passionately atheist

[SteveS]

Hi guys - sorry I've been away for a while.  This is an interesting talk going on here.

To the OP, dodgecity: I get where you are coming from, and I know it's hard, but I think (for what it's worth) that your brother has to stand on his own.  I know you see your parents as poisoning him, but.....  it is his life.

To everyone else, I don't see what's so terrible about saying:

You're projecting your own shortcomings and failure as a Christian onto all Christians.

Ignoring the part about projection, I'll go in with you on this one dodgecity.  Here I formally declare to all living persons:

I am an abject failure as a Christian!  My shortcomings as a Christian are legendary and without equal!  Christian SteveS = Fail!

I certainly don't take this as insulting in the least.  More like amusing.  

Also, the Michael Shermer stuff is fascinating, by why only post half the story?  Although I don't put too much stock in these correlation studies, Shermer's own website has a full article that includes some of the stuff referenced here by Voter.  You can find the article I'm talking about at: http://www.michaelshermer.com/2006/12/bowling-for-god/.

While he mentions most of what Voter mentions, he also acknowledges:

Is religion a necessary component of social health? The data are conflicting.

and goes on to put forth the "other hand", that was not pointed out above:

in a 2005 study published in the Journal of Religion & Society â€" “Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies” â€" independent scholar Gregory S. Paul found an inverse correlation between religiosity (measured by belief in God, biblical literalism, and frequency of prayer and service attendance) and societal health (measured by rates of homicide, suicide, childhood mortality, life expectancy, sexually transmitted diseases, abortion and teen pregnancy) in 18 developed democracies. “In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD [sexually transmitted disease] infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion in the prosperous democracies,” Paul found. Indeed, the U.S. scores the highest in religiosity and the highest (by far) in homicides, STDs, abortions and teen pregnancies.

While I have no problem with the work that was quoted, I can't help but find it deliberately misleading to ignore the other half of the equation.  But, bible guys know all about cherry picking, right?  When was the last time any of them stoned a rape victim to death because she was raped in the city and didn't call out for help?  (Deuteronomy 22)  :raised:

[curiosityandthecat]

Getting back to dodge: according to the statistics, religious people are happier, healthier, more charitable, and live longer.  If you care about your brother, shouldn't you encourage, or at least not discourage, his faith?

According to the statistics, they're also more racist, more sexually reckless, less tolerant, less educated and less empathetic.

[rlrose328]

No one is a strong atheist based on hard, sober, empirical evidence.

Correct... because there is no hard, sober, empirical evidence for or against the existence of god.  Because you cannot have evidence for the lack of something... the fact that it doesn't exist is evidence enough for the lack of something... atheism make perfect sense.  No faith required.  Atheism is the default position.

Lots of people find the quality of evidence sufficient.

ANd lots of people think aliens are real and that big foot is real.  Just because lots of people find the ancient nomad-written book factual doesn't mean it is so without empirical evidence.  There were many other books written before and after the bible that claim other supernatural beings are real... and I'll bet you don't have faith in any of those either though "lots of people" find the quality of evidence in them sufficient as well.  Your argument doesn't make sense.

I know rational people who consider the Biblical evidence of miracles to be valid.
 

Again, the "lots of people" argument doesn't hold water, my friend.  Lots of people consider magic to be real.  And rational people know better.

[Voter]

Correct... because there is no hard, sober, empirical evidence for or against the existence of god.  Because you cannot have evidence for the lack of something... the fact that it doesn't exist is evidence enough for the lack of something... atheism make perfect sense.  No faith required.  Atheism is the default position.

How do you establish this nonexistence as a fact, if you cannot have evidence for the lack of something?

ANd lots of people think aliens are real and that big foot is real.  Just because lots of people find the ancient nomad-written book factual doesn't mean it is so without empirical evidence.  There were many other books written before and after the bible that claim other supernatural beings are real... and I'll bet you don't have faith in any of those either though "lots of people" find the quality of evidence in them sufficient as well.  Your argument doesn't make sense.

Actually I haven't made an argument for belief in one religion over another. I do have such an argument, and it makes sense. Start another thread if you'd like.

[Voter]

While I have no problem with the work that was quoted, I can't help but find it deliberately misleading to ignore the other half of the equation. But, bible guys know all about cherry picking, right?

I don't think Shermer is a "bible guy," and he ignored the "other half of the equation" in the article I linked to. Why do you think he did that? Was he being deliberately misleading?

[rlrose328]

Correct... because there is no hard, sober, empirical evidence for or against the existence of god.  Because you cannot have evidence for the lack of something... the fact that it doesn't exist is evidence enough for the lack of something... atheism make perfect sense.  No faith required.  Atheism is the default position.

How do you establish this nonexistence as a fact, if you cannot have evidence for the lack of something?

Nonexistence is the default position unless existence can be proven.  That's the world as I see it.  I have no empirical proof of aliens, big foot, or dancing purple elves on my desk... therefore, I have to conclude that they do not exist.  I can't prove that they don't exist... but I don't have to prove they don't.  The people who believe they do exist are responsible for providing proof.  Until proof is provided, the entity can be said to not exist.  Fact or no fact.

