover.

Scholarly consensus appears to be that the Exodus is mythical. There was never a Jewish Exodus from Egypt, and if there is any grain of truth at all, it certainly doesn't resemble the myth of Moses.

No credible modern theology holds the details of those stories as accurate.

Good thing every religious person throughout the ages has been a subscriber to credible modern theology.

Most people for most of history, when taught their religion, are taught that it is literally true. For the Christians, this means that Adam and Eve were the progenitors of the species, that Noah took two of every animal on his ark, that the walls of Jericho came down, that Jesus walked on water, and that the world is fated to end in a terrible cataclysm following the coming of the anti-Christ. If you want to say *you* don't believe this, that's fine. But you asked about parents through the millenia, and through most of that time, these things were all taught as truths.

-Jester

[FireIceTalon]

I think Kandrathe is using the same reasoning as Bill O'Reilly in this video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FARDDcdFaQ

"atheism is the almighty evil used by many dictators to justify killing millions of people. They had no moral or ethical foundations and thats why they killed so many people". Sigh.

[kandrathe]

I think ...

No, you don't.

I'm not stating anything about atheism at all. I'm defending the value of faith. Period. You are fighting an argument that I'm not a participant of, please keep me out of it. THANKS!!!!

[kandrathe]

Is there actually any evidence that atheists and agnostics deal with adversity one whit less well than religious believers? I hear this argument all the time, but I don't understand what the empirical basis is.

So, ok, here is some info I found --

"Religiously unaffiliated subjects had significantly more lifetime suicide attempts and more first-degree relatives who committed suicide than subjects who endorsed a religious affiliation. Unaffiliated subjects were younger, less often married, less often had children, and had less contact with family members. Furthermore, subjects with no religious affiliation perceived fewer reasons for living, particularly fewer moral objections to suicide. In terms of clinical characteristics, religiously unaffiliated subjects had more lifetime impulsivity, aggression, and past substance use disorder. No differences in the level of subjective and objective depression, hopelessness, or stressful life events were found." - link.

But, again, I would be cautious in equating a link between atheism and suicide without investigating additional factors. For example, other things that might contribute to isolation, such as their profession, IQ, work habit, etcetera. It just might be that a person who is in the high suicide risk population would be there due to their high IQ, and thereby may have fewer friends who understand them. Or, it may be a contributing factor in that their may be few non-religious venues for help. Is the problem then the individuals marginalizing choice, or society's lack of equal access to counseling services?

[Kevin]

But, again, I would be cautious in equating a link between atheism and suicide without investigating additional factors. For example, other things that might contribute to isolation, such as their profession, IQ, work habit, etcetera. It just might be that a person who is in the high suicide risk population would be there due to their high IQ, and thereby may have fewer friends who understand them. Or, it may be a contributing factor in that their may be few non-religious venues for help. Is the problem then the individuals marginalizing choice, or society's lack of equal access to counseling services?

Don't forget to factor that religiously unaffiliated individuals are often marginalized by religious people. That may be stating things too strongly, but there are plenty of religious people out there who will not date an unaffiliated person (make a fake profile on a dating site and you can see this affect fairly clearly by how members who list a religion respond to those who list agnostic, atheist, or pref not to say). This affect is likely not really any different than what any other minority feels, and the higher rates in the study may all be accounted for by that, I don't have the time to look that up.

It can be very difficult for a non religious person at times, they can feel like they are being looked down upon and persecuted. The need of many religious people to try and "save" them can also put other pressures on them. Turning on the radio or TV and hearing the admittedly blowhards that dominate talk radio these days still using phrases like "ignorant godless heathens" a phrase I heard twice, on different stations, from different people (Glen Beck and I don't know who the other guy was) when I was just channel surfing on a long trip.

Some of those negative traits listed in the study could very easily go "poof" if non religious folks weren't a minority that the majority often felt needed to be saved.

[FireIceTalon]

The irony of it all is that they think us atheists need to be saved, yet apparently we are happy (or at least rational) enough to know that we don't need a crutch to help us deal with our problems in life. And they think themselves to be so superior when they call us ignorant godless heathens, as if their bigotry towards us, women, gays, and minorities somehow makes them the highest, most civilized achievement of humankind. Ha! I think it is they who are ignorant, and who need saving.

Marx said it best when he stated that "religion is the illusory happiness of the people".

[DeeBye]

There's something I wonder about these statistics. I was Baptised and Confirmed as a Roman Catholic. I attended Roman Catholic schools until I was in my late teens. I might have actually believed in God at some point, but I probably grew out of that at the same time I stopped believing in Santa and the Easter Bunny. I never had a choice in what schools I attended and how I was taught, because I was a child.

