NoGodBlog.com

I think that the AA could back up this study by putting atheism on the SAT as a religious group. I don't think that anyone would make too big a deal about it, and it would be nice to be simply "none" instead of "none/other".

Finally I have an actual study to throw in peoples' faces lol.

i think it would be fair to say that as intelligence increases, there is a decline in belief in any theory or dogma that isn't backed up by facts and physical evidence. this applies to religion, economics, psychology, etc.

the reason many religious can't understand why atheists believe the way we do is because many are not intellectually capable of it. that may sound elitist but it is no different than comparing the intelligence required to be an nuclear-physicist to that of being an accountant. i'm not saying that all atheists are more intelligent than everyone else. but as far as i know there aren't many "bubba"-type atheists running around or posting regularly on this blog. i don't say any of this as a form of denigration of anyone, but it is what it is. intelligence, like all other human traits, is not equally distributed in the gene pool.

This is news? Not to us Christians. It's been in the Bible for thousands of years and the reasons for are well understood.

Personally, I'd rather be of average I.Q./education and resting on God's promise of salvation than a brilliant person with a high I.Q. and an advanced degree who is lost and without God in his life.

Don't worry, smart people can have eternal life as well, it's just a little harder for them to get past the pride first.

tim
which bible? you know darn well the emperor ordered the christian religion as we know it created to help keep his subjects under control.if you are going to put your faith in a book written by men why not the koran or the communist manifesto.

Tim

Personally, I'd rather be of average I.Q./education

You can dream.

A good Jesus and Mo this week.

http://www.jesusandmo.net/

off topic....


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25322638/

we lost a good one
pretty damn smart, too

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o

Bones

Sad, very sad. He will be missed. I miss him already.

A quote from Einstein
The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. These subtilized interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text. For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything "chosen" about them. This was taken from a letter written by Einstein a year before his death. The letter recently sold at auction for $404,000. Richard Dawkins was among the out-bidded.

Blockquote screw-up!

A quote from Einstein

The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. These subtilized interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text. For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything "chosen" about them.

This was taken from a letter written by Einstein a year before his death. The letter recently sold at auction for $404,000. Richard Dawkins was among the out-bidded.

It's not our pride that keeps us from your god, Tim, it's our honesty. Intelligence is a tool, but it's only useful if you're willing to use it to identify compartmentalization within ourselves and use it to break down those artificial barriers. Only honesty can accomplish that.

I miss Carlin. :(
I was hoping to meet him one day... *sigh*

(sorry for off-topic)

One part of this is the children that get a "You will burn in hell/Because I said so" answer to their questions. Some will accept this to get the love of the parents,then they try it on their kids ,and get bent all out of shape when their kids insist on real answers.

Yeah...a study done within an elitist organization. I'd latch onto that one....sheesh.

So what else does Professor Richard Lynn believe?

Lynn argues that the condemnation of eugenics in the second half of the 20th century went too far and offers a reassessment.

After examining the classic approach of attempting to implement eugenics by altering reproduction, Lynn concludes that the policies of classical eugenics are not politically feasible in democratic societies.

Quote from "Eugenics A Reassessment" by Professor Richard Lynn

So why does one consider Einstein's letter, written when he was 75, one year before his death, as a valid rejection of religion...

And yet those same individuals consider a book by long time atheist Richard Flew, age 84, where he declares there is a God, as nothing more then the result of a failing cognitive skills...

Yes...now that's superior intelligence at it's best...

I knew George would make this thread. I will miss that man. He's been my favorite comedian since the 70s. RIP Mr. Carlin. Your legend will live on...

Sniff sniff

RATS RATS RATS
It is not often I say that when someone dies but Carlin was really cool and I will mis his humor and insight. I also always hoped to see him sometime.

I may or may not be smarter than religious types but I do avoid them because so many are so unpleasant in daily life - they dont have to be nice, they are forgiven. NOT BY ME.

Do we really need this study to confirm what we all intuitively know to be true?

So why does one consider Einstein's letter, written when he was 75, one year before his death, as a valid rejection of religion...

And yet those same individuals consider a book by long time atheist Richard Flew, age 84, where he declares there is a God, as nothing more then the result of a failing cognitive skills...

That one is easy,

Einstein's comment makes all the sense in the world. A great well thought out assessment of religion and the bible in general.

Richard Flew was obviously off his rocker when he said that as it makes no sense whatsoever.

Um, phreedm, I think you mean Anthony Flew.

But maybe you don't. I don't know who Richard Flew is/was.

How much more satisfying had we been placed in a garden custom-made for us, its other occupants put there for us to use as we saw fit. There is a celebrated story in the Western tradition like this, except that not quite everything was there for us. There was one particular tree of which we were not to partake, a tree of knowledge. Knowledge and understanding and wisdom were forbidden to us in this story. We were starving for knowledge--created particular, it is why we no longer live in a garden: We found out too much. So long as we were incurious and obedient, I imagine, we could console ourselves that we were the reason the Universe was made. As we began to indulge our curiosity, though, to explore, to learn how the Universe really is, we expelled ourselves from Eden. Angels with a flaming sword were set as sentries at the gates of Paradise to bar our return. The gardeners bacame exiles and wanderers. Occasionally we mourn that lost world, but that, it seems to me, is maudlin and sentimental. We could not happily have remained ignorant forever.

Carl Sagan

KnowledgeIsPower:

a tree of knowledge. Knowledge and understanding and wisdom were forbidden to us in this story.