And lots of people think aliens are real and that big foot is real.  Just because lots of people find the ancient nomad-written book factual doesn't mean it is so without empirical evidence.  There were many other books written before and after the bible that claim other supernatural beings are real... and I'll bet you don't have faith in any of those either though "lots of people" find the quality of evidence in them sufficient as well.  Your argument doesn't make sense.

Actually I haven't made an argument for belief in one religion over another. I do have such an argument, and it makes sense. Start another thread if you'd like.[/quote]

Nah, I don't think a new thread is needed.  There aren't enough hours in the day to argue with you to the extent that is required, so I'll stick to this thread.

[dodgecity]

@ SteveS: yeah, I need to be careful as to not push anything onto him. It's just...in our environment at home, it's so comfortable to believe in nonsense. I'll be happy if I can just help him realize that he has a choice, because no one ever told me that when I was his age.

Also, the fact that I am a recent atheist causes me to take it all a little too seriously sometimes, I'll admit. It's not the end of the world if my brother can't let go. We'll still be very close, and he will still be a very intelligent and kind person.

[SteveS]

Hey dodgecity, I think you've got a fine outlook here.  For whatever it's worth, I think the last couple of sentences you wrote above are totally healthy and make excellent good sense.  Good on ya!

   

[SteveS]

I don't think Shermer is a "bible guy," and he ignored the "other half of the equation" in the article I linked to. Why do you think he did that? Was he being deliberately misleading?

Just to make sure I'm not missing the boat somehow, we are talking about this reference, http://www.edge.org/discourse/vote_morality.html, right?

The entire point of his response, as it seems to me, is the danger of one-sided consideration.  Specifically, he is concluding that a politically liberal bias in educational institutions is leading to assumptions, by social researchers, that people who vote for political conservatives must have something akin to a mental disorder.  That they start their study from a biased position, and this leads to unfair or inaccurate conclusions.

Now, on the other hand, what you wrote was somewhat different, right?

according to the statistics, religious people are happier, healthier, more charitable, and live longer. If you care about your brother, shouldn't you encourage, or at least not discourage, his faith?

You are using just some of the statistics to argue that faith is potentially of value.  Can this be properly considered without taking into concern the effects on homicide, suicide, teen pregnancy, and STD (gotta hate the clap) rates?  Isn't faith also, according to statistics, potentially damaging?

Just to remind you, I'm not sure how seriously to take any of these correlation studies.  Is religion beneficial or harmful to society or individual?  The whole point is that this issue is in doubt.  It is hard to say.  The data is conflicting.  And it is all presented as presumptions made from correlation studies, which are logically problematic.

But suppose the correlations are accurate and the assumptions made from them are sound.  Further suppose I made a pill that made someone resistant to heart attacks, but also increased their odds of contracting cancer.  Suppose then that I said "Given that taking one of my pills every day makes you less likely to have a heart attack, you should encourage, or at least not discourge, the consumption of my pills".  You think this isn't misleading, even if taking one of my pills every day also causes you to be more likely to contract cancer?

[Voter]

I don't think Shermer is a "bible guy," and he ignored the "other half of the equation" in the article I linked to. Why do you think he did that? Was he being deliberately misleading?

Just to make sure I'm not missing the boat somehow, we are talking about this reference, http://www.edge.org/discourse/vote_morality.html, right?

The entire point of his response, as it seems to me, is the danger of one-sided consideration.  Specifically, he is concluding that a politically liberal bias in educational institutions is leading to assumptions, by social researchers, that people who vote for political conservatives must have something akin to a mental disorder.  That they start their study from a biased position, and this leads to unfair or inaccurate conclusions.

Now, on the other hand, what you wrote was somewhat different, right?

Yes, I was discussing individual American choices on religion, and pointing out that the religious are happier, healthier, etc. As I mentioned, I had recently run across some statistics and at another poster's request gave the link.

My link didn't mention the other half of the equation. Is it your position that I was being deliberately misleading by not thinking, "Hmm, maybe this guy wrote a longer article somewhere that includes some negative stats on religion," and finding and posting it? Am i being intentionally misleading by not doing my opponents' homework for them?

You are using just some of the statistics to argue that faith is potentially of value.  Can this be properly considered without taking into concern the effects on homicide, suicide, teen pregnancy, and STD (gotta hate the clap) rates?  Isn't faith also, according to statistics, potentially damaging?

Just to remind you, I'm not sure how seriously to take any of these correlation studies.  Is religion beneficial or harmful to society or individual?  The whole point is that this issue is in doubt.  It is hard to say.  The data is conflicting.  And it is all presented as presumptions made from correlation studies, which are logically problematic.

Which do you think is more applicable to the situation at hand - the favorable study, which was done on individual Americans; or the unfavorable one which compared statistics for entire nations?

But suppose the correlations are accurate and the assumptions made from them are sound.  Further suppose I made a pill that made someone resistant to heart attacks, but also increased their odds of contracting cancer.  Suppose then that I said "Given that taking one of my pills every day makes you less likely to have a heart attack, you should encourage, or at least not discourge, the consumption of my pills".  You think this isn't misleading, even if taking one of my pills every day also causes you to be more likely to contract cancer?

