David Sloan Wilson: "Why Richard Dawkins is Wrong About Religion"

[andyandy]

You keep insisting that the difference in meaning must be significant. It doesn't. Communication does not consist solely of words, and assigning point-values to different words and phrases is fraught with difficulties because different people use these linguistic elements in subtly different ways in different contexts. Again I ask: how do you propose to distinguish the degree of happiness felt by two people both of whom say, "I'm extremely happy right now?" Because if anything is certain, it is that these two people have no basis on which they can compare their internal experience, so it would be fraudulent to say that they are in actual fact equally happy.

It is very much apparent that you are like others in this thread bending over backwards to not have to admit that maybe there is actually some benefit conferred by religion (direct or indirect). We don't need to distinguish on semantics - we use a numerical measure. We've already covered this. A person's perception of happiness is their happiness.

If person A has an average rating 10/10
person B has an average rating 5/10
person C has an average rating 1/10

Then we can say that person A is happier than person B who is happier than person C.

It is their perception that is their happines - and thus we can compare individuals on this measure.

How so? If it is a fairly consistent trait that believers and non-believers use words slightly differently and the scoring system is such that (by design or accident) it tends to accentuate such a difference

,

yes it could. But this is a rather remarkable claim - especially for very common words like happy" "active" "sociable" "involved" and "excited." I would like to see any evidence for suggesting this is a theory which should be given any credence. Your evidence seems to be "I hate religion, I must not, repeat not, concede that religion may have some benefit in any way, therefore this study is wrong."

If by "comparing measures" you mean that these measures are verifiably objective and can therefore be validly compared, then it is you who is making a very, very remarkable claim.

please - it is not necessary to bring absolute objectivity into a discussion on the measure of happiness. Subjective measures are well employed for population comparatives - pain scales in medical practice a notable example.

I'm doing no such thing. And please stop distorting what I'm saying.

I'm certainly not trying to distort what you are saying, i'm simply trying to understand your position.

Certainly not by jumping to the unwarranted conclusion "that religion is beneficial to believers," which, without sharpening up what "beneficial" is supposed to mean, isn't even a scientific hypothesis to begin with.

*sigh* now it is you who are distorting my position. I'm not "jumping to any conclusions" - it does however given the evidence seem that with regards to happiness, sociality etc etc religion does play a role. This is an incredibly mundane claim - far more mundane than expecting that religious vs non religious people understanding words like "excited" and "involved" differently.

there are many possibilities that could explain why believers describe themselves (or seem to) as more happy than non-believers. Maybe they are on the whole more sociable and perk up more readily when someone asks them how they feel.

they are not being asked - they're filling in boxes on a portable device at intervals.
But yes, maybe believers are more sociable people to begin with - the next question is why.

But, in case you hadn't noticed it, you're adding some weight to the very point you're contesting.

I'm not adding weight beyond the expression of my opinion - though if my opinion adds weight then i am happy

 

[andyandy]

A study using the ESM methods, seeking to describe population prosociability. (the pasted text seems to have chosen to group together some random words, but it should still be readible )

Over 1000 students were followed for an interval of five years. Information gathered at bi-yearly intervals included a battery ofquestionnaires totaling over 400 items and a week of the experience sampling method(ESM), which involves being signaled eight times a day and recording basic informationabout external circumstances (Where you are, what you are doing, and who you are with)along with 33 variables measuring psychological experience (e.g., anger, happiness,cooperation, concentration) on numerical scales. In addition to these “focal” students, asubset of information was gathered on over 3,000 classmates of the focal students(termed “cohort” students).

In collaboration with Csikszentmihalyi and Schneider, Iused 17 questionnaire items to construct a scale that measures individual differences inprosociality (a term that includes all forms of other-oriented behavior). Items on the PROscale include questions such as “For the job you expect to have in the future, howimportant is helping people?” and “How often do you spend time volunteering orperforming community service outside of school?” that clearly relate to other-orientedattitudes and behavior. Construction and validation of the PRO scale will be reported inmore detail elsewhere. In this article I use the scale to show that prosociality can be eithergood or bad for one’s health, depending upon the contex

Religious participation: The items “Religion affects decisions” and “Importance ofreligion among friends” indicates the role of religion in promoting prosociality,independently of the other factors.Taken together, these items suggest that highly prosocial individuals tend toinhabit stable nurturing environments that enable them to thrive as individuals and worktoward long-term goals. Broadly speaking, this can be said to be the “niche” for altruism.Needless to say, it is a picture of health at both the individual and societal levels. It isalso exactly what we would expect from a theoretical perspective, since altruism andother forms of prosociality can only persist over the long term if those who producebenefits for others also receive them.As we leave the niche for altruism and enter less stable and nurturingenvironments, individuals become less prosocial on average. This could be caused by avariety of proximate mechanisms.

snip

Either way, a high-PRO individual inhabiting a low-PRO environment is like a fish out of water and should find the experience stressful.

On average, low-PRO individuals suffer from low self-esteem, are pessimisticabout the future, and believe that luck is more important than hard work. They scoresignificantly higher on the items “I usually feel stressed”, “I usually feel sick”, and “Iusually feel tired” (ANOVA’s, N=1653, 1648, 1651; df=4; F=2.9, 4.69, 4.92 ; p=.020,.0009, .0006 respectively).