This was so typical of Sagan. It wasn’t the tree of “knowledge in general,”—as Sagan seems to be alluding to there. It was the tree of “knowledge of good and evil”—a distinction the Bible clearly makes—and that makes a huge difference when taken in the context of Genesis.

And this is why heartland theocrats preach that too much education is a bad thing.

Which is in turn dumb.

Karen: Um, phreedm, I think you mean Anthony Flew.

You just got pwned, phreedum.

JCC

It wasn’t the tree of “knowledge in general,”—as Sagan seems to be alluding to there. It was the tree of “knowledge of good and evil”—a distinction the Bible clearly makes—and that makes a huge difference when taken in the context of Genesis.

Really? This makes a "huge" difference? ... Only in the addled mind of a believer. Most xians don't even give a damn about your buybull mythology.

Here's another recent survey that you guys might find interesting:

Pew scholars said the most politically relevant finding is the fact that, as the 294-page report says, “Americans have a non-dogmatic approach to faith” — that is, a large majority of nearly every religious group believes there are other paths to salvation.

According to the study, “Seventy percent of Americans with a religious affiliation say that many religions — not just their own — can lead to eternal life. Most also think there is more than one correct way to interpret the teachings of their own faith.”

In politics, that means that coalitions are possible among members of divergent religious groups.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11268.html

Apparently, most folks in this country are pretty flexible in their beliefs. And it's mostly based on the stuff that makes them feel good, like going to Heaven . Perhaps that shouldn't be surprising, but it's a nice reminder when it seems like all we ever hear from are the fundamentalists.

The Authority:

It wasn’t the tree of “knowledge in general,”—as Sagan seems to be alluding to there. It was the tree of “knowledge of good and evil”—a distinction the Bible clearly makes—and that makes a huge difference when taken in the context of Genesis.

In one version of the folk tale Cinderella, the protagonist gets her name because she is repeatedly forced to retrieve an entire bowl of grain that has been thrown into the ashes of a fireplace. In another version, she is named so simply because she is forced to sit in the ash pit when she has completed her chores.

In either case, it's still a story about a fairy godmother.

I'm still new here, but just in case you can't tell from my comment: I'm an atheist. And I happen to have a "high" IQ (in the 130s), HOWEVER:

I don't think it's so much a lack of "intelligence" as it is the lack of critical thinking. Anyone -- barring some major mental or physical disability -- can become a critical thinker: I really believe that.

Our education system has supremely failed to prepare students to be critical thinkers -- something I think every student is capable of on some level. I also believe that critical thinking is what separates the "intelligent" from the "masses." Nothing elitist about it; to be a critical thinker is to be free of mind control (which is basically where most people exist -- dependent on perceived authorities and conforming to established norms).

I also think that if you can think critically, you will eventually come to the conclusion there is no god.

Our education system is more and more based on rote memorization, knowledge of facts, and adherence to one or two theories of history / science / culture. Add to that our lemming-like focus on church, fitting in, being on the "winning" team, and being patriotic, and you've got a recipe for a bunch of lost potential.

After I got my law degree, I determined that the best thing I can do for the improvement of society is to become a teacher and learn the public school system inside out, so that I can then be part of reforming it.

We'll see how that goes. I've got some 30 years of work ahead of me. And then some!

Religion is a stupid thing. It doesn't take brains to believe in stupid things. It DOES take brains to QUESTION stupid things, and then to identify them as stupid.

So if it takes brains to question stupid things, why are there so called "Atheists" who not only refuse to question judaism and zionism, but venomously defend judaism and zionism against criticism from Atheists and preach the racist tenets of judaism?

Clearly, people like these have no business being part of American Atheists, as this violates the Aims & Principles of American Atheists Inc and this flawed mentality should be the subject of criticism of the organization.

I agree, Compostme. Unfortunately, it's just not natural for so many to level any kind of critical thinking on all areas. We have to get to a point in society where thinking critically about everything, inside and out, no matter how uncomfortable it makes us, is the norm. And like most other important things, if the parents aren't willing to do their jobs and instill that, it's up to the schools.

I've yet to hear of a grade school that goes anywhere near teaching formal logical logic and fallacies as part of their curriculum or as an elective. I'd suggest that the root cause of that is religion. Questioning is "bad" for them -- they can't take it.

SecularMan,
Those who have read my posts over the years know that I am as hard on the jews and especially the zionists, jew and xian, as anyone else. I have of course been branded as antisemitic and racist but neither label bothers me in the least.

Alexatheist,
Insults from the deluded shouldn't bother any of us. However, these deluded people who embrace and defend elements of mythology and religious extremism and attack secular freethinkers who expose and criticize faith based racism, ethnic cleansing, apartheid, etc should NEVER be representing atheists or atheist organizations while claiming to be the face and voice of atheism.

This would be like a self described "Muslim Atheist" being the spokesperson of American Atheists and on the board of American Atheists who, on behalf of the organization, proclaims that Islam is a race and that anyone who criticizes the Taliban, Saudia Arabia, or Islam is an "anti-Semite" guilty of "Hate Speech". And this person then ironically stating "It DOES take brains to QUESTION stupid things, and then to identify them as stupid." while refusing to ask those questions and attacking those who ask those questions that threatens his religious identity, while the organization he represents sits back and does nothing.

SecularMan and Alex

I agree with your last posts. I wish Alex would reconsider his racism against blacks. His racism against blacks appears irrational to me and taints his posts to this blog.

