Happy Atheist Forum

When I recently became an atheist, I struggled with the fact that my friends and relatives still believed in utter nonsense. Especially my younger brother. I have always had much respect for him and I love him like...well, like a brother. We agree on almost everything, everything important anyway. So when I changed my mind about our faith, we both feared that it would come between us. He was there as I made the gradual transition to atheism, and he always respected everything I said.

We had this silent, mutual agreement to just let each other think differently. But this can't go on.

You see, it's not like a flavor of ice cream. It isn't an issue of preference. One of us is right and the other is wrong. And it matters, it really does. A lot.

It's more than just about what happens after we die, it's what happens while we live, and why. It's our lives! I am afraid that many accept nonthinking under the guise of tolerance. For peace's sake, I could see this as admirable, but it doesn't feel right to agree to disagree with my brother. He has so much potential, and I know that religion hampers it, suffocates it. I can't stand idly by while my parents infect him every day with this dangerous nonsense.

So I am in the process of writing a letter. Not a letter specifically to him, but to all who were raised in Judeo-Christian families. I try to showcase the exact steps of logic that brought me to this conclusion, since it happened very recently. My only goal is that a Christian will read this letter and it will cause him to think, just for a moment. Because no one tried to persuade me to change my beliefs. I was only persuaded to think, and once I started thinking, it all became clear.Thinking kills faith because it is the very opposite of it.

So here it is in its present form, quite flawed. I would love feedback and some direction. Thanks for listening.

QuoteThere comes a time in everyone’s life where they realize that their parents are human, too. They are not perfect, they are not always right, and in fact, whether or not they are smart or good people hasn’t the slightest to do with the fact that they are your parents. They have the same chance of being ignorant or evil as anyone you might meet on the street. It might seem disrespectful to think of your parents in this fashion, but all you’re doing is looking from a broader perspective, viewing your parents as if you were not their child.

 But looking at our parents this way is uncomfortable, so why would we do it? In short, we do it because we don’t trust other people like that, so what makes our parents so special? We don’t swallow everything fed to us by others, so why should we make an exception for our parents?

 Let’s not limit this to our parents. It applies to all who we have trusted and respected since childhood, anyone who had a hand in our upbringing.

 Let me elaborate by giving an example.

 My younger brother is fifteen years old. He is in the kitchen with my father. My brother mentions something he read earlier that day: “Did you know that the current casualties of the war in Iraq total to 4,145?”

 My father, a simple (if somewhat confused) conservative is immediately on the defensive. “I don’t want to hear that mess. You need to show more respect to those men who died for our country. Freedom isn’t free.”

 You see, freethinking is discouraged in my household. According to my father, my brother is not entitled to his opinion because having an opinion is disrespectful. Such a liberal viewpoint, in his opinion, is not only incorrect, but immoral. He regularly chastises his son for having an apposing viewpoint. This hurts me because I can see that my brother struggles to think independently in the iron grip of my father’s totalitarian family philosophy. Does he really believe that he has the right to push his beliefs onto his children? Isn’t that, after all, what parents do?

 My father misses my brother’s point completely. This is made evident in his (oh so original) statement, “Freedom isn’t free.” Does he not realize that the case my brother is making is that the war in Iraq is not for freedom?

 Then my father says something else, one of the most disturbing things I’ve ever heard out of his mouth. “Sounds like you need to be readin’ more of the Old Testament.”

 Wow.

 This appalling statement has even more appalling implications and leads us to the bulk of what I’d like to talk about: our parents’ weird, nonsensical, and narrow minded beliefs that they hand down to us as children when we are too young to give consent or think for ourselves.

 Please note: In the following, I refer mainly to the Judeo-Christian Faith because I am familiar with it and because most people I know believe it.

 So why do you believe what you believe? You may try to convince me (and yourself) that your parents didn’t cause you to be Christian because they gave you a choice. But did they really? Have they ever entertained the mere possibility that they are wrong and that you have options? Of course not; to do that would be immoral from their point of view. What would your parents think of you if you didn’t share their beliefs? Wouldn’t they do anything to save you from hell? You see, my point is not to expose your parents as ill willed, because their intentions are surely admirable. My point is to help you realize that yes, if it weren’t for your parents, you would not believe the things you believe.