Nevertheless, this unhealthy portrait based on averages obscures differences that exist among low-PRO individuals. In particular, it does not fit the image of the narcissist who cares only about himself and treats others as a means to personal ends. Such a person might easily have high self-esteem, be optimistic about his own future, and exult in his ability to manipulate people without leaving anything to luck.[snip] Why isn’t this kind of low-PRO individual more conspicuous in our data?The answer is that this kind of low-PROs does exist in our sample population but is obscured in the multiple regression analysis by other individuals whose lack of prosociality appears due to various forms of stress.

snip

. In particular, religion is an important correlate of prosociality in the general sample but not all high-PROs are religious. [snip]
More interesting is the fact that non-religious high-PROs (labeled high-PRO-A) are highly nonreligious, scoring not only below the religious high-PROs butconsiderably below the mean for the general sample. Proceeding to the other variables,religious high-PROs (labeled high-PRO-B) reported higher self esteem, self-confidence,and faith in the future than non-religious high-PROs . They were subject to more parentalcontrol but resented it less. Finally, they were more likely to be known by their neighbors than non-religious high-PROs. In short, religious high-PROs present a more robustpicture of mental health than non-religious high-PROs, who even score worse than average for the general sample on some items.

an interesting study, which is illuminating as to the potential of EMS in subpopulation analysis - and as to the compexities of the issue

here

 

[andyandy]

post #2

According to andyandy, any thread that criticizes Dawkins in the title is guaranteed at least 100 posts, so I'm proud to be the first! .

i would like to claim Randi's $million

 

[newlyfound]

I think you understand what I was getting at, though. When you use words like "poisonous", you are insulting a fair number of intelligent, rational, good people who happen to be religious.

I would never 'touch' a religious person, why would I do that? I've been there and I know what it's like to be in their shoes. If however they happen to be a preacher-business man, then the tides are different. And religion is poisonous. Just read the O, NT and Koran, see how religion breeds hatred among fellow men, how it denigrates women, how it kills one's own self by programming them to deeply believe they are nothing but bad disgusting 'sinners' (If we are just soo screwed, then by association so must be god him being our creator. And if he is that bad, why should we worship him? why does he or his religion deserve any reverence? they don't). How come if one happens to be decent enough to do something good, in the believer's eye, that is only by God's grace, but if it's bad, then that only confirms that person's lowliness and they must be satan's sheep? If you've ever believed, you must know how traumatising it is to constantly struggle to live up to the sickly impossible religious standards. Sure church reserves the right to tell the masses what to do but on the other hand, they go out and molest little kids behind closed doors, have extra marital affairs, frighten the masses into giving out their money, money they don't use to help the needy but get extra mansions, luxury cars, lear jets, etc. If religion is soooo real and good, why doen't this god send another somebody right now? don't we need help?...one turns on the news and they instantanously find out how many people are falling on second basis, for one reason or the other. I could go on but I won't bring up anything you don't already know.

In my opinion, though, he can tell you something about some people you don't know.

do I want to know them?

Based on the empirical data available, apparently it is.

It is a way, but it is in no way good or sane. 2000 years ago, people didn't have much going on in their lives, so it was the thing to bow down and pretend someone is watching you pledging allegiance to them as a god. Things are different now a days. Humans have the ability as well as the power to lead responsible ethical lives without any outside help, ...or better, without any outside threats. If it was up to religion, we'd still be living in the dark ages, religion sabotages the scientific quest, it cripples and clutters the human creativity, if it wasn't for the scularist's dare and might, we'd still be riding donkeys as the main way of transportation. Now of course according to religion, god did all that, god made man build boeing 777.

The reason I think this is important is that I think we, as atheists, need to recognize what it is that gives religious people the benefits that they get.

Would you care to cite few that no atheist has ever experienced? the only one they have I can think of is the right to brag about their gods while atheist are mostly repressed into keeping their beliefs secrets out of fear of reprisals.

I'm guessing that it isn't religion itself that provides the extra happiness, longer lives, or other apparent benefits of religion, but if we deny that those benefits exist, in the face of overwhelming evidence that they do, there's no way we can achieve those benefits for ourselves and the atheistic subculture in our society.

There is a way: you simply join them. ...I mean that's the shortest route.

Somehow, we have to understand what's so good about religion, so that we can achieve the benefits without having to succumb to beliefs that, appealing as they might be, are actually false.

can you be specific? can you give an example of "appealing"?

He said nothing of the sort. He did say that the average unbeliever was less happy than the average believer. I doubt that he knows you, or even knows of you.

the "I" here meant 'an average unbeliever'. I am not so delusional to believe he knows me or that some god does.

 

[newlyfound]

Meadmaker addressed a lot of your points already, so I'm going to skip responding to anything he's already answered better than I could.

Referring to religion as a 'social disease' is pretty strong language. Especially for something, that as near as I can tell, generally helps people live healthier happier lives than those who are not religious.

I've addressed this in my reply to Meadmaker.

And you're right, happiness is not all there is. In fact, it isn't top of the list for most religions. Happiness, in many ways, is an oddly elusive goal. Oddly enough, it is the reason most drug addicts get started and yet, I suspect end up leading pretty miserable lives. Religion usually tries to redirect people's attention away from their own happiness and towards others. And yes, from the empirical evidence available, religious believers end up happier. Yes, that's a terrible social disease we should all avoid contracting.

Again, I've addressed this in my reply to Meadmaker, yeah religion "redirect people's attention away from their own happiness" then why work to prove that religion makes people happy? isn't that what one of his points is? isn't that what you said you agreed with in your first post on this thread? religious are happy, atheists are not? ...infesting one with a constant belief/feeling of guilt and shame because they are sinners is anything but healthy and sound in my humble opinion, in fact, if anything, it is sick and perverted:

"All of us have become like one who is unclean,
and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags;
we all shrivel up like a leaf,
and like the wind our sins sweep us away." -Isaiah 64:6-

"Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned."
-Romans 5:12-

... and just where is god in all this? "sin entered", just where was he when that happened?...could it be that he was in process of sinning himself? and that's why he couldn't prevent that from occuring being the omni this and omni that?...like I said, bunch'o junk.

