organofcorti you mentioned you wanted more evidence to look at. Moloch has kindly provided us with more studies to look at. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism#EuropeIn a global study on atheism, sociologist Phil Zuckerman noted that countries with higher levels of atheism also had the highest suicide rates compared to countries with lower levels of atheism. He concludes that correlations does not necessarily indicate causation in either case.[24]
A study on depression and suicide suggested that those without a religious affiliation have a higher suicide attempt rates than those with a religious affiliation.[25]
A study into mental well-being in religious and non-religious people found that mental well-being for both religious people and non-religious people hinged on the certainty of their belief, and that previous studies had not controlled for the effect of belonging to a group when studying churchgoers.[26]
... If it can be proven without a doubt that by adopting that POV (religion) and none other my lifespan would increase and it didn't actually require me to do anything that might be detrimental to my quality of life or take up my spare time, then why not?
In the interest of full disclosure this approach would be a bad idea. Both the Gallup data I linked upthread and the analysis provided by Moloch above indicate that only the highly religious are better off. In the Gallup poll only those who reported that religion was an important part of their daily life and regularly attended worship services had the reported substantial advantages in wellbeing. The religious who were lax in their beliefs scored lower than the atheist. Perhaps pretending to have a code but not really following it is the worst choice? If that is the case maybe the reason Mormons do so well is because they are observant. More than eight-in-ten Mormons report that they pray daily. Orthodox Jews are also very observant. What is the point believing in anything without proof? That just makes a person look foolish... particularly when they claim to know it as fact, and they can't prove shit...
Why would I waste 1 second on religion?
Don't give me Pascal's Wager, because it's a bullshit argument... basically a fallacy... you could say the exact same thing about Hinduism, or Islam... what if they are right, and Christianity is wrong? What if the great Ju-Ju of the mountain is the real God? I can't possibly follow the thousands of different religious beliefs, hoping one of them is true...
Why waste time on speculation without a shred of evidence?
Thanks for sharing that link. I had not heard of Pascal’s renewed wager before but I agree it is a similar argument to the one provided in this thread. Pascal's renewed wager states that, all other reasons aside, it is better to believe, rather than disbelieve in God because such belief has tangible benefits. Pascal's wager appears incomplete due to the requirement for true observance I mentioned above. The argument presented in this thread is the following: If you are able to wholeheartedly believe in God and follow his guidance do so for such belief is natural and healthy. In the end it does not matters if you cannot prove whether Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, or Judaism is ultimate truth. What matters is finding a healthy moral and spiritual code that will protect you and can be reliably passed on to your children. I have little advice to give on which denomination to choose as I have yet to make this choice myself. I have determined only that I am capable of belief and that I will make a choice. Others have argued that above-replacement fertility is necessary (but not sufficient) for a valid religion. |
|
|
|
...
I am what I am. But if someone can prove to me that there is a god, I'll become a believer. And if someone can prove to me that invisible pink unicorns exist, I'll believe in them too.
Instead of looking for proof consider asking yourself a question. Are you willing to embrace a worldview you cannot empirically prove i.e. requires faith if you can prove that adopting such a worldview improves both your wellbeing and fertility and likely the wellbeing of your children and grandchildren as well? |
|
|
|
Just because studies are available doesn't mean you should use them. You're making a very strong statement that requires equally strong proof. Lots of anecdotal evidence != strong proof.
If I was to write "Religion is poison" I can guarantee you my arguments would be watertight, and the only studies I would use to support my argument would be published and peer reviewed research with a valid methodology and adequate statistical analysis.
All studies that present potentially important results deserve evaluation. What I have shown is that there are are studies that show a correlation between atheism and reduced wellbeing and fertility. I have also highlighted several pieces of anecdotal evidence that suggest this correlation may be causation. I do not claim to have proven that atheism is poisonous. What I have done is gathered sufficient evidence to convince me personally that atheism is unhealthy to many who adopt it. Everyone's threshold of evidence is different and if yours is not met that is not unreasonable. The purpose of this post is to share the information I have gathered and let people come to their own conclusions. The data needs to be shared even though though it is not perfect because its implications are so profound. |
|
|
|
If atheists went into their closet, and didn't even propagate, we could all wait until the cancer of atheism died out. We could tell by the stench coming out of the closet.
But now because atheists are spreading their poisonous cancer to many people, especially to the children, the only thing left for GOOD religious folks to do is to attempt to stamp out the cancer of atheism in every way possible.
...
Since atheists are genociding themselves simply by being atheists, why no be amicable with them, and help them along a little? Oh yes. We want to give them every opportunity to change their minds and be saved for everlasting life in Heaven.
