Health and Religion

[BADecker]

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.

This is the exact point. Let's say for a moment that I am wrong about the scientific proof for the existence of God. That out of the way, have atheists proven that God doesn't exist? Has anyone proven that God doesn't exist? No, to both questions.

So, when you have atheists stating (in some cases) no-God as a fact, they are setting themselves up as the authority on the subject. And an authority on the subject of the existence of God when it is not known for a fact that He does not exist, means that these atheists are actually setting themselves up as gods (or at least potential gods) to even think like this. They are contradicting themselves when they do this. They are being gods who are stating that God does not exist. They are acting the exact part that they are contradicting.

And, of course, if they only believe that God doesn't exist... that is, if they admit that they aren't certain that God doesn't exist... then they are weak atheists, or are not atheists at all. In either case, if they say they are atheists when they only believe it, they have a religion going for themselves.

So what? The truth, that's what. Who cares what they believe? Who cares if they have a religion or not? They do! And it's about time that atheists realize that they are not being truthful with themselves if they say that God absolutely does not exist when they don't know it for a fact, or when they say that they don't have a religion going when they suggest that God-existence might possibly be the reality.

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.

Yet, on a much smaller scale, what might an insect in a terrarium think if he could think a little? Or what might a fish in a fishbowl think if he could think a little?

People can think. And people know scientifically and technically that, everything operates by cause and effect... or action and reaction as Newton calls it. Cause and effect are in the actions of everything that we can determine about anything that we know of in the universe. In fact, a scientist is a greater scientist if he can figure out the hidden cause behind something that exists. And we almost can't conceive of the idea of something happening without something else causing it to happen.

When we combine this thinking with countless trillions of cause and effect actions that exist all around us, we see the tremendous complexity involved in everything. This electron bumps that one, to cause some tiny change in things. Some photon of light is absorbed by a group of molecules to add heat energy to them. It is all tremendously complex cause and effect. But all the tiny changes make a combined effect that we can see and understand at times. However, we are so limited in our abilities, that we can barely measure only a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of the cause and effect actions that happen all around us.

And, it is all breaking down. How is it all breaking down? The answer is entropy. Every cause and effect action is dispersing and diffusing things a little. Every little diffusion is equalizing materials and energies throughout all space, and maybe time. "Things" are gradually becoming less complex.

This is the big step... understanding that these things show a Great Intelligence behind the whole universe. This Intelligence has been sitting right in front of our noses for a long time. But we haven't seen It, or we have ignored It if we had chance to see. Perhaps if we wake up to the fact of Its existence, then we might be able to consider the whys and hows of our simple lives on earth.

[1714030041]

1714030041

[1714030041]

1714030041

[1714030041]

1714030041

[1714030041]

1714030041

[1714030041]

1714030041

[Moloch]

(Too Retarded; Didn't Read)

Why do you care so much about Atheists?  Are you jealous of us or something?

Why are you here?  Just to troll?  You won't convince us of anything... we've read the bible, we've heard it all before... we've spent weeks trying to educate you, but you are too delusional to accept reality... you insist on making up your own definition for everything... a definition that nobody accepts (making it yet another delusion)

[BADecker]

(Too Retarded; Didn't Read)

Why do you care so much about Atheists?  Are you jealous of us or something?

Why are you here?  Just to troll?  You won't convince us of anything... we've read the bible, we've heard it all before... we've spent weeks trying to educate you, but you are too delusional to accept reality... you insist on making up your own definition for everything... a definition that nobody accepts (making it yet another delusion)

Atheists haven't heard it the way I explain it.

Atheists need to be saved, and baby atheists need to be shown that they are getting themselves into something that is stupid, and potential atheists need to be warned about the atheism stupidity they are looking at.

Besides, it is so much fun flaunting the fact that atheists are wrong, right in their faces, knowing that it disturbs the heck out of them, when they can't find the answers, to oppose the fact that God exists. Glory to God.

 

[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.

Of course atheists are going to explain what they are and are not according to some predefined dogma. The fact that they do this shows that atheism is a religion without having to use even the dictionary.

Yes, just like your "universe complexity law", and nearly everything you post.

[cluit]

To a certain degree I agree with this quote as there more more followers of a religion no matter what it is and  not to believe is by choice which depends on the facts faced. Yes, atheism is poison on most of the cases I have experienced.