Dr. Dawkins has written a rebuttal to Wilson's review of his book. You might want to check it out. He doesn't disput Wilson's findings. He just feels that wasn't the point of his book.

I didn't think it was either.

You don't have to agree with someone to avoid hurting their feelings. But you don't have to describe the fundamental values in life as 'poisonous no exceptions' or a 'social disease' either. It's possible to disagree and be respectful of others at the same time.

Why should I if they are not respectful of me after I've more than generously been considerate and respectful toward them? ...am I speaking to a believer? if that's the case, this is not to be taken personally since we don't know each other. My ranting out stems from what I've been through. I was mental prisoner for long time, I've been abused in the name of religion, now I am free and and I ain't looking back.

Not the ones I hang out with. I suspect you just aren't noticing all the ones who aren't in your face and evangelizing.

What difference does that make, to all of them, someone like me remains a sinner and "unsaved". I've dealt with more poeple that you can concieve. That didn't seem to make any difference .

And perhaps there are other explanations for the differences. You might find "Atheists: A Groundbreaking Study of America's Nonbelievers" by Bruce E. Hunsberger and Bob Altemeyer of interest. Their findings indicate that atheists are a rather grumpy, intelligent and independent group of people.

I know they are intelligent and independant that's why I hang out with them whenever I could. Plus they are tolerant of others' beliefs, know their 'stuff', they are open minded, well anchored and more...

All theists could do is brag about how "knowing" they are, based on being told, among many things, that god made a full fledged human out of nothing, and made him a companion out of one of his own freaking ribs! ...in a flash! This is the base to their tower of knowledge and wisdom.

Ok, I am going to be quiet now and let you big boys and girls talk . The only reason I popped in is I noticed someone was "messing" with "my daddy" LOL....

 

[Faithkills]

requires a log in.

i await my startling with eagerness....

Here's another link with just the data
http://pt.wkhealth.com/pt/re/amhj/a...JngJrHtCZLv01Spwl!675572714!181195628!8091!-1

In case that doesn't work here's one that references it but with opinion, which I normally don't like to refer to but the data referenced is accurate.

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/04/01/115100.php

In like vein if you could limit showing me opinion (other than yours) I would appreciate it, and I think we could have more useful discussion. It proves nothing other than someone has an opinion.

Are you moved by quoted 'expert' opinion with no data you can find to back it up, or even how they drew those conclusions from the data they apparently have access to?

On the other hand I am happy to talk about data and facts.

 

[Faithkills]

nevertheless if one wants to separate religious belief from the larger socio-economic considerations upon which IQ flounders a sub population analysis would be much more appropriate.

I still think the correlation mapping IQ to level of religiosity is more useful than a simple binary distribution. However, regardless if you would assert that other socioeconomic factors influenced those tests, which doubtless they did to some extent (despite the golden grail of IQ tests is to make it blind to those factors and they continue to get better) it still points to increased increasing socioeconomic well being as religiosity decreases.

what other findings?

The other IQ findings I references and you commented on.

so where does this leave the validity of IQ tests with which to draw your conclusions?

Quite fine, thanks, for the reasons given above. The IQ bias is in favor of better socioeconomic conditions. The testing bias, to the extent it exists, and I do agree it does, merely supports the idea that people are better off with decreased religion. Whether you are measuring 'inherent' IQ or socioeconomic conditions they both tend the same way. All you can reasonably assert is that we don't know how much of each is associated with level of religious belief.

evidence that Barna tried to obscure it? Relevance? How does this effect the 9% average figure for both religious and non-religious? How is that notable?

They did obscure it, as you can verify youself. They now show the data of all non xtians together, which lumped the Jews, which were highest at 30% in with atheists at 21%, which made xtians (26%) appear to be on par by this metric. Intellectually dishonest in the extreme.

I did find the prayer study to be highly laudable in that they published findings which they must have hated. Someone there must have had an attack of conscience, and decided patient wellbeing was more important than their cherished beliefs.

I've provided three articles which make suggestions as to why. You have still not (after over 100 posts) addresssed them.

(and more like this)

Andy you still show no data. I'm sorry thats a huge mound of opinion referencing various other articles which may or may not include data to support them. If you have access to some data that supports this opinion please direct me to it and we can discuss it. Barring that I don't need to comment on their opinion, because it is as valid as yours and mine.

I'm finished for tonight - when i log back on tomorrow i expect a full appraisal of all the data to suggest that there is some benefit

Again not my burden. I only needed to show there is no benefit, not otherwise obtainable. Since atheists seem better off, it is unreasonable to assume religion is worth the social and personal cost.

I am not asserting there are no cases where religion is salutary on a group or individual level. But you haven't demonstrated them. And it seems clear atheists as a group are better off. At least until the religious start another crusade, jihad, witch hunt, or inquisition;P Then I will decidedly agree atheism loses it's survival benefit

 

[Anacoluthon64]

However, consider the possibility that the apparent happiness of believers, measured several times in several different ways, is an artifact of faulty measurement and the inability to define happiness. Surely there would be a different measure of happiness that would show nonbelievers to be just as happy.

