Health and Religion

[CoinCube]

But artificial manipulation of fertility through contraception or other practices would make it only useful if you managed to discount those practices.
Just because an intelligent couple choose to have no children has no necessary meaning to their true "biological fitness"?

Biological Fitness is an empiric not a moral measurement.  
There are two accepted empiric measures of biological fitness these are Absolute Fitness and Relative Fitness. Both of these are directly proportional to fertility unless there is a large differences in infant mortality between the groups. As all of the data comes from one country USA there should be no large differences in infant mortality.

Now the case can certainly be made that Biological Fitness is an irrelevant metric. However, it is likely that some readers will feel this metric to be important and that makes the data relevant.

[organofcorti]

<snip>
It is reasonable to be suspicious of the values and morals of someone operating with no moral code. It is also reasonable to be suspicious of someone who knows and can anticipate your moral code but refuses to disclose his own. I fail to see the cognative bias.

is not useful information, since the religious person will be more suspicious of any out-group, regardless of the god (or lack of god) they follow.

Be careful of attribution error. We have identified two reasons why the religious might distrust atheist.

1) In-Group Favoritism: The tendency of any group to favor members of their own group.

2) Moral Unpredictability: The difficulty one faces predicting and evaluating the behavior someone who keeps their value system 'closed source' aka undisclosed.

The next logical question to ask is how much does each factor contribute to the society wide distrust of atheist that was discussed upthread. To determine this we should compare opinions on atheist to opinions on competing 'open source' groups like Buddhism or Islam.

The discussed study describing distrust of atheist is not public and behind a paywall in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. However, the news article about the study stated that study participants
believed atheist more likely to commit an immoral act (by failing to leave behind valid insurance information after hitting a parked car) than a Muslim. Even those with no religious affiliation felt this way.

The study appears to have been done in the west where Islam is non dominant and not particularly popular right now. Together these findings suggest that In-Group Favoritism is unlikely to be the primary driver of distrust towards atheist and that other explanations like Moral Unpredictability should be considered.

So let's return to your stated original argument.

I don't think any of these points come close to dismissing my original point, which is

<snip>
It's more likely that religious people need religion in order to be moral actors, just as BADecker wrote.

The statement is correct it needs to be broadened and generalized.

It is likely that humans in general need a coherent internal code in order to live healthy and moral lives. For the religious this is provided by their faith.

I think most people understand moral codes such as "respect and treat others as you wish to be respected and treated", however those that belong to groups which make clear delineations between them and "outsiders" are likely to have some moral codes that are not acceptable to other inward facing groups, thus causing conflicts. Conversely, groups which are not inward facing and accept outsiders based on their actions rather than the actions of the groups to which the outsiders belongs are likely to experience less conflict and unhappiness than those that judge all outsiders with suspicion.

To say that a persons moral code is provided by a religion is a concern. Religious code can be reinterpreted by holy men, who can then shape a group's moral outlook to suit their particular views. By relying on religious dogma to inform your entire moral code you risk acting immorally, possibly even against your in-built moral sensibilities.

In summary: People who rely on their native or built-in moral code are more likely to have a positive affect on their local social group than  people who rely on dogmatic moral strictures.

 

[CoinCube]

...
Suggesting that intellectual mindsets are necessary to create behaviours relies on our intellect being our ruling aspect. This does not seem true.
The intellect is never a truly objective entity and will always interact with subjective reality.
...
On reflection, it seems some arguments are based on the assumption that the intellect is the base cause for behaviour or morals.
This seems a weak point and has no necessary validity.
...

Let's examine base human behavior and morals when you strip away all "intellectual mindsets"

In a base state each person would have a right, or license, to everything in the world. There is no centralized authority and no external recourse against violence, coercion, or defection. Thomas Hobbes envisioned this as, a "war of all against all"

In such condition, there is no place for industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving, and removing, such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.

Now it is likely that we do have a 'built in' primitive moral code that allows us without any preconceptions to escape Hobbs baseline. This code is one of tribalism.

http://www.uvm.edu/~pdodds/files/papers/others/1993/dunbar1993a.pdf
Primates are, above all, social animals. This has inevitably led to the suggestion that such intense sociality is functionally related to the exceptional cognitive abilities of these animals, as reflected in their unusually large brains (Jolly 1969, Humphrey 1976, Kummer 1982, Byrne & Whiten 1988). This claim is supported by the finding that mean group size is directly related to relative neocortical volume in nonhuman primates (Sawaguchi & Kudo 1990, Dunbar 1992a). These analyses suggest that although the size of the group in which animals live in a given habitat is a function of habitat-specific ecologically-determined costs and benefits (see for example Dunbar 1988, 1992b), there is a species-specific upper limit to group size which is set by purely cognitive constraints: animals cannot maintain the cohesion and integrity of groups larger than a size set by the information- processing capacity of their neocortex.