[af_newbie]

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.

Of course atheists are going to explain what they are and are not according to some predefined dogma. The fact that they do this shows that atheism is a religion without having to use even the dictionary.

Yes, just like your "universe complexity law", and nearly everything you post.

not to mention his cause and effect proof.  Except he made an exception for God as something that does not require a primal cause, invalidating his whole premise that every effect has to have a cause.

In all three "proofs" that he posted, he first assumed there is a God and then tried to fit his twisted understanding of science (and English language) to explain to himself that it makes sense for God to exist.
His God is a God of the Gaps.

None of it of course has anything to do with science.

It is very tempting to look at the universe and say: "shit, this thing is awesome, how the heck could this whole thing came about by itself, it must have been created, designed by something..."  Well, that is where you roll up your sleeves and go to work as a scientist, not cop out and say: "Yup, God did it".

If you did a 3D holographic presentation to Jesus and his disciples, you would be considered a God or a Holy Spirit

[BADecker]

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.

Of course atheists are going to explain what they are and are not according to some predefined dogma. The fact that they do this shows that atheism is a religion without having to use even the dictionary.

Yes, just like your "universe complexity law", and nearly everything you post.

not to mention his cause and effect proof.  Except he made an exception for God as something that does not require a primal cause, invalidating his whole premise that every effect has to have a cause.

In all three "proofs" that he posted, he first assumed there is a God and then tried to fit his twisted understanding of science (and English language) to explain to himself that it makes sense for God to exist.
His God is a God of the Gaps.

None of it of course has anything to do with science.

It is very tempting to look at the universe and say: "shit, this thing is awesome, how the heck could this whole thing came about by itself, it must have been created, designed by something..."  Well, that is where you roll up your sleeves and go to work as a scientist, not cop out and say: "Yup, God did it".

If you did a 3D holographic presentation to Jesus and his disciples, you would be considered a God or a Holy Spirit

Just because you don't understand that God is eternal, doesn't make it not so. If God has cause and effect within Himself, He simply is self causing and self affecting. Period. Laws of this "terrarium" universe that He made don't affect Him, just like the laws inside your terrarium don't affect you.

You jokers would rather remain retarded than look at the truth and accept it.

[upsidedown75]

Atheism is the non belief of a creator of the universe ,that nothing exists beyond this earth apart from us humans and everything else that inhabits this earth. I completely disagree anything of this. Atheism is more dangerous than poison.

[Moloch]

Atheism is the non belief of a creator of the universe ,that nothing exists beyond this earth apart from us humans and everything else that inhabits this earth. I completely disagree anything of this. Atheism is more dangerous than poison.

Where do you guys make up these ideas about Atheists?

Atheists are free to believe in aliens all they want, it's Christians who say Earth is God's favorite creation, and that humans are his special creatures...

Atheism is also not the non-belief of a creator, it is the rejection of your definition of the creator... As far as I am concerned... some god(s) might exist, but it is most definitely not the Christian god, nor is it the Muslim god, nor the Hindu gods, nor the Greek or Roman or Egyptian gods (do you see a pattern yet?)

How can you reject Allah, Thor, Zeus and Horus, yet claim to know with absolute certainty that Jesus was a god?

[BADecker]

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.

Of course atheists are going to explain what they are and are not according to some predefined dogma. The fact that they do this shows that atheism is a religion without having to use even the dictionary.

Yes, just like your "universe complexity law", and nearly everything you post.

not to mention his cause and effect proof.  Except he made an exception for God as something that does not require a primal cause, invalidating his whole premise that every effect has to have a cause.

In all three "proofs" that he posted, he first assumed there is a God and then tried to fit his twisted understanding of science (and English language) to explain to himself that it makes sense for God to exist.
His God is a God of the Gaps.

None of it of course has anything to do with science.

It is very tempting to look at the universe and say: "shit, this thing is awesome, how the heck could this whole thing came about by itself, it must have been created, designed by something..."  Well, that is where you roll up your sleeves and go to work as a scientist, not cop out and say: "Yup, God did it".

If you did a 3D holographic presentation to Jesus and his disciples, you would be considered a God or a Holy Spirit

It was some very smart scientists who recognized the scientific laws that prove God exists, to be the laws that they are. In their day almost everyone understood that God existed. They didn't think that they had to put the laws together for people so that people would understand.