This misses the point by several orders of magnitude. I have never once refuted, nor do I now refute, that religious believers, self-assessed in the absence of any objective norm, consistently report higher scores on subjective evaluations of happiness. What I do question is the blasé acceptance that the "measured" effect is meaningful in any objective sense. It may well be so, but the evidence as it stands, aside from grave procedural and foundational caveats, is profoundly open-ended and hardly compelling. I can say, "I'm happier than Sally" in a thousand different ways, but that doesn't make it true. Nor does it make it not true. Or testable. And – I hesitate to say this for fear that it will be shamelessly exploited as an escape hatch – even if it was in any objective sense (e.g. measurable brain sates) true, that would merely establish a correlation.

It is very much apparent that you are like others in this thread bending over backwards to not have to admit that maybe there is actually some benefit conferred by religion (direct or indirect).

Here you exhibit severe defects in your deductive and inferential abilities: I should like very few things more than to be shown an objective benefit of faith – it would make life considerably more pleasant. But I do insist that it must be objective.

We don't need to distinguish on semantics - we use a numerical measure. We've already covered this. A person's perception of happiness is their happiness.

If person A has an average rating 10/10
person B has an average rating 5/10
person C has an average rating 1/10

Then we can say that person Ais happier than person B who is happier than person C.

It is their perception that is their happines - and thus we can compare individuals on this measure.

Really? So if we canvass people and 1,000 person A's report, "Flatley's dancing is ten out of ten, Nureyev gets a nine," while a lone person B says, "Flatley's a two, Nureyev's a ten" then we can legitimately conclude that Flatley is objectively better than Nureyev. That smacks of postmodernist cultural relativism.

yes it could. But this is a rather remarkable claim - especially for very common words like happy" "active" "sociable" "involved" and "excited." I would like to see any evidence for suggesting this is a theory which should be given any credence.

It is, particularly, such common words that are especially vague because they are so frequently used in widely different settings. I challenge you to show a verifiably objective distinction between the emotional states of people using these terms in varying combinations.

Your evidence seems to be "I hate religion, I must not, repeat not, concede that religion may have some benefit in any way, therefore this study is wrong."

It seems to me that here you are wielding your own bias as a cudgel.

please - it is not necessary to bring absolute objectivity nto a discussion on the measure of happiness. Subjective measures are well employed for population comparatives - pain scales in medical practice a notable example.

Analgesics. And how, exactly, would you propose to introduce a placebo control into a study of happiness?

*sigh* now it is you who are distorting my position. I'm not "jumping to any conclusions" - it does however given the evidence seem that with regards to happiness, sociality etc etc religion does play a role.

Please point out where, chapter and verse, I contended that it was otherwise, in so far as it is gauged by individuals' declarations.

This is an incredibly mundane claim - far more mundane than expecting that religious vs non religious people understanding words like "excited" and "ivolved" differently.

It seems clear that you have not encountered the idea of private language arguments yet. Moreover, it's hardly an unequivocal distinction that indubitably separates one class from the other; rather, like most social phenomena, it's about broad tendencies.

they are not being asked - they're filling in boxes on a portable device at intervals.

These mechanistic details merely obscure the objection by postponement but do not address them.

But yes, maybe believers are more sociable people to begin with - the next question is why.

That would be a good question if it was firmly established that sociability is a consequent of belief, and not vice versa.

I'm not adding weight beyond the expression of my opinion - though if my opinion adds weight then i am happy

Nothing quite like ending on a high note, eh?

'Luthon64

 

[Faithkills]

ok just one more post....

just to follow up some of the cites, they're peer reviewed scientific studies. You should be prepared to at least address the findings rather than simply pretending that the evidence doesn't exist.

Would you stop posting lies please? It doesn't help your position. I never pretended anything didn't exist. I did say without data I could see it was pointless to point to opinion.

cite 24
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0070-3370(199905)36:2<273:RIAUAM>2.0.CO;2-H

Yes I have seen similar studies. They measure 'church goingness' not religion. As many xtians would say your virtue is not measure by how much you go to church. All I see here is that people who have a strong drive to social conformity live longer, it's like measuring IQ by how often someone attends classes. That is not an unexpected result. I'm not saying there is no relation between church attendance and religiosity, but people very often go to church because their society expects it. Note the disapproving prattling of the old ladies whenever someone shows up after a long hiatus. As well church goers have a very practical and physical support network that non church goers do not have.

This study, while interesting only shows that 'going to church' is associated with longevity. Which makes sense to me.

I would like to see studies done, mortality by self report of religiosity, mortality by religious or non-religious affiliation, most notably atheist mortality. Metrics that try to limit other factors.

cite 25 http://hpq.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/4/3/381

cite 27 http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1294223

cite 28 http://www.springerlink.com/content/g484435055217w1p/

login required, no data for any of these, too bad

and no this is not an appeal to "a wall of opinion." they require addressing if you genuinely wish to discuss this area with any semblance of objectivity.

No it's not an appeal to a wall of opinion which is great, and this would be good except unfortunately only one of those links worked and I tried googling other places with no luck. It's too bad, I would like to see the data.

 

[The Atheist]

I agree birth rates would be very interesting - as close as i could find was a much greater chance of being single (33%) compared to the average (~20%) - for non-religious.

see page 28 of the pdf
http://www.gc.cuny.edu/faculty/research_briefs/aris.pdf

this itself would need more analysis, maybe the elderly lose faith when their partner dies? Also there is likely to be some young person skew of non-religious which i presume is higher than national average.....nevertheless the difference is stark and I'd find it surprising if such considerations could satisfactorily account for it....