(Red colorization mine.)

(Blue colorization mine.)

It is in maintaining social cohesion in groups larger then the information- processing capacity of our neocortex where "intellectual mindsets" are required. The role of these is to maximize individual freedom to build wealth, prosperity and happiness via cooperation while minimizing individual freedom to prosper from coercion, violence and defection.

I think most people understand moral codes...

People who rely on their native or built-in moral code are more likely to have a positive affect on their local social group than  people who rely on dogmatic moral strictures.

Our native built-in moral code may be helpful for daily decisions within local social groups but there is little reason to think it functional when dealing with those outside our local social groups.

Your error is your continued insistence to lay the limitations of humanity on the doorstep of religion when in actual fact religion is a critical and perhaps primary mechanism for overcoming these limitations.

[BADecker]

I am muslim.
I believe in Allah.
I feel respect to other religions so,  nobody has to believe same like me.
But, i don't think that there's any atheist on world,  because there should be a creator of universe and all of things can't become by a coincidence. I think atheism is a choice. Not belief. A choice of ignorance

You are right. There isn't any real atheist. They all believe in some form of god, evn if it is simply the god of themselves.

If you respect other religions, you are a very weak Muslim. You might respect the people of other religions, but if you don't kill them after you give them a long chance to convert to Islam, then you aren't following the Qiran and the Hadiths.

While there are certainly passages of violence in the Koran it is important to note that there are devout Muslims who are fully aware of these passages and have incorporated them (perhaps with some spiritual struggle) into a peaceful and non violent world view.

http://islamicsupremecouncil.org/understanding-islam/legal-rulings/5-jihad-a-misunderstood-concept-from-islam.html?start=9

WHAT JIHAD IS NOT

Jihad is not a violent concept.
Jihad is not a declaration of war against other religions. It is worth noting that the Koran specifically refers to Jews and Christians as "people of the book" who should be protected and respected.

All three faiths worship the same God. Allah is just the Arabic word for God, and is used by Christian Arabs as well as Muslims.

Military action in the name of Islam has not been common in the history of Islam. Scholars says most calls for violent jihad are not sanctioned by Islam.

Personally I feel that a Muslim who advocates respects and tolerance for other religions is the farthest thing possible from a "very weak Muslim".

The only talk of "death to the unbelievers" that I have seen in this thread has not come from a Muslim.

Seems to me that when a person goes against his religion, he has either forsaken his religion, or he is very weak in it.

The only time you get to pick and choose which parts of your religion you are going to follow, is when the religion, itself, says you get to pick and choose.

If some Muslim clerics are trying to whitewash some of the violence directives in the foundational writings of Islam, they are not trying to obey. Rather they are trying to change things. They are trying to make a new religion. At best, they are weak Muslims. At worst, they are not Muslims at all, and shouldn't be followed if you want to remain Muslim.

Things might be different if the violence writings were simply historical writings. But they are more than that in Islam. They are orders for Muslims to follow. Even though there is a lot of leeway as to the timing when to carry them out, they are still orders.

If you, as a Muslim, would rather ignore the orders, then you are not a very good Muslim. Maybe you are a Muslim in name only.

So, what are you trying to do when you are trying to be a peaceful Muslim:
1. Disobey Islam?
2. Change Islam?
3. Start a new religion and simply call it Islam?

[CoinCube]

...
So, what are you trying to do when you are trying to be a peaceful Muslim:
1. Disobey Islam?
2. Change Islam?
3. Start a new religion and simply call it Islam?

There are multiple other active threads regarding this topic and Islam.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1361553.0

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1364555.0

I have stated my position on the matter and you have given your counter. I would ask that further debate be directed to a thread where it would be on topic.

[BADecker]

...
So, what are you trying to do when you are trying to be a peaceful Muslim:
1. Disobey Islam?
2. Change Islam?
3. Start a new religion and simply call it Islam?