Alex. Wa sup w'dat?

Alex. Wa sup w'dat?

Twelve years of working and living in and near Durham, NC (37.8% black) is whats up wit' dat.

Comment from: alexatheist

You just got pwned, phreedum.

Hmmm...hardly. Anyone with a superior power would have debated the issue instead of relying on an obvious error...

I agree with What and I'm sure many others. There is no excuse for racism.

As humorous as racial humor may be, racism just isn't funny, not even tolerable.

Condemning a demographic group based on geographic descent or morphology because of some negative stereotypes, that may be very true of some, is just not rational.

There are many, obvious negative stereotypes of "blacks" in America just like there are negative aspects
and stereotypes of whites in America, ranging from the white trash rednecks, the neo-nazi skinheads, ... the list goes on and on, with the categories being vast and specific, a luxury "blacks" don't have in the USA, being lumped into one, crude blanket category identified only by the color of their skin.

I wouldn't claim that some southern drawl mumbling white trash bumpkin thief from Alabama who cooks meth in his trailer with the rebel flag on the side is the definition of "white" or an excuse for having animosity toward "whites".

I don't see condemning people who are black while claiming that any negative behavior is a result of their skin color being any different than a jew condemning the goyim or the non-jew Palestinians claiming that any negative behavior is a result of not being a jew and being a gentile/goy.

Ebonics is just as ridiculous as many southern "white" dialects. In fact the two are probably linked. But neither are representative of the vast amount of people who have the same or similar skin color or descent as those who butcher the English language.

Ah, thank Y'all mat ugree, that folks ought not to be messed with cause of how sum folks may talk funny. We should be fixin tuh fat the babble banger varmints who are forsin gawd on y'all and messin with yur rats.
Thats wut I reckon.

Comment from: compostme

After I got my law degree, I determined that the best thing I can do for the improvement of society is to become a teacher and learn the public school system inside out, so that I can then be part of reforming it.

This is a very noble choice...

However, I believe you'll soon learn that our educational system is dumbed down by design.

The "Dear Hillary" letter, written on Nov. 11, 1992 by Marc Tucker, president of the National Center on Education and the Economy (NCEE), lays out a plan "to remold the entire American system" into "a seamless web that literally extends from cradle to grave and is the same system for everyone," coordinated by "a system of labor market boards at the local, state and federal levels" where curriculum and "job matching" will be handled by counselors "accessing the integrated computer-based program."

Tucker's plan would change the mission of the schools from teaching children academic basics and knowledge to training them to serve the global economy in jobs selected by workforce boards. Nothing in this comprehensive plan has anything to do with teaching schoolchildren how to read, write, or calculate.

Tucker's ambitious plan was implemented in three laws passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton in 1994: the Goals 2000 Act, the School-to-Work Act, and the reauthorized Elementary and Secondary Education Act. These laws establish the following mechanisms to restructure the public schools:


Bypass all elected officials on school boards and in state legislatures by making federal funds flow to the Governor and his appointees on workforce development boards.

Use a computer database, a.k.a. "a labor market information system," into which school personnel would scan all information about every schoolchild and his family, identified by the child's social security number: academic, medical, mental, psychological, behavioral, and interrogations by counselors. The computerized data would be available to the school, the government, and future employers.

Use "national standards" and "national testing" to cement national control of tests, assessments, school honors and rewards, financial aid, and the Certificate of Initial Mastery (CIM), which is designed to replace the high school diploma.
Designed on the German system, the Tucker plan is to train children in specific jobs to serve the workforce and the global economy instead of to educate them so they can make their own life choices.

http://www.eagleforum.org/educate/marc_tucker/

Good luck...fight the good fight. It's refreshing to find someone who's willing to place others well being ahead of their own...

'Secularman':

Insults from the deluded shouldn't bother any of us. However, these deluded people who embrace and defend elements of mythology and religious extremism and attack secular freethinkers who expose and criticize faith based racism, ethnic cleansing, apartheid, etc should NEVER be representing atheists or atheist organizations while claiming to be the face and voice of atheism.

Oh, yeah, Hetman, your chubby for Israel's showing.

Condemning a demographic group based on geographic descent or morphology because of some negative stereotypes, that may be very true of some, is just not rational.

Look in a mirror. Practice what you 'preach'.
Hypocrite.

This would be like a self described "Muslim Atheist" being the spokesperson of American Atheists and on the board of American Atheists who, on behalf of the organization, proclaims that Islam is a race and that anyone who criticizes the Taliban, Saudia Arabia, or Islam is an "anti-Semite" guilty of "Hate Speech".

Islam isn't a race. Jewish is.
Here's your definition:
1. A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics.
2. A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the German race.
3. A genealogical line; a lineage.
4. Humans considered as a group.
All 4...wow.
I'm surprised that David puts up w/your presence, 'Freethinker'.

KA

Look in a mirror. Practice what you 'preach'. Hypocrite.

Really? I don't see how SecularMan was being hypocritical.


Alex

Twelve years of working and living in and near Durham, NC (37.8% black) is whats up wit' dat.

I just returned from a week long visit to Cary, NC. That was my first visit to the Raleigh/Durham area. There sure are a lot of chain-smok'n ignorant white folk living there. Beautiful area though.

KA, you must be longing to show the world just how immature and foolish you are.

If its not childish name calling, its baseless accusations, or red herrings, or cursing, or using the "I know you are but what am I" routine.