The ARIS report (referenced above) has a whole stack of population studies re religion that are worth reading

(you can read a discussion on the methodology of the study, and also get to the study via here )

Cheers again. I'm going to actually have to get off my arse and do some research here, but it's all leading where I expect.


The interesting point - as Meadmaker alluded to - is not the figures themselves, but why it should be that reigion creates happier people. Maybe it is just "ignorance is bliss". I accuse christians of it often enough! Be funny if it were true.

 

[andyandy]

They did obscure it, as you can verify yourself. They now show the data of all non xtians together, which lumped the Jews, which were highest at 30% in with atheists at 21%, which made xtians (26%) appear to be on par by this metric. Intellectually dishonest in the extreme.

have you even bothered to read the linked pdf? we're talking about non-religion. I'm getting tired of this constant bollocks.

Here it is again - page 28

http://www.gc.cuny.edu/faculty/research_briefs/aris.pdf

Andy you still show no data. I'm sorry thats a huge mound of opinion referencing various other articles which may or may not include data to support them. If you have access to some data that supports this opinion please direct me to it and we can discuss it. Barring that I don't need to comment on their opinion, because it is as valid as yours and mine.

if you are not prepared to accept peer reviewed scientific studies as evidence worthy of discussion then I'm done with this ridiculous charade. You've acted like a belligerent fool throughout and i'm tired of your wholly disingenuous approach. It's a shame because this is an interesting topic, but it's a complete waste of time discussing it with someone as objectionable as yourself.

 

[Beth]

It is a way, but it is in no way good or sane. 2000 years ago, people didn't have much going on in their lives, so it was the thing to bow down and pretend someone is watching you pledging allegiance to them as a god. Things are different now a days. Humans have the ability as well as the power to lead responsible ethical lives without any outside help, ...or better, without any outside threats. If it was up to religion, we'd still be living in the dark ages, religion sabotages the scientific quest, it cripples and clutters the human creativity, if it wasn't for the scularist's dare and might, we'd still be riding donkeys as the main way of transportation. Now of course according to religion, god did all that, god made man build boeing 777.

There are certainly scholars who agree with you that the Judeo-Christian religions have been detrimental to mankind in many ways. However, in some times and places religion has been instrumental in mankind making progress. Of couse, the same can be said of War.

Personally, I feel religion is like any other powerful tool available to mankind. It can be used for good or ill. I don't think the problems you cite are due to religion, but due to the way religion has been used by humans.

Again, I've addressed this in my reply to Meadmaker, yeah religion "redirect people's attention away from their own happiness" then why work to prove that religion makes people happy? isn't that what one of his points is? isn't that what you said you agreed with in your first post on this thread? religious are happy, atheists are not?

No. You seem to be a bit confused about what research such as that quoted means. The evidence available indicates that religious people lead healthier and happier lives. I could also say that the evidence available indicates that men are taller than women. Would that mean that men are tall and women aren't? No. If I said that women, on average, live longer than men, would that mean that men don't ever grow old? No. There are plenty of tall women and short men. Plenty of old men and women who die young. It means that the data distributions that describe each of the two groups can be distinguished. The two groups differ in that charactoristic. Once we know that they differ, then we can ask why and try to find out.

Why should I if they are not respectful of me after I've more than generously been considerate and respectful toward them?

Have you been? Everything you've posted here has been pretty harsh and judgmental towards believers in any type of religion. I think it would be difficult for you to disguise your disgust with their beliefs.

Anyway, to answer your question, why be respectful to others even if they are not respectful of you? Because to do so is to be a better person than they are. Because to do so is to be tolerant of other people's beliefs and set an example of the treatment you would like to receive. Does their intolerance justify your own?

...am I speaking to a believer? if that's the case, this is not to be taken personally since we don't know each other.

As I said before, I am agnostic.

My ranting out stems from what I've been through. I was mental prisoner for long time, I've been abused in the name of religion, now I am free and and I ain't looking back.

Apparently you feel like religion has messed up your life. I'm sorry if it has. You might want to talk with Slingblade. She has posted some details about the abuse she's suffered. She feels religion is the cause. I think you'll find she pretty much agrees with your assessment. So do a lot of people who post here.

I know they are intelligent and independant that's why I hang out with them whenever I could. Plus they are tolerant of others' beliefs, know their 'stuff', they are open minded, well anchored and more...

Yes, many atheists have many admirable traits. Many Christians also fit the description you've written above and many atheists do not. Some atheists, for instance, are very intolerant of people with different beleifs.

Athiests do seem to have some traits in common that differ from the general public. I'm not sure if those traits are due to their religious beliefs or the cause of their religious beliefs though. I don't know. My personal bias is that religious beliefs are, in many ways, dependent on our genetic heritage as much as our culture heritage. But that's simply speculation.

Ok, I am going to be quiet now and let you big boys and girls talk . The only reason I popped in is I noticed someone was "messing" with "my daddy" LOL....

Who's your daddy? Dawkins?

P.S. - AndyAndy - thanks for all the great links and summaries.

 

[Meadmaker]

This misses the point by several orders of magnitude. I have never once refuted, nor do I now refute, that religious believers, self-assessed in the absence of any objective norm, consistently report higher scores on subjective evaluations of happiness. What I do question is the blasé acceptance that the "measured" effect is meaningful in any objective sense.

As is so often the case when points are missed, there is some dispute about exactly who is missing them.

I've been on JREF for a few years now, and during that time, many variations of this theme have come up, and I've had the opportunity to take a look at a lot of data gathered in a lot of ways, not just through self assessment. It's pretty consistent, and the studies support each other.