It's now 25+ years later, and every time someone asks me what me religious affiliation is "for polling purposes" I always opt for the answer "none of your business". I'm pretty sure that I'm still counted as a Christian in databases due to my schooling.

It's also really easy to give the single word reply "yes" when asked if you believe in a "higher power", but that doesn't necessarily make you a religious person. If 85% of americans are religious, then churches/synagogues/mosques should be overflowing every worship day.

edit: related

[kandrathe]

Don't forget to factor that religiously unaffiliated individuals are often marginalized...

Yeah, I thought about that too and came to the same conclusion as you, that they probably suffer a bit, but not as much as a minority that is visibly a minority.

I'm sure there are bad "Christians" who try to make people feel guilty, however, a major tenet of Christianity is Matt 7:3-5 "You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye." Meaning that they should mind their own business, and deal with their own issues before they criticize others or offer to "save" them. And, this is to FIT's point too; most every Christian I know struggles to be honest with themselves and others regarding their own "sinful" natures. There are far too many hypocrites who talk down on others. There always have been, and always will be. It's not a religion thing, it's a denial thing. And it's just a human frailty to ignore ones own faults while going out of our way to point out the faults of others. In the Christian perspective, everyone has fallen, remain sinful, and are in need of redemption -- not just the atheists.

[FireIceTalon]

Oh, I will be the first to admit my faults or vices. I can be fairly short-tempered, and extremely dogmatic, even arrogant sometimes, in my views. I'm pretty stubborn too, but I'm sure you guys knew this by now, heh. And I curse a lot, though in person I am pretty good at keeping it in check when I need to. I've always had a sailors mouth, probably cause both of my parents did and still do as well. We all have at least one bad habit, and that one happens to be mine.

When it comes to politics, religion, or other hotly debated topics though, I do most of that online. In person I am fairly reserved about that stuff (unless someone pushes one of my hot buttons), and I know who I am comfortable talking about it with and who I am not - and around new people I generally avoid discussing it unless they bring it up.

[eppie]

Don't forget to factor that religiously unaffiliated individuals are often marginalized by religious people. That may be stating things too strongly, but there are plenty of religious people out there who will not date an unaffiliated person (make a fake profile on a dating site and you can see this affect fairly clearly by how members who list a religion respond to those who list agnostic, atheist, or pref not to say). This affect is likely not really any different than what any other minority feels, and the higher rates in the study may all be accounted for by that, I don't have the time to look that up.

It can be very difficult for a non religious person at times, they can feel like they are being looked down upon and persecuted. The need of many religious people to try and "save" them can also put other pressures on them. Turning on the radio or TV and hearing the admittedly blowhards that dominate talk radio these days still using phrases like "ignorant godless heathens" a phrase I heard twice, on different stations, from different people (Glen Beck and I don't know who the other guy was) when I was just channel surfing on a long trip.

Some of those negative traits listed in the study could very easily go "poof" if non religious folks weren't a minority that the majority often felt needed to be saved.

Correct, I know the situation in Italy. Public social pressure is just too high to clearly state you don't believe in God. And the same as also happens in the US.....stating you are an atheist means you will not have career......anywhere (well maybe entertainment or football).

My mother in law is very catholic....yes she visits church more than 5 times per week. But when we talk about this with her, she agrees with most things that we say.....the only thing she doesn't agree on is the whole social thing. She will go to church, because that is what you do. All priests are saints. My child should be baptised etc.

The group of people who really take everything written in the bible literally is small but loud.

---

Don't forget to factor that religiously unaffiliated individuals are often marginalized...

Yeah, I thought about that too and came to the same conclusion as you, that they probably suffer a bit, but not as much as a minority that is visibly a minority.

I'm sure there are bad "Christians" who try to make people feel guilty, however, a major tenet of Christianity is Matt 7:3-5 "You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye." Meaning that they should mind their own business, and deal with their own issues before they criticize others or offer to "save" them. And, this is to FIT's point too; most every Christian I know struggles to be honest with themselves and others regarding their own "sinful" natures. There are far too many hypocrites who talk down on others. There always have been, and always will be. It's not a religion thing, it's a denial thing. And it's just a human frailty to ignore ones own faults while going out of our way to point out the faults of others. In the Christian perspective, everyone has fallen, remain sinful, and are in need of redemption -- not just the atheists.

Kandrathe, yes on the personal level you probably are right. But as a group christians pressure othersin a bad way.....not in the Netherlands but for sure in the US or the southern european countries.
But even in Holland no politician would start the topic himself and saying he is an atheist.....they are afraid people will get offended (and not vote for them anymore).