You are not only embarrassing yourself but others with your juvenile & irrational behavior and lack of knowledge KA.

Lets try to make it simple for you KA, a religion is NOT a race. If a religion preaches that it is a race, that does NOT make it true.

And if a religion is made up of numerous races, they all do NOT then belong to another religious race.

Example: Judaism preaches that it is a race, based on myth based racist beliefs. Like the rest of judaism, this is a false and incorrect faith based belief.

Jews, those who believe in judaism, are comprised of Europeans, Sub-Saharan Africans, North Africans, Middle Eastern Arabs, Persians, Hispanics, and Asians... all separate and different races. None of them are from a local geographic area, none of them are united by a common history, none of them are united by nationality, none are united by geographic distribution, none of them are united by a common culture, their lineage is no more common than all others of the human species and share more of a common lineage with those of different religions in their areas.

You failed again. BAM! You should feel pretty stupid, but don't feel alone though, Dave Silverman fails at realizing these facts as well. Unless you have gotten used to being intellectually thrashed, or just love to be embarrassed and exposed for being dim you should just keep your delusions to yourself.

I just returned from a week long visit to Cary, NC. That was my first visit to the Raleigh/Durham area. There sure are a lot of chain-smok'n ignorant white folk living there.

Cary is the least representative area of the Triangle and is known both for its Stepford wives/soccer moms and its majority northeastern population (Cary is an acronym of "Containment Area for Relocated Yankees"). Everyone who lives in this area takes the piss with Cary.

You should have come to Chapel Hill to see what a town with the highest per capita population of PhDs looks like.

Alex

Cary is an acronym of "Containment Area for Relocated Yankees"

Yes. That's what a cab driver told me.

You should have come to Chapel Hill to see what a town with the highest per capita population of PhDs looks like.

Really? Even more than Los Alamos? My kind'a town.

Alex

What's up with smoking in NC? Everywhere I went there were smokers.

I am reminded of the "Gangs of new york".Nobody accused anyone of being messed up because they were white. It was just a dysfunctional white culture ,which also makes its way into every race to some extent.

I think I better clarify that ,It was a criminal culture where the majority of the people just happen to be white.

There is little question that exposure to a scientific education reduces the likelihood that a person will believe in God, and does so in a more or less linear fashion (about 10% of the general population are atheists/agnostics, 40% of doctors, 60% of research scientists, and 93% of National Academy members).

SecularMAN!:
So, you wear a cape? A mask? Big black 'S' on your chest?

Lets try to make it simple for you KA, a religion is NOT a race. If a religion preaches that it is a race, that does NOT make it true.

I just gave you the definition of race from the dictionary. The Jews fit the bill. Like the Germans. Or the Irish. Even though both stem from the same sources.

Jews, those who believe in judaism, are comprised of Europeans, Sub-Saharan Africans, North Africans, Middle Eastern Arabs, Persians, Hispanics, and Asians... all separate and different races.

Very monochromatic. False dichotomy. It can be BOTH.
Of course, your religion won't allow that.

Unless you have gotten used to being intellectually thrashed, or just love to be embarrassed and exposed for being dim you should just keep your delusions to yourself.

You sound just like phreddy or jcc. "I WIN! I WIN!" Regardless of being proven wrong.
You argue like a theist.

What:

Really? I don't see how SecularMan was being hypocritical.

Trust me, he's a raving anti-Semite. I've dealt w/him before. David's deleted his posts in the past. SM's just cleaned his act up lately.

KA is right in regard to Jews, SM. You're forming, as KA pointed out, a false dichotemy, which is a logical fallacy, which is a rather poor thing to be using in an a discussion you want to claim to be winning.

What makes a "race" a race is a common set of genetic characteristics brough about by breeding isolation. Period. And there is a part of the Jewish population that fits that characteristic.

Cynic

My family was "isolated" in a small town that produced almost nothing but french, polish and blackfoot offspring. A new race is born?

I think Secularman makes some valid points concerning jewish claims to race.

The disctinction from one "race" to another is and must be drawn along arbitrary lines. That isn't to say that they "don't exist" though. Your argument trends dangerously toward Loki's Wager, which is a fallacy (look it up). More importantly, it's a dead ringer for a slippery slope fallacy, where you take an argument and twist it to extremes in an attempt to make it look silly.

Jews, as a whole, are prone to certain diseases (such as Tay-Sachs) to degrees that others are not, and vice versa, just as blacks, as a whole, tend to be more prone to certain diseases (such as sickle cell anemia).

Again, the distinction between species and race and family are arbitrary and a matter of degree. It's not just something observed, it's demanded by evolution that it happen.

Here's an example of how much your intelligence has done for you...

Although cosmologists have adopted a cute name, dark energy, for whatever is driving this apparently antigravitational behavior on the part of the universe, nobody claims to understand why it is happening, or its implications for the future of the universe and of the life within it, despite thousands of learned papers, scores of conferences and millions of dollars’ worth of telescope time. It has led some cosmologists to the verge of abandoning their fondest dream: a theory that can account for the universe and everything about it in a single breath...
Through myriad techniques and observations, cosmologists have recently arrived, after decades of strife, at a robust but dark consensus regarding a cosmos in which stars and galaxies, as well as the humans who gawk at them, amount to barely more than a disputatious froth. It was born 13.7 billion years ago in the Big Bang. By weight it is 4 percent atoms and 22 percent so-called dark matter of unknown identity — perhaps elementary particles that will be discovered at the Large Hadron Collider starting up outside Geneva this year. That leaves 74 percent for the weight of whatever began causing the cosmos to accelerate about five billion years ago.