Atheists are smarter, but religious people are happier and healthier. That's what the data says.

Meanwhile, throughout history, most cultures have been religious, and the ones that haven't been have been both short lived and dismal. Who knows? That could certainly change, but for now, there's some data out there that suggests religion is doing something good for us. It wouldn't be scientific to pretend the data doesn't exist.

 

[Meadmaker]

The interesting point - as Meadmaker alluded to - is not the figures themselves, but why it should be that reigion creates happier people. Maybe it is just "ignorance is bliss". I accuse christians of it often enough! Be funny if it were true.

One thing that I wonder about is whether it's all related to death. It's depressing to know that you will die, and religious people think they've found a way out. So, what are you to do if you can't bring yourself to believe that there's a loophole in the mortality laws?

FWIW, this question led Siddhartha to become The Buddha, and to found the most influential not-really-a-religion on the planet.

 

[Meadmaker]

I've been there and I know what it's like to be in their shoes.

With all due respect, I think you have been in your shoes. Not all the religious shoes are alike. "In my Father's closet there are many shoe sizes."

But seriously, what I'm getting at is that there is no doubt there are negative experiences as a result of religion, and I don't doubt that you experienced them. However, most people's experience of religion really isn't like that. You're painting with a pretty broad brush, there.

Just read the O, NT and Koran, see how religion breeds hatred among fellow men, how it denigrates women, how it kills one's own self by programming them ....

I missed that part, but I will admit that there are many different interpretations and some sections could be taken that way. Despite being atheist, I'm currently a member of a Jewish Temple. They don't talk that way, either. The ones at the Shul, maybe a little, but not at the Temple.*

How come if one happens to be decent enough to do something good, in the believer's eye, that is only by God's grace, but if it's bad, then that only confirms that person's lowliness and they must be satan's sheep?

humility?

If you've ever believed, you must know how traumatising it is to constantly struggle to live up to the sickly impossible religious standards.

I did. I grew up Catholic. My conversion story (to atheism) is similar to many on JREF. I believed so deeply that I decided to read and study the Bible, and discovered that it didn't say the same things they said in church, and I ended up deciding it wasn't true. However, I didn't feel traumatized, either as a believe or as a former believer. Maybe it's just Catholicism, but not meeting the standards wasn't all that traumatic. They taught, specifically, that the standards were sickly impossible and there was no way that anyone could possibly meet them, so failing to meet them was no big deal.

can you be specific? can you give an example of "appealing"?

Immortality.


___________
*Little "in" joke there. If you hear of a Jewish "Temple", that means it's from the Reform movement. Conservatives and Orthodox say there is one Temple, and it was destroyed 2000 years ago. The Orthodox often call their meeting places "shul", while all three branches sometimes use the more familiar "synagogue".

 

[newlyfound]

There are certainly scholars who agree with you that the Judeo-Christian religions have been detrimental to mankind in many ways. However, in some times and places religion has been instrumental in mankind making progress. Of couse, the same can be said of War.

I know there are lots of anonymous who are quietly working to help others in the dark, that no one ever hears from or about because the service they provide, they do strictly for Christ. If all "religious" were like them, the world would be a paradise on earth, the reality is they are just the opposite, and by this I mean they instigate illegal wars when Christ advocates peace, they steal other's wealth when Christ commands to give, they repress the masses into being submissive to them when Christ encourages daring personal quests and expansions, etc. And that's what remains.

Personally, I feel religion is like any other powerful tool available to mankind. It can be used for good or ill. I don't think the problems you cite are due to religion, but due to the way religion has been used by humans.

Those humans are not just humans, they are religion's emissaries. In other words, they are Religion.

No. You seem to be a bit confused about what research such as that quoted means. The evidence available indicates that religious people lead healthier and happier lives.

One of my friends co-workers died few years ago, because she wouldn't let them take her to the doctor and so forth. It was due to her religious convictions (she belonged to some really weird Christian denomination). She died of this terrible throat disease. She was only in her mid 40's. Had she agreed to a medical treatment, she would probably still be around.

I could also say that the evidence available indicates that men are taller than women. Would that mean that men are tall and women aren't? No. If I said that women, on average, live longer than men, would that mean that men don't ever grow old? No. There are plenty of tall women and short men. Plenty of old men and women who die young. It means that the data distributions that describe each of the two groups can be distinguished. The two groups differ in that charactoristic. Once we know that they differ, then we can ask why and try to find out.

In respect to happiness, I think it's irrelevant. People tend to find their happiness in different ways and different forms. If the religious find their happiness in being religious, then so be it, but to claim that religious are happier and healthier than non-religious is simply a fraud. As I was reading TGD my brain and heart both felt like a blossoming lotuses, they were so happy. 5 years ago, i would have never guessed that reading an atheist would get me to react the way I have, I was in a total state of ecstacy. Last year, upon reading one of Micheal Shermer's books, I was about the check out the second from the local library, and you should have seen me finally running into the book as I located in the designated section. Once I saw it, I subconsiously started to walk slow (lol), and very cautiously pulled it out as if it was some kind of national treasure. I've never reacted to a book like that before!LOL. I had this biiiiig dump Grin on my face, it was unbeleivable, I had a total blast reading them and others, why couldn't I be this happy while I was on the other side?

Have you been? Everything you've posted here has been pretty harsh and judgmental towards believers in any type of religion. I think it would be difficult for you to disguise your disgust with their beliefs.

I have been posting here only since few weeks, do you know how old I am?