---

It's also really easy to give the single word reply "yes" when asked if you believe in a "higher power", but that doesn't necessarily make you a religious person. If 85% of americans are religious, then churches/synagogues/mosques should be overflowing every worship day.

edit: .261]related[/url]

Good point, in many countries you are automatically counted as being part of the state religion. I know a person in Italy who officially retracted himself from the catholic church because he didn't want to be in the statistics as catholic.....but of course very few people will do that.....at least not the 90% of the population that are sheep.

Even in Sweden.....if you are born in Sweden from Swedish parents, you will automatically pay a church tax, unless you officiely state you don't want that anymore.

[Jester]

So, ok, here is some info I found --

"Religiously unaffiliated subjects had significantly more lifetime suicide attempts and more first-degree relatives who committed suicide than subjects who endorsed a religious affiliation. Unaffiliated subjects were younger, less often married, less often had children, and had less contact with family members. Furthermore, subjects with no religious affiliation perceived fewer reasons for living, particularly fewer moral objections to suicide. In terms of clinical characteristics, religiously unaffiliated subjects had more lifetime impulsivity, aggression, and past substance use disorder. No differences in the level of subjective and objective depression, hopelessness, or stressful life events were found." - link.

But, again, I would be cautious in equating a link between atheism and suicide without investigating additional factors. For example, other things that might contribute to isolation, such as their profession, IQ, work habit, etcetera. It just might be that a person who is in the high suicide risk population would be there due to their high IQ, and thereby may have fewer friends who understand them. Or, it may be a contributing factor in that their may be few non-religious venues for help. Is the problem then the individuals marginalizing choice, or society's lack of equal access to counseling services?

They control for most of that - income, race, social factors, etc...

Leaving aside my usual nails-on-chalkboard reaction to excessive reliance on statistical significance testing as the only relevant factor, I have some issues with their interpretation. First, their n is relatively small for the irreligious, being only 70 or so, and their characteristics are noted as being biased towards the factors that they themselves find to be associated with suicide: Aggression, low family obligation, and moral objection to suicide. To really test atheism vs. religion, you'd have to control for all the other variables, especially the ones correlated with suicide, which they clearly have not. They've taken a sample of convenience, and are interpreting it as a quasi-controlled experiment. You can try to un-load the dice with statistics, but starting from this position makes their results shaky.

When they do account for this statistically, they do not find that religious affiliation matters. Instead, they find that moral objection to suicide matters. This "mediates" the relationship - it's the thing that really does the causal heavy lifting. Once you control for that channel, they find religion does not appear to matter in any other way. So, people who think suicide is wrong are less likely to commit suicide. Not surprising. But they conclude religion-is-good. I don't understand why, when their own study shows that the key issue is establishing a moral objection to suicide, and not religion per se, which they have not shown to be significant.

On this particular issue, I'm don't believe suicide is an inherently bad thing. Think of two people, one religious, one not, both suicidal. They would rather take their own life, but one does not, because they are afraid of hellfire. Is that person better off? That isn't obvious to me. I believe people have the right to end their own life if they want to, and that stopping this is not necessarily a good thing.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

I believe people have the right to end their own life if they want to, and that stopping this is not necessarily a good thing.

Well, there is a big difference between a terminally ill person in great agony and an irrational jilted lover. One tenet of our morality is that we value human life, even when the "owner" does not.

This is part and parcel to the morality and ethics imparted by the social coda --

• don't kill
• don't steal
• don't have sex outside of marriage
• don't eat pork
• etcetera

Perhaps this is where we differ. I don't have a problem with the established social contract (based upon religion) which "steers us toward good decisions" even if they are perceived to placebo.

It can work to set aside one list of social rules that are quasi-secular, ie. natural law, torts and contracts. I don't think it works to allow everyone their own rule book. I understand why you'd chaff against the establish social coda, which is layered upon primarily a religious rulebook. As you said, it's working pretty well, but it's not perfect.

[shoju]

Is there actually any evidence that atheists and agnostics deal with adversity one whit less well than religious believers? I hear this argument all the time, but I don't understand what the empirical basis is.

So, ok, here is some info I found --

"Religiously unaffiliated subjects had significantly more lifetime suicide attempts and more first-degree relatives who committed suicide than subjects who endorsed a religious affiliation. Unaffiliated subjects were younger, less often married, less often had children, and had less contact with family members. Furthermore, subjects with no religious affiliation perceived fewer reasons for living, particularly fewer moral objections to suicide. In terms of clinical characteristics, religiously unaffiliated subjects had more lifetime impulsivity, aggression, and past substance use disorder. No differences in the level of subjective and objective depression, hopelessness, or stressful life events were found." - link.