As far as astronomers can tell, there is no relation between dark matter, the particles, and dark energy other than the name, but you never know. Some physicists are even willing to burn down their old sainted Einstein and revise his theory of gravity, general relativity, to make the cosmic discrepancies go away.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/03/science/03dark.html?pagewanted=all

[..has helped you.]

How apropos!

I have to laugh at myself for that one.

Oh joy, the return of Everdense.

Yeah, we all laugh at you too.

What is Everdense's point? Honestly, that chap is dense!

What,
I understand that you were in Raleigh. Next time you come by, let me know. We can go out for a beer. You might even enjoy Drinking Liberally, which I regularly attend: http://livingliberally.org/drinking/

Spanders

Maybe in September.

Spanders-
Thanks for that link. There's a group here in town, so I think I'll check out their next meeting.

Do you get a decent attendance?

What,

The point is that in our brief lifespan on the earth, who's really better off - the intelligent godless person with unanswered questions or the not-so-intelligent religious person who's content with his answers? Does it matter, seeing each one is happy with their existence?

Evidence:

The point is that in our brief lifespan on the earth, who's really better off - the intelligent godless person with unanswered questions or the not-so-intelligent religious person who's content with his answers?

As long as the the content are content w/their own lives, & leave the rest of us the hell alone, who cares?

Everdense

who's really better off - the intelligent godless person with unanswered questions or the not-so-intelligent religious person who's content with his answers?

or the intelligent atheist with a passion for the investigation of reality? What a discontented mental midget you are!

Boise Jim
We have a bunch of regulars (about 12 or so) and then we get new people showing up periodically. I've made most of my good friends by going to the group, but I think what you get varies from group to group. Let me know how it goes!

what,

or the intelligent atheist with a passion for the investigation of reality?

...and, according to the above article, has gotten you where? I'm guessing that you're happy with your unanswered reality.

You live off the fruits of knowledge: the computer your using, the communications network we're posting on, the car you drive to work, modern medicine, etc. I'd say our answerable reality is quite satisfying.

I'd say it's much more convenient. But more satifying, I'm not so sure. Technology is and will always be exciting, but that does not necessarily mean that true happiness increases with more of it. If anything, it could be a detriment to it. Look at the price the earth is paying.

I'm guessing that you're happy with your unanswered reality.

Does that sentence have meaning in Everdense world?

Everdense

but that does not necessarily mean that true happiness increases with more of it.

It's obvious that you are generally unhappy. Why not just toss that computer out and join that cult living in a cave in Russia? Something tells me you would fit in nicely.

What,

Something tells me you would fit in nicely.

Mabe you sould be using that "passion for the investigation of reality" to figure out what that "something" is.

That "something" is what we call "independent thought."

May I suggest that you develop some?

Everdense

The meanings of your posts are difficult to decipher. Your chaotic posts are a symptom of your chaotic mind.

brain user,

Independent from what or whom?
That is relative. My thoughts are independent from yours.


What,

The meanings of your posts are difficult to decipher.

You're not using much of your intelligence here. I'll explain it differently. The "intelligent atheist with a passion for the investigation of reality" is not necessarily happier or more content than a religious person with a passion for his/her religion. Although asking "why" has yielded great technology which we enjoy, it still has its consequences (i.e. meth, pollution, wmd, global warming etc.) Technology in and of itself doesn't guarantee a fulfilling existence. As in the article above asking why has yielded more questions. In addition, there are plenty of religious intellectuals with a passion for the investigation of reality.

dense,
independent from that which is believed to come from or be inspired by their imaginary friend.

Everdense

Theists like yourself dedicate a lot of your resources to propping up your fantasy yet you are no happier than nonreligious folks. In the end you have simply wasted your resources. Good job dufus.

The point is that in our brief lifespan on the earth, who's really better off - the intelligent godless person with unanswered questions or the not-so-intelligent religious person who's content with his answers? Does it matter, seeing each one is happy with their existence?

I hear this a lot from theists. So what if I'm wrong as long as I'm happy, right?

Well, my observations tell me that there are lots of happy people getting ripped off by both televangelists and collection plates, that the members of that religious suicide cult that tried to board that comet a few years back were happy when they died, and that people with superstitious beliefs are less able than me to understand what is going on with various phenomenon in the world. So there are real-world harmful consequences to having supernatural beliefs.

Your argument is that because one theory at the edges of scientific inquiry is being debated and compared with observations and math that therefore science proves nothing and/or contributes nothing to our quality of life.

Well, scientists developed that computer you're using. Religion never figured it out. Scientists had you vaccinated against polio. Religion never figured out what polio was. The roof over your head is manufactured from scientifically developed materials, not sticks, grass, or bark. You have enough food to eat because science exponentially increased the efficiency of agriculture. You have clean water, sanitation, transportation, heating and cooling, refridgeration, and endless entertainment thanks to science, not religion.

If you had lived a couple thousand years ago, you'd likely be starving, with primitive shelter, and perhaps being stalked by predators. That's if you hadn't died during childhood, which was statistically likely. You might not have been worried at the time about whether or not you had a soul, but you'd have a lot of worries on your mind, I assure you.