 I was born and raised in a Christian family for 20 years. Long before I ever considered the possibility that it was all bullocks, I came to grips with the fact that if I was born into a Catholic or Muslim family, I would share their beliefs instead. You may be snooty and self-righteous enough to say that‘s not true of yourself, but you don’t believe it. Think about it. Your parents greatly affected the way you think; you were taught from an early age not to challenge or question them. When you were the most impressionable, your parents were the one’s making the impressions. Children can not think for themselves, but you are not a child anymore. You owe it to yourself and your children to re-examine the things you believe.

 I was not only a Christian for twenty years; I was hardcore Christian, passionate about my faith, obsessive about my sin, and wary of the ways of the secular world. If you were to ask me why I believed what I believed, my answer would be as follows, and I’m sure all our answers fall into these categories.

 

1. Other People â€" Everyone I knew was a Christian, everyone I looked up to, loved and respected. That is a very powerful thing. If everyone I knew believed it, it was virtually impossible for me not to accept it as truth. My parents made sure that I was only around those who shared the faith. If everyone else accepted it, it must be true, right? Who was I to deviate? Yet everyone believing in something does not make it true.

2. Fear of Hell â€" Fear is a very powerful tool as well. When my logic began to make me question the validity of the bible, the fear of eternal damnation helped me shut those thoughts out.

3. Beauty â€" The world is a beautiful place. For no reason, with no backing, I associated the beauty of the world with the god of the bible. Why would I do that? That the world is beautiful doesn’t prove that Christians are right, because it’s not fair to automatically associate that beauty with your god and claim it as your own.

4. Personal Experience â€" My emotions played a huge role in my faith. I believed when I worshiped, I could feel god’s presence. Again, it’s all about unfair association. I was associating those feelings with a god that I was told existed. Feelings that arose from the natural beauty of music, from my friends and family singing along, and from all the emotion in the room. Why do you think we get together to worship? The real question is: do our emotions validate this belief? Euphoric feelings arise from many situations. Can we trust our inconsistent emotions, which we know from science are the result of chemicals in the brain, to guide us spiritually? And if so, who’s to say what religion we associate those emotions with?

 
Aside from these reasons, which I have just exposed as hollow, there is no basis for believing such nonsense. There is no proof that the bible is accurate. There is no sort of evidence to lead us to that conclusion, just crowds of sincere believers. They all believe because they all believe.

Religion discouraging critical thinking bothers me as well. The lack of skepticism seems to be carried over into other parts of people's lives (at least in my family).

With your help, your brother with be fine. Just the fact that he reads about the war in Iraq tells me he's a "thinker". Most adults don't know or care about how many soldiers have died.

Hi, Dodgecity - I just wanted to extend a warm welcome to you. I read your letter and I find it very similar to my own thought process when I realized I was an atheist. Organizing your thoughts like that after being raised to believe in non-sense is very therapeutic. If you want to post your letter for some Christians, find some of the Christian forums on the internet and introduce yourself. I doubt many of them will listen to you - but you never know who might read it and think for a moment. They'll probably argue that you were never a Christian, which is of course rediculous. But I found it to be helpful to talk with believers. That will help you to further define yourself and your stance.

Anyway - welcome to the forum. See you 'round.

QuoteThe lack of skepticism seems to be carried over into other parts of people's lives.

Exactly! For example, my father informed me yesterday that we will be canceling our Sam's Club subscription because he heard from a friend that Walmart supports gays. Turns out his friend learned from one of those "fwd this or else!" emails and I checked on Snopes and it is indeed fake.

So even disregarding his inexcusable bigotry, he doesn't even try to get his facts straight! "Listen and obey, it is the only way. " Indeed.  :(

Anyways, nice to meet you too. It's great to be here.

I believe that religion depends on whether your parents are religious or not. For example: my father is an atheist, my mother an agnostic. I was raised completely neutral, I've never had a single conversation about religion with my parents. They did buy me a children's bible and I have read that book many times with great interest, but I didn't have a clue what exactly it was about. When I was about ten, I discovered that some people believed the stories in that book and I became more interested in god, but finally found everything about religion bs.
If so many children weren't pushed into religion by their parents, I think the biggest part of them would choose to be an atheist, like me. Religion isn't something that 'comes to you', it is part of how you are raised.