There are multiple other active threads regarding this topic and Islam.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1361553.0

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1364555.0

I have stated my position on the matter and you have given your counter. I would ask that further debate be directed to a thread where it would be on topic.

Does that mean you re ignoring the Koran and Hadith quotes listed at http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/023-violence.htm?

[BADecker]

...
So, what are you trying to do when you are trying to be a peaceful Muslim:
1. Disobey Islam?
2. Change Islam?
3. Start a new religion and simply call it Islam?

There are multiple other active threads regarding this topic and Islam.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1361553.0

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1364555.0

I have stated my position on the matter and you have given your counter. I would ask that further debate be directed to a thread where it would be on topic.

Does that mean you re ignoring the Koran and Hadith quotes listed at http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/023-violence.htm?

He is ignoring those violent verses, the same as you ignore yours from the Bible:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1367154.0

Islam violence verses are directives for Muslims. Any violence directives in the Bible were for ancient Israel. There are no violence directives for Christians. Now, does that sound like I am ignoring violence in the Bible?

Do you have fun twisting things? Thank you. It gives me opportunity to clarify things for people.

[zenitzz]

Atheism = Poison ? IMO, Religion is poison to the mind but Non-belief is God is the true poison of the soul!!

[BADecker]

Atheism = Poison ? IMO, Religion is poison to the mind but Non-belief is God is the true poison of the soul!!

One of the most poisonous religions is the religion of atheism. It has such a variety of dogma that it seems to not be religion, until you stand it up next to the definition of "religion" and compare.

[organofcorti]

Atheism = Poison ? IMO, Religion is poison to the mind but Non-belief is God is the true poison of the soul!!

One of the most poisonous religions is the religion of atheism. It has such a variety of dogma that it seems to not be religion, until you stand it up next to the definition of "religion" and compare.

There we go. I'm going to start counting the number of times you post your "religion of atheism" bullshit per page. I think I can probably model it, and then you won't even have to post it yourself -- you can just use a bot.

You can thank me later!

[McDonalds5]

Atheism = Poison ? IMO, Religion is poison to the mind but Non-belief is God is the true poison of the soul!!

One of the most poisonous religions is the religion of atheism. It has such a variety of dogma that it seems to not be religion, until you stand it up next to the definition of "religion" and compare.

There we go. I'm going to start counting the number of times you post your "religion of atheism" bullshit per page. I think I can probably model it, and then you won't even have to post it yourself -- you can just use a bot.

You can thank me later!

Atheism is a religion. No matter what nonsense atheists claim.

[organofcorti]

Atheism = Poison ? IMO, Religion is poison to the mind but Non-belief is God is the true poison of the soul!!

One of the most poisonous religions is the religion of atheism. It has such a variety of dogma that it seems to not be religion, until you stand it up next to the definition of "religion" and compare.

There we go. I'm going to start counting the number of times you post your "religion of atheism" bullshit per page. I think I can probably model it, and then you won't even have to post it yourself -- you can just use a bot.

You can thank me later!

Atheism is a religion. No matter what nonsense atheists claim.

I -- and most people -- use a definition of 'religion' which includes belief in the supernatural.

Do you have any idea how ridiculous and self contradictory "Church of Atheism" is?

[BADecker]

Atheism = Poison ? IMO, Religion is poison to the mind but Non-belief is God is the true poison of the soul!!

One of the most poisonous religions is the religion of atheism. It has such a variety of dogma that it seems to not be religion, until you stand it up next to the definition of "religion" and compare.

There we go. I'm going to start counting the number of times you post your "religion of atheism" bullshit per page. I think I can probably model it, and then you won't even have to post it yourself -- you can just use a bot.

You can thank me later!

Why should I thank you because you learned how to count? Maybe sometime you will learn how to use the things that you count, and you will finally see that atheism is a religion. Of course, that wouldn't mean you would admit it.

[BADecker]

Atheism = Poison ? IMO, Religion is poison to the mind but Non-belief is God is the true poison of the soul!!

One of the most poisonous religions is the religion of atheism. It has such a variety of dogma that it seems to not be religion, until you stand it up next to the definition of "religion" and compare.

There we go. I'm going to start counting the number of times you post your "religion of atheism" bullshit per page. I think I can probably model it, and then you won't even have to post it yourself -- you can just use a bot.

You can thank me later!

Atheism is a religion. No matter what nonsense atheists claim.