Chris B

Well, my observations tell me that there are lots of happy people getting ripped off by both televangelists and collection plates, that the members of that religious suicide cult that tried to board that comet a few years back were happy when they died, and that people with superstitious beliefs are less able than me to understand what is going on with various phenomenon in the world. So there are real-world harmful consequences to having supernatural beliefs.

Wow, that's a stretch. The Heaven's Gate cult, which was a UFO religion, is quit a unique and minute percentage of the religious community.
So are you concluding that atheists are beyond human wrecklessness? Read this:

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.

http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/161/12/2303

Conclusion: Atheism has "real-world harmful consequences" as well.
Plus, you'd have a very difficult task of proving that a religious person has never contributed to any technological advances. As well as proving that primitive cultures were not content or happy with their existence - fresh air, plenty of food, clean water, lush forests, no insecticides. In fact, we're still trying to figure out how they accomplished some of the things they did.

Evidence:

Conclusion: Atheism has "real-world harmful consequences" as well.

I'd suggest you read the whole paper, not just quote the parts you like.
There's no mention of where this study was done, how many people involved, demographics, etc.

Plus, you'd have a very difficult task of proving that a religious person has never contributed to any technological advances.

No, it's not the religion that helped contribute, it was the person.

As well as proving that primitive cultures were not content or happy with their existence - fresh air, plenty of food, clean water, lush forests, no insecticides.

Smallpox blankets.
Indiscriminate slaughter of buffalo.
Introduction of syphilis.
Slavery.
Go look up the Goan Inquisition while you're @ it.

KA,

There's no mention of where this study was done, how many people involved, demographics, etc.

If you are questioning the integrity of the study, call the American Journal of Psychiatry and find out. Here's a few contacts: Kanita Dervic, M.D., Maria A. Oquendo, M.D., Michael F. Grunebaum, M.D., Steve Ellis, Ph.D., Ainsley K. Burke, Ph.D., and J. John Mann, M.D.

No, it's not the religion that helped contribute, it was the person.

Well, of coarse. And atheism itself hasn't contributed anything either.

Smallpox blankets.
Indiscriminate slaughter of buffalo.
Introduction of syphilis.
Slavery.

Is there any period in history where there has not been any human threats? Which, by the way, still does not prove an overall unhappy existence. With all of our earthly woes are you totally discontent?

Evidence,

KA: No, it's not the religion that helped contribute, it was the person.

Evidence: Well, of coarse. And atheism itself hasn't contributed anything either.

Exactly, which is why it's stupid to use science to attack atheism.

If you have no evidence that a deity exists, then you can't criticize atheism. Since science takes no stance on the existence of a deity, it is an unrelated subject.

Evidence,
I think you and others missed my point, so I'll attempt to clarify. What we are comparing are two competing methods of obtaining information: the scientific method and faith. What are the track records of these two epistemologies? That is, what is the evidence by which we will judge their reliability?

The scientific method has produced all the health, safety, comfort, shelter, and economic benefits described earlier. Although quite a few very smart scientific researchers and innovators also believed that supernatural forces governed certain aspects of the universe, they were all using the scientific method when they actually accomplished something (e.g. Mendel and genetic heritability). In summary, the scientific method has consistently resolved real-world questions and problems (e.g. figuring out planetary motion, eradicating smallpox, increasing crop yields, etc.). Also, because scientific findings can be replicated, we finally have a way to conclusively resolve disputes in a way anyone in any culture can accept.

Faith's accomplishments include the writing of hundreds of thousands of texts, books, scrolls, scriptures, and heiroglyphics, most of which contradict each other. Faith has also motivated people to devote their limited resources and energy to the construction and maintenence of grand temples, mosques, churches, etc. Faith has also motivated innumerable acts of violence and war, as there is no way to achieve religious consensus except through force. Finally, religion has contributed a moral system comprised of books containing every imaginable moral proposition. That way, you can cherry-pick the moral propositions you like and ignore the ones you don't and yet declare yourself a good person (see violence and war discussed above).

In science, ideas are successful if they conform with observations of reality. In faith, religions are successful to the extent that their adherents win wars.

So the scientific method wins for producing the most reliable information. How does this relate to happiness?

Well, for one I think the romanticism you express for the good ole caveman days is perhaps a bit naive. Imagine needing a tooth extraction! There was a reason why very few of them reached the ripe old age of 30.

Also, when one accepts premises based on bad information, it can lead one to make bad decisions without even knowing it.

The poorly named Christian Scientists believe that (a.) There is a God, (b.) God is all-powerful, (c.) God answers prayers, and (d.) the likelihood of God answering a prayer is increased when one does not hedge their bets by using other methods. As a result, their people regularly die from treatable medical conditions. Believing these four very basic premises can cause your own death, or the death of your children.

Suicide bombers and other religious warriors believe that (a.) there is a God, (b.) that they believe in the correct religion, and (c.) that God will reward them for defending the correct religion from being overrun by infidels. Three very basic premises = suicide.

Perhaps you don't sense that you are making mistakes of this magnitude, but then again, neither did they. Maybe you're making smaller mistakes, wasting time, money, or opportunity. Even small misconceptions can lead to negative consequences, so it is important to be right.

Socrates once asked if it would be preferable to be a troubled wise man or an ignorant, but happy, pig. I pick the wise man. If you want to be the pig, it would be logical for you to get an opiate addiction or a lobotomy to prevent wisdom. But those who are already wise typically find themselves unable to wish that they were more ignorant. You just don't hear that very often.