Devolution in the atheists of today has caused them to ignore the science that was obvious to the scientists of the past who pointed out the basic scientific laws that prove that God exists.

[CoinCube]

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.

There is plenty of reason to think that it is functional outside of small groups. Every day I experience interactions with people with whom I do not share an in-group relationship, and yet I don't judge them as unreliable and those people don't judge me unreliable.

Religion does not help overcome these problems when they involve out groups. Religions are, by their nature, inward facing.

This is a deep topic and requires us to compare the prosociality of the religious versus that the non-religious.

There was a nice review article in SCIENCE on this by Ara Norezayna and Azim Shariff titled The Origin and Evolution of Religious Prosociality. I have linked to the PDF below.

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/52d7f47fe4b0c692d7426966/t/531e37c0e4b089910ebb95f3/1394489280903/the-origin-and-evolution-of-religious-prosociality.pdf

Experimentally induced religious thoughts reduce rates of cheating and increase altruistic behavior among anonymous strangers. Experiments demonstrate an association between apparent profession of religious devotion and greater trust. Cross-cultural evidence suggests an association between the cultural presence of morally concerned deities and large group size in humans

[Moloch]

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2016/02/27/in-rare-move-germany-fines-atheist-e500-for-violating-blasphemy-law

[organofcorti]

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.

There is plenty of reason to think that it is functional outside of small groups. Every day I experience interactions with people with whom I do not share an in-group relationship, and yet I don't judge them as unreliable and those people don't judge me unreliable.

Religion does not help overcome these problems when they involve out groups. Religions are, by their nature, inward facing.

This is a deep topic and requires us to compare the prosociality of the religious versus that the non-religious.

There was a nice review article in SCIENCE on this by Ara Norezayna and Azim Shariff titled The Origin and Evolution of Religious Prosociality. I have linked to the PDF below.

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/52d7f47fe4b0c692d7426966/t/531e37c0e4b089910ebb95f3/1394489280903/the-origin-and-evolution-of-religious-prosociality.pdf

Experimentally induced religious thoughts reduce rates of cheating and increase altruistic behavior among anonymous strangers. Experiments demonstrate an association between apparent profession of religious devotion and greater trust. Cross-cultural evidence suggests an association between the cultural presence of morally concerned deities and large group size in humans

I started looking at that paper and got distracted by another from the same authors:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110420112334.htm

Title:
Different views of God may influence academic cheating
Date:
April 21, 2011
Source:
University of Oregon
Summary:
Belief in God doesn't deter a person from cheating on a test, unless that God is seen as a mean, punishing one, researchers say.

Ugh! In order to behave well, theists need to believe they will be punished? This again relates to our initial point of discussion, that some people primed for religion are those that need guidance -- and the threat of violence -- in order to act altruistically.

[CoinCube]

Ugh! In order to behave well, theists need to believe they will be punished? This again relates to our initial point of discussion, that some people primed for religion are those that need guidance -- and the threat of violence -- in order to act altruistically.

The study authors comments on the matter.

Even though the trend found in the new study was significant, Shariff cautioned, the results are preliminary. Specifically, the research focused on academic cheating, which is only one type of moral behavior. It is unclear whether the pattern of results will generalize to encouraging positive behaviors, such as generosity. Researchers should examine other impacts of how views of God may influence other types of both negative and positive moral behaviors.

In a way the findings make a certain amount of sense. If a a moral code is the functional equivalent of (Do not do bad things but if you do... "come here for your big group hug"...its is all good no worries) it may lack some function as an adequate deterrent against immoral and unhealthy behavior. The SCIENCE paper above is a good one and presents both the strengths and the limitations in the data. You cited one example of these limitations above but there are others also you will find later on. The totality of the review, however, supports my thesis.

From large village settlements at the dawn of agriculture to modern metropolises today, human beings are capable of living in extraordinarily large cooperative groups. However, extrapolating from cross-species comparisons of neocortex size, it has been estimated that human group sizes cannot exceed 150 individuals before groups divide or collapse (37). Although this specific number has been disputed (38), and whereas some Pleistocene foragers possibly lived in large villages, it is apparent that the size of human settlements since the end of the Pleistocene far exceed the limitations that kin-based and reciprocity-based altruism place on group size.