Anyway, to answer your question, why be respectful to others even if they are not respectful of you? Because to do so is to be a better person than they are. Because to do so is to be tolerant of other people's beliefs and set an example of the treatment you would like to receive. Does their intolerance justify your own?

I have been where you have, In my experience, I learned that when I do what you are talking about, they interpret that as a sign of weakness and stupidity, they don't interprete it as you and I would. When I am dealing with people on personal level though, everybody gets an advance credit no matter who they are, and as things take place, the average pointage either climbs up or down. And that's all I can do. Just like them, I am only human.

As I said before, I am agnostic.

Thanks.

Apparently you feel like religion has messed up your life. I'm sorry if it has. You might want to talk with Slingblade. She has posted some details about the abuse she's suffered. She feels religion is the cause. I think you'll find she pretty much agrees with your assessment. So do a lot of people who post here.

Will do. Also, I want to add in regard to the Romans' verse. It says "sin entered", Where did it enter from? because if it really entered and as the believers do believe the bible is the word of Holy Spirit, it must have entered from somewhere. One could only wonder --based on that verse-- about the existence of such place, a place where sin dwells (it seems to be the case). And if sin dwelled in such place prior to the "creation of the universe", does that mean that god did not have dominion over it him being the such goody good AlMighty daddy? (not better that RD though LMAO), ...since he is aaall love, and this and that? ...I tell you what, I really understand why some atheists are so pissed at the creationists, and for a good reason: Creationists are bs-ers. I am sorry, the more one thinks about their business and the more one finds out how counterfeit it is. This regardless of what their intentions are.

Some atheists, for instance, are very intolerant of people with different beleifs.

I am finding out why. One more good atheist trait: they do not shove their convictions down other's throats' though their convictions are demonstrable/provable ones. Something ID's can't possibly learn or conceive of.

Who's your daddy? Dawkins?

Yeah, I've adopted him LOL. So now his full name is RDF (nop, that' stands for my last name not Foundation )

 

[newlyfound]

With all due respect, I think you have been in your shoes. Not all the religious shoes are alike. "In my Father's closet there are many shoe sizes."

The mentality/doctrine/dogma is the same size Friend.

But seriously, what I'm getting at is that there is no doubt there are negative experiences as a result of religion, and I don't doubt that you experienced them. However, most people's experience of religion really isn't like that. You're painting with a pretty broad brush, there.

Mine aside, I've heard about some pretty traumatic experiences.

I missed that part, but I will admit that there are many different interpretations and some sections could be taken that way. Despite being atheist, I'm currently a member of a Jewish Temple. They don't talk that way, either. The ones at the Shul, maybe a little, but not at the Temple.*

If you publically are a jewish temple member, then my friend I am afraid that you're no atheist but a jewish. And if they don't talk that way, what stops them from re-writing that aweful Thorah and beyond? ...I mean they wrote once, they can do it again.

humility?

For the religous establishment it is humility, I call it conning innocent people out of a Credit that's rightfully theirs, and that they honestly earned by being the good people they are, and working hard to accomplish what it is that they've accomplished. And for when they mess up, I'd put that on live and learn tab, we're human and we learn from our errors.

I did. I grew up Catholic. My conversion story (to atheism) is similar to many on JREF. I believed so deeply that I decided to read and study the Bible, and discovered that it didn't say the same things they said in church, and I ended up deciding it wasn't true. However, I didn't feel traumatized, either as a believe or as a former believer. Maybe it's just Catholicism, but not meeting the standards wasn't all that traumatic. They taught, specifically, that the standards were sickly impossible and there was no way that anyone could possibly meet them, so failing to meet them was no big deal.

You're catholic, I love the hymns that you guys sing during the service, they are so beautiful. I had the hots for catholicism not long ago.

immortality.

Well, god might not be omni this or omni that, but on the other hand, neither are we. We have much to learn ourselves.


___________

*Little "in" joke there. If you hear of a Jewish "Temple", that means it's from the Reform movement. Conservatives and Orthodox say there is one Temple, and it was destroyed 2000 years ago. The Orthodox often call their meeting places "shul", while all three branches sometimes use the more familiar "synagogue".

Can you please tell me about the reform movement? ...I mean within a judao context. TXS.

 

[Beth]

I know there are lots of anonymous who are quietly working to help others in the dark, that no one ever hears from or about because the service they provide, they do strictly for Christ. If all "religious" were like them, the world would be a paradise on earth, the reality is they are just the opposite, and by this I mean they instigate illegal wars when Christ advocates peace, they steal other's wealth when Christ commands to give, they repress the masses into being submissive to them when Christ encourages daring personal quests and expansions, etc. And that's what remains.

So you acknowledge that there are lots of anonymous believers working to make this world a slightly better place, but still believe that the majority of believers are just the opposite - i.e. hateful and hypocritical? Am I understanding you correctly?

Those humans are not just humans, they are religion's emissaries. In other words, they are Religion.

An interesting point of view. How do you view governments then? Similarly? Should we advocate for the banning of all government institutions based on the failings of so many for so long?

One of my friends co-workers died few years ago, because she wouldn't let them take her to the doctor and so forth. It was due to her religious convictions (she belonged to some really weird Christian denomination). She died of this terrible throat disease. She was only in her mid 40's. Had she agreed to a medical treatment, she would probably still be around.

It's a shame about your friend, but since few religions have such restrictions, I don't find it reasonable to consider this type of example an argument against religion in general. It certainly illustrates the potential danger of some beleif systems.

In respect to happiness, I think it's irrelevant. People tend to find their happiness in different ways and different forms. If the religious find their happiness in being religious, then so be it, but to claim that religious are happier and healthier than non-religious is simply a fraud.