I -- and most people -- use a definition of 'religion' which includes belief in the supernatural.

Do you have any idea how ridiculous and self contradictory "Church of Atheism" is?

Religion of atheism is right on. And it is easy to see when you look up the definition of religion in the dictionary.

[BADecker]

Atheism = Poison ? IMO, Religion is poison to the mind but Non-belief is God is the true poison of the soul!!

One of the most poisonous religions is the religion of atheism. It has such a variety of dogma that it seems to not be religion, until you stand it up next to the definition of "religion" and compare.

There we go. I'm going to start counting the number of times you post your "religion of atheism" bullshit per page. I think I can probably model it, and then you won't even have to post it yourself -- you can just use a bot.

You can thank me later!

Atheism is a religion. No matter what nonsense atheists claim.

Atheists don't make any claims. If you are interested in nonsense, read the Bible.

You mean that all those scientific theorists are theists?   

[organofcorti]

Atheism = Poison ? IMO, Religion is poison to the mind but Non-belief is God is the true poison of the soul!!

One of the most poisonous religions is the religion of atheism. It has such a variety of dogma that it seems to not be religion, until you stand it up next to the definition of "religion" and compare.

There we go. I'm going to start counting the number of times you post your "religion of atheism" bullshit per page. I think I can probably model it, and then you won't even have to post it yourself -- you can just use a bot.

You can thank me later!

Why should I thank you because you learned how to count. Maybe sometime you will learn how to use the things that you count, and you will finally see that atheism is a religion. Of course, that wouldn't mean you would admit it.

If I use some arbitrary countable objects I will see atheism is a religion?

Also, as usual you've misunderstood my post. You can thank me for writing you a chat bot, not for the actual counting (for which I've written a script).

[BADecker]

Atheism = Poison ? IMO, Religion is poison to the mind but Non-belief is God is the true poison of the soul!!

One of the most poisonous religions is the religion of atheism. It has such a variety of dogma that it seems to not be religion, until you stand it up next to the definition of "religion" and compare.

There we go. I'm going to start counting the number of times you post your "religion of atheism" bullshit per page. I think I can probably model it, and then you won't even have to post it yourself -- you can just use a bot.

You can thank me later!

Why should I thank you because you learned how to count. Maybe sometime you will learn how to use the things that you count, and you will finally see that atheism is a religion. Of course, that wouldn't mean you would admit it.

If I use some arbitrary countable objects I will see atheism is a religion?

You are asking me? Why don't you use the dictionary and make a comparison?

[organofcorti]

Atheism = Poison ? IMO, Religion is poison to the mind but Non-belief is God is the true poison of the soul!!

One of the most poisonous religions is the religion of atheism. It has such a variety of dogma that it seems to not be religion, until you stand it up next to the definition of "religion" and compare.

There we go. I'm going to start counting the number of times you post your "religion of atheism" bullshit per page. I think I can probably model it, and then you won't even have to post it yourself -- you can just use a bot.

You can thank me later!

Why should I thank you because you learned how to count. Maybe sometime you will learn how to use the things that you count, and you will finally see that atheism is a religion. Of course, that wouldn't mean you would admit it.

If I use some arbitrary countable objects I will see atheism is a religion?

You are asking me? Why don't you use the dictionary and make a comparison?

I'm asking you because arbitrary counting objects don't define religions, in any dictionary. You have made the claim that they do.

[organofcorti]

Here's an explanation of why atheism is not a religion, by people who should know:

http://atheists.org/activism/resources/what-is-atheism?

Is atheism a form of religion?
Atheism is not a belief system nor is it a religion. While there are some religions that are atheistic (certain sects of Buddhism, for example), that does not mean that atheism is a religion.

[mrflibblehat]

Is it relevant if atheism is a religion or not? Even if it isn't, of course.
Let's suppose that you're right and it is a religion. It is the religion in which people believe God doesn't exist. So what? People still think the same thing.
It's so weird to believe that somewhere there is a super powerful entity that created man, which is so limited compared to it and that that entity cares for the well-being of each and everyone of us, and still, after seeing all the bad things that happen, to believe that He is good and all the horrible things happening are some sort of master plan. And after all that, after death, there is a place where everyone of us will be happy forever. Happy meaning that heaven will be after the life preferences of each of us.
It just doesn't make sense. You can turn it any way you like. It still won't compute.