Quote from: "TheDutchAthiest"I believe that religion depends on whether your parents are religious or not. For example: my father is an atheist, my mother an agnostic. I was raised completely neutral, I've never had a single conversation about religion with my parents. They did buy me a children's bible and I have read that book many times with great interest, but I didn't have a clue what exactly it was about. When I was about ten, I discovered that some people believed the stories in that book and I became more interested in god, but finally found everything about religion bs.
If so many children weren't pushed into religion by their parents, I think the biggest part of them would choose to be an atheist, like me. Religion isn't something that 'comes to you', it is part of how you are raised.

There may also be a genetic component to being religious, as well. Some people have more of an inclination toward 'religiosity' than others. You're right, a big part of whether someone turns out is based on their environment - or how they were raised. But that wouldn't explain why I'm an atheist, because I was raised hardcore in the church. Maybe there's something more to it... hmmm

I hate when people don't think freely. Most my family don't know I a passionate atheist so they make me go to CCD because if i protested i would be skinned alive (well not that extreme). When i went to CCD this week there was probably over 100 of my classmates and it just was torture watching them accept Christianity like sheep to the slaughter :beer:

QuoteThere comes a time in everyone’s life where they realize that their parents are human, too. They are not perfect, they are not always right, and in fact, whether or not they are smart or good people hasn’t the slightest to do with the fact that they are your parents. They have the same chance of being ignorant or evil as anyone you might meet on the street. It might seem disrespectful to think of your parents in this fashion, but all you’re doing is looking from a broader perspective, viewing your parents as if you were not their child.

But looking at our parents this way is uncomfortable, so why would we do it? In short, we do it because we don’t trust other people like that, so what makes our parents so special? We don’t swallow everything fed to us by others, so why should we make an exception for our parents?

Let’s not limit this to our parents. It applies to all who we have trusted and respected since childhood, anyone who had a hand in our upbringing.

That they've presumably demonstrated a greater concern for your well-being than anyone you might meet on the street makes them special. I'd give their opinions greater weight than those of people on the internet who've never done anything tangible for me.

QuoteLet me elaborate by giving an example.

My younger brother is fifteen years old. He is in the kitchen with my father. My brother mentions something he read earlier that day: “Did you know that the current casualties of the war in Iraq total to 4,145?”

My father, a simple (if somewhat confused) conservative is immediately on the defensive. “I don’t want to hear that mess. You need to show more respect to those men who died for our country. Freedom isn’t free.”

You see, freethinking is discouraged in my household. According to my father, my brother is not entitled to his opinion because having an opinion is disrespectful. Such a liberal viewpoint, in his opinion, is not only incorrect, but immoral. He regularly chastises his son for having an apposing viewpoint. This hurts me because I can see that my brother struggles to think independently in the iron grip of my father’s totalitarian family philosophy. Does he really believe that he has the right to push his beliefs onto his children? Isn’t that, after all, what parents do?

Your father chastises your brother for having an opposing viewpoint. You're chastising your father for having an opposing viewpoint.

QuoteMy father misses my brother’s point completely. This is made evident in his (oh so original) statement, “Freedom isn’t free.” Does he not realize that the case my brother is making is that the war in Iraq is not for freedom?

Can't say based on the little you've provided. Maybe your father would have done better to point out that we spend billions on health care, and that kills 200,000 a year - for more than Iraq.

QuoteThen my father says something else, one of the most disturbing things I’ve ever heard out of his mouth. “Sounds like you need to be readin’ more of the Old Testament.”

Wow.

This appalling statement has even more appalling implications and leads us to the bulk of what I’d like to talk about: our parents’ weird, nonsensical, and narrow minded beliefs that they hand down to us as children when we are too young to give consent or think for ourselves.

Please note: In the following, I refer mainly to the Judeo-Christian Faith because I am familiar with it and because most people I know believe it.