Well it was a nice conversation until someone came along promoting the values and morals of the inquisition. http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/vatican/esp_vatican29.htmIn 1244, the Council of Harbonne ordered that in the sentencing of heretics, no husband should be spared because of his wife, nor wife because of her husband, and no parent spared from a helpless child. Once in custody victims waited before their judge anxiously, while he pondered through the document of their accusation. During the first examination, enough of their property was likewise confiscated to cover the expenses of the preliminary investigation.
The accused would then be implicated and asked incriminating and luring questions in a dexterous manner of trickery calculated to entangle most. This type if thinking represents the misguided and horrific idea that embracing evil will lead to good. BADecker I do not know if you are a misguided zealot or a clever atheist promoting his true beliefs by deliberately peddling falsehood. In the end it does not matter. In the 2+ years I have followed this forum I have seen many bad posts. However, prior to you my ignore list was empty. Congratulations you now have this space entirely to your yourself. |
|
|
|
What data available? Self reported surveys? And now you're claiming philosophy is not a science?
The studies on fertility, health, and wellbeing reported in the OP. Is it perfect or level 1A evidence no but it's the data currently available on the topic. |
|
|
|
No, we don't. My response clearly refuted his statement: (Snip)
Social sciences, ecological sciences and philosophy are much better able to inform us about the various possible life choices that may or may not make us happy than a brittle, unchanging and dogmatic social construct created thousands of years ago.
Your conclusion is unsupported by the data available. The social sciences have not been shown to be a functional replacement for the common moral code provided by religion. This lack is evidenced by the reduced wellbeing, health and fertility of those who reject the traditional moral code in favor of atheism. Atheism is the rejection of religious philosophy. It is the nothingness that is created by the rejection of traditional values and morals. Atheism creates a void and that void tends to be filled. The path of least resistance is the embrace of Hedonism. If God is dead then everything becomes permitted. The error is your belief that the rejection of religion is not detrimental when choosing between right and wrong. Kantianism, Aristotelianism, Stoicism are interesting moral philosophies but they are inefficient propagators limiting their relevance. Sure some few atheist may adopt something functional like Stoicism. Many more will likely fill that nothingness with something toxic. The embrace of Hedonism leads us to glorify or at least fail to criticize unhealthy behavior like the dating apocalypse. This destruction of traditional morality is probably the ultimate cause of the dramatic decline in wellbeing and fertility we see in atheists. Forced to choose a new moral code and left to their own devices many atheist choose poorly. |
|
|
|
you are right .. i hate religious persons's hypoccrisy.. they say we dont hate atheism but they are scared atheists to death.. i dont get this thing..
This is easy to understand. The religious fear sin and modern leftism as they perceive these to be inherently dangerous. There are some good reasons to feel this way. Sin is the situation where how we feel is ultimate human reality, and how we feel is known to be contingent and means nothing.
Sin is to embrace this nothingness as reality, to propagandize that nothingness is reality, to denigrate anything which saves us from nothingness.
*
And that is the reason we need to be ‘saved’.
And this is the reason why we cannot save ourselves.
We need to be saved from nothingness, and from those who brainwash us into a belief in nothingness, and from ourselves who propagate that reality is nothingness.
*
Sin is to embrace nothingness
Modern society is a mechanism for inculcating bad habits, especially the habit of seeking instant pleasure, intoxications and distractions; a habit of regarding ourselves as passive recipients for ‘entertainment’. A devout life is not so much about a flash of understanding but is mostly a matter of using insights into truth in building-up good habits; and this can be influenced by our will. A devout life enables one to build these habits and most importantly successfully pass them on to our children. |
|
|
|
If atheists went into their closet, and didn't even propagate, we could all wait until the cancer of atheism died out. We could tell by the stench coming out of the closet.
But now because atheists are spreading their poisonous cancer to many people, especially to the children, the only thing left for GOOD religious folks to do is to attempt to stamp out the cancer of atheism in every way possible.
I do not know if this is some sort of inside joke but this comment is not helpful. This thread is about sharing knowledge and helping people. I never make moderated threads and cannot prevent you from posting anything you want but I would kindly ask that if you are not on board with the purpose of this thread that you do not post in it. |
|
|
|
Societies need myths. Religion is unifying people behind a common cause. Atheists reject this myth because its irrational claims cannot be explained scientifically.
Today we have many replacements for the religion myth, making it obsolete.
...
Religion is an ancient relic that will eventually be abandoned as such.