Apparently in America the negative effects are less substantial than the positive, as the religious are living longer and are healthier, happier and more charitable.

[SteveS]

Yes, I was discussing individual American choices on religion, and pointing out that the religious are happier, healthier, etc.

Forgive me, but the only conclusion you can draw from the statistics is that a correlation exists.  You could successfully argue, based on these statistics, that people who are religious have a tendency to say they are happier than people who are not religious.  Two important points:

1) Within this category of people, there is a tendency (the correlation).  Does this support the idea that all religious people are happier than all non-religious people?  Of course not.

2) The statistics concerned themselves with people who reported that they were "happy" or "very happy".  This is a self-described condition, not some objective evaluation of happiness.  Does it matter?  Maybe - I'm just pointing this out.  Consider, in the Shermer article, "healthiness" was evaluated by people describing their mental health.  In other words, the conclusion that people were "healthy" appears to be based on whether or not they described their own mental-health as "happy" or "very happy".  Doesn't this seem a tad weak?  How much can we usefully conclude from this?

I think these things are important to keep in mind when considering correlation studies.  Why?  Because otherwise, we would use correlations like the ones summarized on this page http://kspark.kaist.ac.kr/jesus/intelligence%20&%20religion.htm to support a conclusion that becoming an atheist will make you more intelligent, or that all atheists are more intelligent than all theists.  Such a conclusion would be, in my personal opinion, absurd in the extreme.  There are clearly intelligent theists and unintelligent atheists.  It is also hard to image that flipping between belief and non-belief will make one more or less intelligent.  But - this is my point about correlation studies.  These claims would be no more errant than a claim that becoming religious will make you happier and healthier because of a simple correlation.

Is it your position that I was being deliberately misleading by not thinking, "Hmm, maybe this guy wrote a longer article somewhere that includes some negative stats on religion," and finding and posting it? Am i being intentionally misleading by not doing my opponents' homework for them?

No.  I can't recall berating you personally or accusing you of being deliberately or intentionally misleading.  I was taking issue with the statement:

according to the statistics, religious people are happier, healthier, more charitable, and live longer. If you care about your brother, shouldn't you encourage, or at least not discourage, his faith?

I say this statement is misleading because there are conflicting statistics out there.  If one person cared about another, and wanted to know what was best, isn't it okay if I do the homework?

Which do you think is more applicable to the situation at hand - the favorable study, which was done on individual Americans; or the unfavorable one which compared statistics for entire nations?

What is a nation if not a collection of individuals?  If a national homicide rate is high, who is being killed (and doing the killing)?  The individuals.  If the rate of STD transmission in a nation is high, who is this affecting?  The individuals.  In this case, the ones who caught the clap  

Anyway, I don't think either of them is tremendously applicable to a particular individual because of my issues, which I've repeatedly raised, with correlation studies and the way people leap to unsupported conclusions from them.

Apparently in America the negative effects are less substantial than the positive, as the religious are living longer and are healthier, happier and more charitable.

Sure - if you subscribe to the implications of these correlations.  However, if you do, then you would also have to admit the inverse correlation between religion and intelligence, which is also a valid correlation, and we would be stuck with the unenviable conclusion that:

Where ignorance is bliss, 'Tis folly to be wise

[Tom62]

I might well be that theists are in general happier than atheist. Maybe the atheist worry more than the theists, because they are more concerned about the here and now than theist who believe that there is a better (after)life waiting for them?  There are Christians who believe that their God will some the problems of the world for them, so why bother to do something about these problems yourself. The same is perhaps true for personal problems. If you are a Christian you know that God is there to help and comfort you. When you are an atheist then you have to figure out your personal problems on your own.

[Voter]

No. I can't recall berating you personally or accusing you of being deliberately or intentionally misleading.

I can't help but find it deliberately misleading to ignore the other half of the equation. But, bible guys know all about cherry picking, right?

[SteveS]

Voter,

Okay.  Apparently, I did say "deliberately misleading".  I should have checked, my memory is obviously not infallible, and I'm sorry.  Bad on me --- again, I will offer you another apology if this came across as rude.  When I was responding above, I was swayed by your statement:

Is it your position that I was being deliberately misleading by not thinking, "Hmm, maybe this guy wrote a longer article somewhere that includes some negative stats on religion," and finding and posting it? Am i being intentionally misleading by not doing my opponents' homework for them?

I am prepared to accept this as I statement that you were not being misleading on purpose.  I understand that you probably went looking for stats to support your case, and either didn't consider or were not aware that the issue is under some debate and that not all correlations between religious-faith and beneficial personal/societal effects are favorable to religion.

Do you have any comment at all on the actual argument itself?

[Asmodean]

You know, Sweden is one of the least god-worshipping countries and the Swedes average a longer life expectancy than people from many religious countries.

If you look at the world as a whole. poor people are much more likely to believe in superdaddy than the well-offs and the uneducated are much more lilkely to believe than the highly educated.

I'd rather be a smart well-off atheist than a poor, not-so-smart theist myself. But that is a matter of preference, I suppose.