No, it's not a fraud, it's a reasonable conclusion based on the evidence available.

As I was reading TGD my brain and heart both felt like a blossoming lotuses, they were so happy. 5 years ago, i would have never guessed that reading an atheist would get me to react the way I have, I was in a total state of ecstacy. Last year, upon reading one of Micheal Shermer's books, I was about the check out the second from the local library, and you should have seen me finally running into the book as I located in the designated section. Once I saw it, I subconsiously started to walk slow (lol), and very cautiously pulled it out as if it was some kind of national treasure. I've never reacted to a book like that before!LOL. I had this biiiiig dump Grin on my face, it was unbeleivable, I had a total blast reading them and others, why couldn't I be this happy while I was on the other side?

I have no idea about what may or may not give you personal happiness, but arguing against the average findings of many different studies in this way isn't effective. I once knew a woman who was 6' 2" tall. Does that imply that men are not taller than women in general?

I have been posting here only since few weeks, do you know how old I am?

I have been where you have,

Have you? Do you know how old I am? Do you have any idea where I've been?

In my experience, I learned that when I do what you are talking about, they interpret that as a sign of weakness and stupidity, they don't interprete it as you and I would.

I have heard that argument many times. I don't find it convincing. I think complaining about a group of other people's intolerance of different beliefs and then being intolerant of theirs is basically a demonstration of hypocrisy and insincerity. To me, that is far less convincing than someone who both preaches and practices the virtue of tolerance.

When I am dealing with people on personal level though, everybody gets an advance credit no matter who they are, and as things take place, the average pointage either climbs up or down. And that's all I can do. Just like them, I am only human.

Glad to hear it. People often post differently than they act offline.

Will do. Also, I want to add in regard to the Romans' verse. It says "sin entered", Where did it enter from?

I'm sorry, but I'm not interested in debating the finer points of Christian theology. You'll have to find someone else for that.

I am finding out why.

There are lots of reason why. In the end, I don't find the atheists arguments against tolerance of other people's beliefs any more convincing the the Christian argument against tolerance, or the Muslim's arguments against tolerance, etc., etc.

One more good atheist trait: they do not shove their convictions down other's throats' though their convictions are demonstrable/provable ones. Something ID's can't possibly learn or conceive of.

Atheists are not, in general, evangical about their belief system. Some of them are though.

 

[Meadmaker]

If you publically are a jewish temple member, then my friend I am afraid that you're no atheist but a jewish.

All you have to do to be a temple member is pay the dues. You don't have to believe anything in particular. If you actually participate, you have to go along with the rituals, but once again, you don't have to believe anything.

I'm pretty sure my rabbi is agnostic, but I'm not absolutely certain.

And if they don't talk that way, what stops them from re-writing that aweful Thorah and beyond? ...I mean they wrote once, they can do it again.

If they rewrote it, it wouldn't be the Torah. It would be some other book. They can, however, reinterpret it. See below.

You're catholic,

I thought you said I was Jewish? I grew up Catholic, but about 20 years ago, I gave it up for Lent.

Can you please tell me about the reform movement? ...I mean within a judao context. TXS.

There are three main branches of Judaism. They are Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform. The main difference is in how they treat the Law. (i.e. all those directives from the first five books of the Old Testament, including, but not limited to, the Ten Commandments. Jewish scholars have decided that there are 613 of them altogether.) The Orthodox teach that the law was given to the people of Israel as is, to be followed forever, and it can be found in the Torah. They teach that Jews are required to follow them exactly as set down, as closely as possible, and they should not take any chances that they might break any of them.

Conservatives teach that the law was set down 3000 years ago for the Jews of that time, by God, but today we live differently. Jews are supposed to keep the laws, but they allow for some interpretation due to changing circumstances of modern times.

The Reform movement is the liberals of the bunch. They teach that the Law was a good idea for a bunch of goatherders living 3000 years ago, but the letter of the law doesn't matter. It's the principle of the thing. They also don't teach that the letter of the Torah came from God, but rather from the priests who wrote it.

As for God, most Reform Jews believe in God, but not all of them do, and it isn't very important, especially as regards a "personal" God, that actually cares what you do or listens to prayers.

That's enough for one post. Ask more if you are interested. However, for the purposes of this thread the important point is that not all Jews, much less all religious people, are alike. There are huge differences between Buddhists, and Reform Jews, and Orthodox Jews, and the United Church of Christ, and the Catholic Church. Not just that, but there are huge differences between individual believers and congregations as well. Finally, the differences aren't just cosmetic, like worshipping an imaginary being called Vishnu versus an imaginary being called Jesus. You can' say very little about "all religions" or "all religious people".

 

[Faithkills]

have you even bothered to read the linked pdf? we're talking about non-religion. I'm getting tired of this constant bollocks.

Bollocks is right but you're the one dropping it. If religion is so salutary that it is worth the cost why do metrics show them as better off?

if you are not prepared to accept peer reviewed scientific studies as evidence worthy of discussion then I'm done with this ridiculous charade. You've acted like a belligerent fool throughout and i'm tired of your wholly disingenuous approach. It's a shame because this is an interesting topic, but it's a complete waste of time discussing it with someone as objectionable as yourself.

If you show data, as I have shown then, I would be happy to discuss. If you value opinion so well then I can easily produce a wall of opinion also.

I'm not the one being disingenuous. It's simple really. You want the believe religion is beneficial, fine. But if religion is worth the individual and social cost then explain atheists who seem better off without it?