Let me rephrase this argument. Societies need moral codes. Religion is about unifying people behind a common moral code. Atheists reject this moral code because its divine origin cannot be proven scientifically. As of today we do not have a functional replacement for the common moral code provided by religion. This lack is evidenced by the reduced wellbeing, health and fertility of those who reject the traditional moral code in favor of atheism. Religion is therefore an ancient relic that is likely to grow in power and influence as that those who reject it are unintentionally reducing their evolutionary fitness. Todays western liberal atheism is a "posion" because it is an worldview that gives you and the group evolutionary disadvantages. Thus western liberal atheism societies will cease to exist and become replaced with societies with an evolutionary functional worldview. A evolutionary functional worldview does not have to be organised supernatural religion as "christian" or "muslim" it must however contain a set of values which makes the members live a evolutionary successfull life.
...
Science does say how the world works and it does give you mental tools to solve particular problems but it does however not give you any values or instruction how to live your life whatsoever. For science it does not matter if you live or if you die or if you have a wife and family or if you become a drug addict. A successfull society must have someting more than science to guide its members in life.
Bingo we have a winner. I would only add that I am not certain there is any evolutionarily functional worldview that does not include religion. Religion has been there from the beginnings of human culture. We have evolved and adapted in an environment with religion at its core. The idea that you can simply reject it without very deep thought on the consequences is foolish arrogance. The data in the opening post indicate that those choosing to do so end up suffering from this arrogance. Whether you view religion as an adaptive code that developed with and shaped human history or as divine wisdom handed to us by a wiser being the conclusion is the same. As of today religion may be a requirement for a sustainable and evolutionarily functional worldview. |
|
|
|
Atheism is not a philosophy...
Atheism is the rejection of the Christian philosophy...
...
Atheists don't believe anything in particular beyond, "Christianity is wrong"
…
The only real difference between Christians and Atheists is...
Atheists do not need to have their morals dictated to them by God... we understand right from wrong without your book
I agree when you state that atheism is not a philosophy. My comment above was unclear let me restate. Atheism is the rejection of religious philosophy. It is the nothingness that is created by the rejection of traditional values and morals. Atheism creates a void and that void tends to be filled. The path of least resistance is the embrace of Hedonism. If God is dead then everything becomes permitted. The error is your belief that the rejection of religion is not detrimental when choosing between right and wrong. Kantianism, Aristotelianism, Stoicism are interesting moral philosophies but they are inefficient propagators limiting their relevance. Sure some few atheist may adopt something functional like Stoicism. Many more will likely fill that nothingness with something toxic. The embrace of Hedonism leads us to glorify or at least fail to criticize unhealthy behavior like the dating apocalypse. This destruction of traditional morality is probably the ultimate cause of the dramatic decline in wellbeing and fertility we see in atheists. Forced to choose a new moral code and left to their own devices many atheist choose poorly. I watched the majority of that video you linked above. The first hour was dominated by two very articulate atheists ripping into the Catholic Church for horrific crimes committed in past by individuals acting in the name of the church and by the church itself. Since I am not Catholic I lost interest at a little over the 1 hour mark. I have argued elsewhere why ancient “body count” arguments are a poor metric. |
|
|
|
|
My Bitcointalk time is up for today.
I will be back tomorrow after I watch the video linked upthread.
Just to clarify I chose the term poison in the OP to be purposefully provocative.
I wanted people to read it.
I think I underestimated how sensitive this topic is.
The purpose of this post was to share knowledge not offend.
A more accurate title would be.
Is Atheism Unhealthy?
|
|
|
|
Significantly? What is the p value on that? How did you get "significantly" out of that study? You certainly didn't quote any stats.
Here is the data on religion and wellbeing. They do not describe their methodology nearly as much as I would like but based on their reported 95% confidence intervals it appears that yes you can use the word significantly. http://www.gallup.com/poll/152732/religious-higher-wellbeing-across-faiths.aspxHere is a more generic study where they did not separate religious by group and it is more clear they achieved statistical significance. http://www.gallup.com/poll/152723/Religious-Americans-Enjoy-Higher-Wellbeing.aspxIf you'd written all that about some other minority, this post would have been labelled "hate speech" regardless of how much anecdotal or abstract evidence you have.
I am sorry if I upset you for that was not my intention. This post is about exploring whether adopting a certain philosophical view atheism may harmful to those who choose to adopt it. I believe the answer to that question appears to be yes. Atheist like everyone else have a right to believe whatever they want. However, they also have a right to be informed of all the potential pros and cons of that decision. |
|
|
|
I'm a Christian but this thread's saying that atheism is poison? No they aren't , I respect what they're belief is even they do not believe in God. This thread is just putting religion versus atheist. Why not start with your self, love one another, if you got some extra cash feed the poor, feed the beggar. Because there are atheist that are doing this. And I'm wishing one day they will change their belief that God is real.
bonski no one is saying that atheist are poison = bad people. At least I certainly am not saying that seeing as how I was an agnostic/atheist for the entirety of my adult life. The argument in this thread is that the philosophy of atheism is poisonous aka harmful/damaging/destructive to the atheist. |
|
|
|
There is a near endless list of Christians and Atheists debating, and there is always a clear winner
It is impossible to prove that the philosophy of Nihilism is factually wrong. The best one can do is show the consequences that result from adopting such a worldview. That said I will keep an open mind and watch the first of your links tomorrow. Like all of us my time is limited so I will skip that other two. |
|
|
|
Moloch that video is 2 hours long. Since I am not Catholic will my watching it really contribute to the discussion. If you truly think it will I will watch it but I don't have time today.