But, again, I would be cautious in equating a link between atheism and suicide without investigating additional factors. For example, other things that might contribute to isolation, such as their profession, IQ, work habit, etcetera. It just might be that a person who is in the high suicide risk population would be there due to their high IQ, and thereby may have fewer friends who understand them. Or, it may be a contributing factor in that their may be few non-religious venues for help. Is the problem then the individuals marginalizing choice, or society's lack of equal access to counseling services?

My response is in relation to the part of the quote that I bolded.

Or, you know... There is the age old thing that most religions (and all forms of Christianity for sure) state that if you kill yourself, you are going to Hell. Do not pass Go. Do not Collect $200.00. Not even if you are dying of some horrid disease, and you want to go on your terms. Not ever, not for any reason.

So, maybe those "aetheists" commit suicide because they don't have help.

OR

Maybe those who are "Religious" don't commit suicide because they believe that in doing so they have condemned themselves to Hell.

Hell is a pretty amazingly scary motivator for things. When I was a kid, it wasn't my belief in god that kept me walking the "straight and narrow" it was Hell, and the Devil, and the eternal suffering that motivated me. It wasn't until I was a teenager, and the repetitive nature of the "Don't do that or you are going to HELL!" began to grate on my nerves that I started to rebel.

I would say that most people who have a religious background would tell you that Suicide isn't something that they would resort to because of the eternal impact that it would have on their soul as opposed to other reasons. Because of this, I just don't know if using Suicide to try and make a point is a good idea.

Similarly to how I bristle at Eppie's posts that have an edge to them suggesting that there is some "dumbing" effect in religion, I bristle at this.

[Jester]

One tenet of our morality is that we value human life, even when the "owner" does not.

I'm afraid I'm with the unreconstructed Libertarians on this one. Peoples' values are their own, and so are their bodies. I have no right to tell anyone what's better for them, and if I value their life, even when they don't, then so much the worse for me.

This is part and parcel to the morality and ethics imparted by the social coda --

• don't kill
• don't steal
• don't have sex outside of marriage
• don't eat pork
• etcetera

Code /= coda.

A whole laundry list of things I might or might not agree with. Killing and stealing hurt other people. Having sex outside of marriage and eating pork don't.

Perhaps this is where we differ. I don't have a problem with the established social contract (based upon religion) which "steers us toward good decisions" even if they are perceived to placebo.

Perhaps it is. I see no reason to accept existing codes, which are already and always contested, varied and ambiguous in any case. We all need some concept of "good decisions," and if mine is at odds with society's, then so be it. Societies have come up with some pretty wretched codes in the past, and we will in the future. We need some basis for fighting them.

I don't think it works to allow everyone their own rule book. I understand why you'd chaff against the establish social coda, which is layered upon primarily a religious rulebook. As you said, it's working pretty well, but it's not perfect.

Have I suggested anywhere that everyone gets to write their own rulebook? I'm a social libertarian. If I can't point to specific and compelling harms to others caused by certain behaviours, then I don't see what makes them immoral or unethical. Whatever gets you your kicks, as long as you don't kick anyone else.

-Jester

[FireIceTalon]

In general, I dislike most ideologies, because most of them are authoritarian in nature and are usually based on one person or one group of person's view of how society should be organized and ran. They think they are doing the right thing, and have everyone's best interest in mind, but what they are really doing is subjugating others. Yes, there are some general rules that are needed, but most of these should be obvious, and we do not need an ideological doctrine, at least not a religious one that is full of subjective moralism, to govern ourselves. You don't think sex before marriage is right? Then don't do it. You don't believe abortion is right? No one is saying you have to do it, or morally be in favor of it even. But you have no right to project this view onto everyone else.

Now, before someone calls me out on it, communism is indeed an ideology. However, it is not ideology filled with moralism and personal ethics - it is merely a classless and stateless society, that is the ideological embodiment of the class interests of the proletarian, aka 95%+ of society right now. Because there are no longer any classes, all people would have complete self-determination, and the rules of society would be entirely up to that society, and they would be established in a most democratic way. Pure democracy isn't perfect, but it is without any doubt the system with the most traction for allowing people to live their lives freely with the most dignity, and allow them to reach their potential both individually and collectively. Likely, we would see quite a few of the obvious fundamental and essential rules we see today, but rules based on moralism or personal ideology would be just that - your own rules, that you are not allowed to subject anyone else to. And the context of rules and their application is day and night in class societies vs. a classless/stateless society. Are communism and religion compatible? Why not. Religion in a communist society would lose all its power, because there is no longer a ruling class that subjugates others, and religious doctrine would no longer be a social or political power that is legitimized by a rule-of-law system, that was made by the few in favor of the few. But people would still have the right to their religion. Religion, if one chose to believe in one, would be a personal way of living your own life, and your life ONLY. You have absolutely no right to force anyone else to your personal morals, ever.