As for the atheists committing suicide, pick out 100 people from your church, ostracize them, call them evil, discriminate against them, and exclude them from all your town's social functions, then see how many knock themselves off.

If you are questioning the integrity of the study,

No, I’m questioning your use of it to make a broad, sweeping generalization. If we’re to play the numbers game, I’m pretty sure religious folks win the suicide race – that is, counting the martyrdom game, & suicide bombers.
1st law of statistics: correlation doesn’t prove causation.
If we agree it was the person or persons who accomplished their contributions regardless of ideology, then many of your points in this thread thus far have fallen flat.

Is there any period in history where there has not been any human threats? Which, by the way, still does not prove an overall unhappy existence.

Yeah, Indian reservations, or other ghettoes established for the indigenous population who didn’t happen to be right. Or white. Re-read your query: basically, “Weren’t they better off?” is terribly subjective.

With all of our earthly woes are you totally discontent?

Depends on what you mean. Am I happy w/the world as it is? No. Am I happy w/myself? Most of the time. If you think I’m going to drop the blue pill of ‘religious happy’, well, a good shot of heroin makes folks happy too.

alatham,

Exactly, which is why it's stupid to use science to attack atheism.

Atheists use science to prove their position. Without science you have no answers (i.e. the most recent post "missing link discovered..."). My point was atheism is not the sole contributor and driving force behind technological advancement. Actually, there would be some that would attest that their ideas came from a deity.

Chris B.

As for the atheists committing suicide, pick out 100 people from your church, ostracize them, call them evil, discriminate against them, and exclude them from all your town's social functions, then see how many knock themselves off.

Sounds like the christians during roman oppression (before constantine), the jews during the holocost and the blacks during the civil rights movement. If anything, it made them stronger.
Did you read this part from above?

No differences in the level of subjective and objective depression, hopelessness, or stressful life events were found.

KA,

No, I’m questioning your use of it to make a broad, sweeping generalization.

You should be careful not to do the same. Don't assume everyone who believes in a deity is not involved with the sciences, doesn't care about the earth and is willing to kill for their belief. It's a smaller percentage than you think.

If we’re to play the numbers game, I’m pretty sure religious folks win the suicide race – that is, counting the martyrdom game, & suicide bombers.

The last I check, martydom was not suicide. You know, someone else does the killing. Suicide bombers more often do it because of heavy social pressure and force. You would probably find a different story if they had real freedom to make a decision. So, it's reasonable that
these were not included in the study.
My point here is that atheists are not beyond human frailties, crimes or any despicable act. So take note of your arrogance and stop pointing so many fingers.

Whoops!

alatham,

Exactly, which is why it's stupid to use science to attack atheism.

Atheists use science to prove their position. Without science you have no answers (i.e. the most recent post "missing link discovered..."). My point was atheism is not the sole contributor and driving force behind technological advancement. Actually, there would be some that would attest that their ideas came from a deity.

Chris B.

As for the atheists committing suicide, pick out 100 people from your church, ostracize them, call them evil, discriminate against them, and exclude them from all your town's social functions, then see how many knock themselves off.

Sounds like the christians during roman oppression (before constantine), the jews during the holocost and the blacks during the civil rights movement. If anything, it made them stronger.
Did you read this part from above?

No differences in the level of subjective and objective depression, hopelessness, or stressful life events were found.

KA,

No, I’m questioning your use of it to make a broad, sweeping generalization.

You should be careful not to do the same. Don't assume everyone who believes in a deity is not involved with the sciences, doesn't care about the earth and is willing to kill for their belief. It's a smaller percentage than you think.

If we’re to play the numbers game, I’m pretty sure religious folks win the suicide race – that is, counting the martyrdom game, & suicide bombers.

The last I check, martydom was not suicide. You know, someone else does the killing. Suicide bombers more often do it because of heavy social pressure and force. You would probably find a different story if they had real freedom to make a decision. So, it's reasonable that
these were not included in the study.
My point here is that atheists are not beyond human frailties, crimes or any despicable act. So take note of your arrogance and stop pointing so many fingers.

Evidence (or the lack thereof):

You should be careful not to do the same. Don't assume everyone who believes in a deity is not involved with the sciences, doesn't care about the earth and is willing to kill for their belief. It's a smaller percentage than you think.

I…don’t recall ever making any of those claims. You could perhaps refresh my memory?
(It’s probably a larger portion that you’d admit, I think.)

The last I check, martydom was not suicide.

Last time I checked, there’s no proof of a deity whatsoever.
So I guess the WTC terrorists were martyrs, then?

You know, someone else does the killing.

Walking willingly into the buzzsaw is still pretty stupid. I count it as suicide.

Suicide bombers more often do it because of heavy social pressure and force. You would probably find a different story if they had real freedom to make a decision. So, it's reasonable that these were not included in the study.

So who WAS included in the study? Can you tell me? Was it a cross-section of America, a test demographic of secular vs. religious populations in Europe? Was the ME completely excluded?

My point here is that atheists are not beyond human frailties, crimes or any despicable act. So take note of your arrogance and stop pointing so many fingers.

Oh, you ARE yanking my chain after all.
I’ll point as many fucking fingers as I like, chum. I point fingers @ myself, even.
Not going to soften the blow, sorry.
Religion is an anachronistic throwback to uglier times. It has no place in the 21st CE. Having voices talk in your head is not a talking point, an intellectual discussion, or even a philosophy.
It’s superstition, pure & simple.
Atheism is what adults do.
So please, grow up a little.