I think it will... it's not solely directed at Catholics, most of it relates to any denomination of Christian Based on the survey at the end of the debate, over half of the audience converted to Atheism I watched it several months ago, and thought it was quite informative... Atheists always have better answers than Christians Ok I will watch it tomorrow and get back to you with my thoughts |
|
|
|
Oh, so Intelligent people choose Atheism and that is bad (for you)?
Bad for them. I don't really care much though I probably should. Moloch that video is 2 hours long. Since I am not Catholic will my watching it really contribute to the discussion. If you truly think it will I will watch it but I don't have time today. |
|
|
|
That doesn't really follow though, does it? You haven't shown that the world is poisonous when theism is rejected, just that following a religion seems to correlate with benefits for the user, and that a high IQ correlates with things you consider negative.
So, what you haven't done is shown either that atheism is poison, or that rejection of religion is poison.
Edit: God, why does posting on this board make me feel like I'm marking undergrad philosophy papers?
Pointless barbs aside lets look at the definition of poison. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/poisonnoun
1. a substance with an inherent property that tends to destroy life or impair health.
2. something harmful or pernicious, as to happiness or well-being: Your failure to follow stems from a frame of reference error. You are looking at the world as if atheism is normal and theism is the intervention. In actuality theism is the base human state dating back to the earliest records of human life. It is widespread atheism the modern phenomenon or intervention. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_religion#Prehistoric_period_.28300th_millennium_to_34th_century_BCE.29 Multiple studies of fertility show that those who have adopted the atheist philosophy have a fertility rate that drops below 2.1 the minimum needed for replacement of the population. Atheist have also been shown to report significantly lower levels of wellbeing compared to the highly religious. I provided multiple other more abstract and anecdotal examples of toxicity in the OP. From this follows the conclusion that the adoption of an atheistic worldview is likely poisonous to homo sapiens. The point on high IQ is tangential and I brought it up only to show that high IQ individuals who usually make good decisions in most areas may be predisposed to error in this one. |
|
|
|
It doesn't matter since your premise is based on pseudoscience
1) Terman was not doing a study on whether intelligence had any relation to health or athletic ability, he only commented that it was a common misconception of his era to assume smart people were weak and sickly
2) This non-study has not been confirmed once, much less peer reviewed
3) The amount of anecdotal evidence showing intelligent people have little to zero athletic ability is staggering... Have you met a Jew?
Both athleticism and IQ are likely indirect measures of biological fitness. Since the majority of our genes probably come into play either directly or indirectly to make and operate the brain muscles and skeletal system most damaging genetic mutations will probably show-up as reduced intelligence, reduced athleticism, or reduced lifespan. No one is arguing that traits of athleticism and intelligence are distributed homogeneously between races. Individuals with high IQ have also been shown to live longer. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/research-confirms-a-link-between-intelligence-and-life-expectancy/Edit: Here is detailed information on the study you are so casually dismissing. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_Studies_of_GeniusThe Genetic Studies of Genius, today known as the Terman Study of the Gifted,[1] is the oldest and one of the longest running longitudinal studies in the field of psychology. It was begun in 1921 to examine the development and characteristics of gifted children into adulthood. The study was started by Lewis Terman at Stanford University and is now the oldest and longest running longitudinal study in the world.[2][3] |
|
|
|
You can reject massive 35 year longitudinal studies if you wish. I am unaware of any data or studies that indicate Terman was wrong.
Proof by counterexample = black people Average intelligence < white people Average athleticism > white people Not a counter example. If the Terman data is sound and can be extrapolated to the population as a whole then black college graduates should be on average more athletic then blacks who did not go on to college. The same should hold for white college graduates and for college graduates in general regardless of race. |
|
|
|
Edit: You mention religions and sin, but the only mention of atheism is at the start when you link a high IQ to both atheism and infertility.
So, you've written a post about the evils of a high IQ, and the benefits of religions and not sinning. I have yet to see that you've shown that "Atheism is poison".
Athiesm is by definition the rejection of religion. To show that athiesm is poisonous it is sufficient to show that the world is poisonous when religion is rejected. I have presented the evidence that convinced me that this is the case. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