Cultural evolution, driven by between-group competition for resources and habitats, has favored large groups. However, large groups, which until recently lacked institutionalized social monitoring mechanisms, are vulnerable to collapse because of high rates of freeloading (13). If unwavering and pervasive belief in moralizing gods buffered against such freeloading, then belief in such gods should be more likely in larger human groups where the threat of freeloading is most acute.

From your comments it appears you continue to believe that our 'built-in' primitive kin-based and reciprocity-based altruism which is likely genetic is somehow an ideal. This runs counter to the vast majority of scientific thought as noted in the quote above. If you want to make this case you need to present a stronger argument then "There is plenty (of unspecified) reasons to think that it is functional" or the entirely unsupported "only religions people need moral guidance".

[organofcorti]

From your comments it appears you continue to believe that our 'built-in' primitive kin-based and reciprocity-based altruism which is likely genetic is somehow an ideal. This runs counter to the vast majority of scientific thought as noted in the quote above. If you want to make this case you need to present a stronger argument then "There is plenty (of unspecified) reasons to think that it is functional" or the entirely unsupported "only religions people need moral guidance".

I thinks it's pretty clear that I don't think it's an ideal, just that it works better generally than for some of those who need religion for moral guidance.

[CoinCube]

From your comments it appears you continue to believe that our 'built-in' primitive kin-based and reciprocity-based altruism which is likely genetic is somehow an ideal. This runs counter to the vast majority of scientific thought as noted in the quote above. If you want to make this case you need to present a stronger argument then "There is plenty (of unspecified) reasons to think that it is functional" or the entirely unsupported "only religions people need moral guidance".

I thinks it's pretty clear that I don't think it's an ideal, just that it works better generally than for some of those who need religion for moral guidance.

And I have countered that the moral system provided by religion is decisively superior to the ‘built-in' primitive kin-based and reciprocity-based system. Furthermore I have supported my claim with data specifically:

1)   The data that those who reject religion appear to suffer from reduced health, happiness and fertility as outlined in the opening post.
And
2)   The research supporting the claim that religion is a critical and perhaps primary mechanism for overcoming our species-specific upper limit to group size which is set by purely cognitive constraints.

You have countered that you do not find the data convincing based on your personal research and observations.

Every day I experience interactions with people with whom I do not share an in-group relationship, and yet I don't judge them as unreliable and those people don't judge me unreliable.

You have also countered with the theory that religion may override our 'built-in' moral system at the local social group level resulting in inferior outcomes as the 'built-in' system is presumably optimized for such situations.

Both of your claims are logical but unpersuasive. You have provided no empiric data to support your theory that religion leads to inferior outcomes at the local level. The the data I provided on health and happiness appears to refute this claim. Furthermore I have no way to measure or evaluate your unpublished personal research.

Have we drilled down to the core of our differences?

[LiberOptions]

any ism is poison if a minority rules. The problem of any Ism is that it exists to be a form of control

[CoinCube]

You have also countered with the theory that religion may override our 'built-in' moral system at the local social group level resulting in inferior outcomes as the 'built-in' system is presumably optimized for such situations.

I should add that I am not claiming that this can never happen only that it is a non-dominant effect. I remember reading The Scarlet Letter many years ago. It is an 1850 work of fiction Set in 17th-century Puritan Boston, Massachusetts, during the years 1642 to 1649.

In the story religion is used as a cudgel to punish and torture in a way that is grossly offensive to our inherrent 'built-in' moral system. The book itself was written 200 years after the period in question and can be seen as a repudiation of such religious interperations.

Religions are also subject to competitive pressures. If a religion strays too far from optimum behavior on the local level individuals can and will abandon it for other options. This was the fate of 17th-century Puritanism which is now essentially extinct.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Puritans_in_North_America#Decline_of_power_and_influence

Decline of power and influence
Puritan oppression, including torture and imprisonment of many leaders of non-Puritan Christian sects, led to the (voluntary or involuntary) "banishment" of many Christian leaders and their followers from the Massachusetts Bay Colony. This impact of Puritanism on many new colonists led or contributed to the founding of new colonies—Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, New Hampshire, and others—as religious havens that were created for those who wanted to live outside the oppressive reach of the existing theocracy.[3] The power and influence of Puritan leaders in New England declined further after the Salem Witch Trials in Salem, Massachusetts, in the 1690s. The trials ended with a number of innocent people being falsely accused, found guilty, and executed. Most of the magistrates never admitted fault in the matter, though Samuel Sewall, publicly apologized in later life.