Evidence,

I can't tell if you're agreeing with me or disagreeing.

Atheists use science to prove their position. Without science you have no answers (i.e. the most recent post "missing link discovered...").

No, scientists use science to prove their ideas. Many atheists are scientists, but many are idiots as well. I happen to know an atheist who's a big fan of Astrology. Don't make broad judgments about a group of people based on the comments of the Internet population.

I would also suggest that without science nobody has any answers. "God did it" is not an answer, it's an admission of ignorance.

My point was atheism is not the sole contributor and driving force behind technological advancement.

I agree, science is credited with that. Was someone else trying to claim that atheism is responsible for technology? If so, then they're wrong.

Actually, there would be some that would attest that their ideas came from a deity.

It's fine for people to say that, but they shouldn't expect anyone to believe them unless they can prove it.

KA,

Last time I checked, there’s no proof of a deity whatsoever.
So I guess the WTC terrorists were martyrs, then?

You're on a tangent here.

Walking willingly into the buzzsaw is still pretty stupid. I count it as suicide.

Oh, you're so smart. Sound's like suicide to me.

So who WAS included in the study? Can you tell me? Was it a cross-section of America, a test demographic of secular vs. religious populations in Europe? Was the ME completely excluded?

Concerning suicide rates, this is the one indicator of societal health in which religious nations fare much better than secular nations. According to the 2003 World Health Organization's report on international male suicides rates (which compared 100 countries), of the top ten nations with the highest male suicide rates, all but one (Sri Lanka) are strongly irreligious nations with high levels of atheism. It is interesting to note, however, that of the top remaining nine nations leading the world in male suicide rates, all are former Soviet/Communist nations, such as Belarus, Ukraine, and Latvia. Of the bottom ten nations with the lowest male suicide rates, all are highly religious nations with statistically insignificant levels of organic atheism.
It is important to keep in mind that atheism and agnosticism have no inherent proscription against suicide, so higher rates of suicide among agnostics and atheists should in no way be considered a failure of these belief systems. Indeed, compassionate tolerance for suicide and euthenasia are widely regarded as hallmarks of many secular societies.
The list of countries with the highest levels of atheism, agnosticism and non-belief in God (see: Largest Atheist Populations, reporting lists by Zuckerman, 2005, and Greeley/Jagodzinski, 1991) strongly correlates with countries that have the most liberal (or "progressive") laws, policies and practices regarding right-to-die, assisted suicide, and euthenasia for infants, the terminally ill, chronic pain sufferers, the handicapped, and depressed individuals. Zuckerman (2005) listed the top countries with the highest levels of atheism and non-religiousness as: Sweden, Vietnam, Denmark, Norway, Japan, Czech Republic, Finland, France, South Korea, Estonia, Germany, Russia, Hungary, Netherlands, Britain and Belgium (highest by level of non-belief, with Sweden being the highest).

http://www.adherents.com/misc/religion_suicide.html

The whole world pretty much.

Religion is an anachronistic throwback to uglier times. It has no place in the 21st CE.

So Lenin, Stalin and Hitler were promoting their religion. And the Civil War, WWI & WWII, and Vietnam were a "holy jihad". There are plenty of things that make this world ugly...including atheistic influences.

Atheism is what adults do.
So please, grow up a little.

Atheism is what you have chosen to make you happy. Enjoy it, it's your existence.

Living in the real world has distinct evolutionary advantages over living in a fantasy world especially if you are spending enormous resources propping up the fantasy.

alatham,

I would also suggest that without science nobody has any answers. "God did it" is not an answer, it's an admission of ignorance.

Valid point. And "God did it" is not the answer many religious people readily accept. Passion for understanding our environment and improving it is not reserved for the athiest. For some scientists, the study of our world solidifies their belief of a greater being.

What,

Living in the real world has distinct evolutionary advantages over living in a fantasy world especially if you are spending enormous resources propping up the fantasy.

What rescource "propping" are you refering to? Ones like having food banks for the poor, giving away back-to-school supplies, helping single parents feed their kids, hospitals, food/education for kids in poor countries, etc.? I haven't heard of any atheist organizations using their rescources to help others. (You know, "a deed done rather that a prayer prayed"). Mabe you can enlighten me on a few. This fantasy looks pretty nice to me.

So Lenin, Stalin and Hitler were promoting their religion.

Ah, jeesiz fucking kee-rist! Not this shit again!

Stalin was promoting strict Authoritarianism. On the other hand, Hitler was promoting his religion since he was a christian.

See you in the funny pages.

Everdense

Boy you are one dense MF. The church is just a protection racket - throwing around, for goodwill, a small fraction of the bucks they take in. You are one dense MF.

Evidence

Valid point. And "God did it" is not the answer many religious people readily accept. Passion for understanding our environment and improving it is not reserved for the athiest. For some scientists, the study of our world solidifies their belief of a greater being.

No kidding? So you say to these scientists, "Goddidit."
And they say, "W-e-l-l. We're not sure, let's study our world and see. "

*Study, study, study.*

"Yep! You were right! God did it!"

Just what kinds of scientists are these?

666,

Stalin was promoting strict Authoritarianism. On the other hand, Hitler was promoting his religion since he was a christian.

You atheists see what you want to see. You definitely have a "blame the christians" complex. He grew up in a Roman Catholic home but your comment is still unfounded. Read:

One of