Related Religions and Churches
Most colonial Puritan congregations were absorbed into either the National Council of the Congregational Churches of the United States,[4] or the American Unitarian Association.[5] The Congregationalists merged with the General Convention of the Christian Church, and later with the Evangelical and Reformed Church in 1957, forming the United Church of Christ, while the Unitarians consolidated with the Universalist Church of America in 1961 to form the Unitarian Universalist Association.

[magnific61]

Imagine, that you live without any purpose except people who will die after you, will remember you good.
When you die, everything will end. No God, no life after death.
You decline that God and life after death is exist.
Actually this a paradox that you decline, but thought of existence of God will gnaw your brain. What if,  God and judgement day is exist?

[CoinCube]

This is horrible, and how to distinguish good Muslims from the bad?

You can't... just kill everyone who believes in any religion... they'll go to heaven, and the world will be much better without religion

Mass extermination and genocide is the most toxic of the 'theologies' that atheists are prone to embrace. Thank you for the public demonstration of this principle.

The United Soviet Socialist Republic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USSR_anti-religious_campaign_(1921%E2%80%931928)
The Soviet regime had an ostensible commitment to the complete annihilation of religious institutions and ideas. Militant atheism was central to the ideology of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and a high priority of all Soviet leaders. Convinced atheists were considered to be more virtuous individuals than those of religious belief.
When church leaders demanded freedom of religion under the constitution, the Communists responded with terror. They murdered the metropolitan of Kiev and executed twenty-eight bishops and 6,775 priests. Despite mass demonstrations in support of the church, repression cowed most ecclesiastical leaders into submission.

The Nazi Regime
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Nazi_Germany#Plan_for_the_Roman_Catholic_Church
As Hitler rose to power, many Catholic bishops, priests, religious and lay leaders vociferously opposed Nazism on the grounds of its incompatibility with Christian morals. In early 1931, the German bishops issued an edict excommunicating all leaders of the Nazi Party and banned Catholics from membership.
In 1937 Pope Pius XI issued the encyclical Mit brennender Sorge condemning Nazi ideology. In 1941 the Nazi authorities decreed the dissolution of all monasteries and abbeys in the German Reich, many of them effectively being occupied and secularized by the Allgemeine SS under Himmler. Himmler saw a main task of the SS to be that of "acting as the vanguard in overcoming Christianity and restoring a Germanic way of living" as part of preparations for the coming conflict between "humans and subhumans". Hitler called a truce in the Church conflict with the outbreak of war, wanting to back away from policies likely to cause internal friction in Germany. He decreed at the outset of war that "no further action should be taken against the Evangelical and Catholic Churches for the duration of the war".

Khmer_Rouge
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge_period_(1975%E2%80%931979)#Religious_communities
Many monks were executed; temples and pagodas were destroyed[14] or turned into storehouses or gaols. Images of the Buddha were defaced and dumped into rivers and lakes. People who were discovered praying or expressing religious sentiments were often killed. The Christian and Muslim communities also were even more persecuted, as they were labelled as part of a pro-Western cosmopolitan sphere, hindering Cambodian culture and society.
The Roman Catholic cathedral of Phnom Penh was completely razed.[14] The Khmer Rouge forced Muslims to eat pork, which they regard as forbidden (ḥarām). Many of those who refused were killed. Christian clergy and Muslim imams were executed. One hundred and thirty Cham mosques were destroyed.

Early Communist China
https://www.mtholyoke.edu/~geary20d/worldpolitics/maozedeng.html
During the beginning of the People’s Republic of China, Mao Zedong and the Communists had seized control and 10,000 missionaries were forced to leave the country. Persecution of Christians proceeded at full throttle. Mao Zedong did not want any foreign influence on the people. In 1952 the last U.S. Presbyterian missionaries, Frank and Essie Price, were forced to leave China a mere three years after Mao Zedong assumes power. During the dark years of Mao's 'Great Leap Forward' (launched in 1958) and 'The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution' (launched in 1966), many of the Christian leaders were killed and imprisoned for their faith, and many others spent years in hard labor camps. According to an article in the Epoch Times, “The CCP (Chinese Communist Party) has lost all composure in the frantic persecution of religion. During the Cultural Revolution, numerous temples and mosques were torn down, and monks were paraded in humiliation through the streets