So why do you believe what you believe? You may try to convince me (and yourself) that your parents didn’t cause you to be Christian because they gave you a choice. But did they really? Have they ever entertained the mere possibility that they are wrong and that you have options? Of course not; to do that would be immoral from their point of view. What would your parents think of you if you didn’t share their beliefs? Wouldn’t they do anything to save you from hell? You see, my point is not to expose your parents as ill willed, because their intentions are surely admirable. My point is to help you realize that yes, if it weren’t for your parents, you would not believe the things you believe.
I was born and raised in a Christian family for 20 years. Long before I ever considered the possibility that it was all bullocks, I came to grips with the fact that if I was born into a Catholic or Muslim family, I would share their beliefs instead. You may be snooty and self-righteous enough to say that‘s not true of yourself, but you don’t believe it. Think about it. Your parents greatly affected the way you think; you were taught from an early age not to challenge or question them. When you were the most impressionable, your parents were the one’s making the impressions. Children can not think for themselves, but you are not a child anymore. You owe it to yourself and your children to re-examine the things you believe.

I'm more religious than my parents. Lots of people are. Since this is to be a general letter, you need to rethink this argument.

QuoteI was not only a Christian for twenty years; I was hardcore Christian, passionate about my faith, obsessive about my sin, and wary of the ways of the secular world. If you were to ask me why I believed what I believed, my answer would be as follows, and I’m sure all our answers fall into these categories.

1. Other People â€" Everyone I knew was a Christian, everyone I looked up to, loved and respected. That is a very powerful thing. If everyone I knew believed it, it was virtually impossible for me not to accept it as truth. My parents made sure that I was only around those who shared the faith. If everyone else accepted it, it must be true, right? Who was I to deviate? Yet everyone believing in something does not make it true.

You went from theism to atheism. Lots of people have. You need to rethink this argument.

Quote2. Fear of Hell â€" Fear is a very powerful tool as well. When my logic began to make me question the validity of the bible, the fear of eternal damnation helped me shut those thoughts out.

3. Beauty â€" The world is a beautiful place. For no reason, with no backing, I associated the beauty of the world with the god of the bible. Why would I do that? That the world is beautiful doesn’t prove that Christians are right, because it’s not fair to automatically associate that beauty with your god and claim it as your own.

Good question - why would you do that? You're projecting your own shortcomings and failure as a Christian onto all Christians.

Quote4. Personal Experience â€" My emotions played a huge role in my faith. I believed when I worshiped, I could feel god’s presence. Again, it’s all about unfair association. I was associating those feelings with a god that I was told existed. Feelings that arose from the natural beauty of music, from my friends and family singing along, and from all the emotion in the room. Why do you think we get together to worship? The real question is: do our emotions validate this belief? Euphoric feelings arise from many situations. Can we trust our inconsistent emotions, which we know from science are the result of chemicals in the brain, to guide us spiritually? And if so, who’s to say what religion we associate those emotions with?

Same as above. Some churches rely on emotion, but not all do. If this is to be a general letter, you need to rework this.

QuoteAside from these reasons, which I have just exposed as hollow, there is no basis for believing such nonsense. There is no proof that the bible is accurate. There is no sort of evidence to lead us to that conclusion, just crowds of sincere believers. They all believe because they all believe.

You are your father's son. By proclaiming that there is no rational evidence to be Christian, you shut down the possibility for rational discussion.

Quote from: "Voter"That they've presumably demonstrated a greater concern for your well-being than anyone you might meet on the street makes them special. I'd give their opinions greater weight than those of people on the internet who've never done anything tangible for me.

You're right, and I think that it's healthy to give your parent's opinions some extra thought. I'm sure Dodgecity has done that. Someone who is raised in a Christian home and realizes slowly but surely they don't believe anymore think about these matters obsessively, which is why Dodge wrote the letter in the first place. It's important to remember that it's possible to differ from our parents in matters of faith and still have a healthy relationship.

I love my mother, and she loves me. We have a great relationship. She's an evangelical Christian and I'm an atheist. We're good friends. I'm sure she loves me more than anyone else on earth (probably more than my wife), so I do respect her opinions. But that doesn't mean I have to give them 'more weight' when they're obviously flawed.

Quote from: "Voter"Your father chastises your brother for having an opposing viewpoint. You're chastising your father for having an opposing viewpoint.

I don't think Dodge is 'chastising' her dad by believing differently than him. Chastising involves punishment, or treating someone differently based on their beliefs. That type of behavior is ethically wrong. Christian parents do this to their kids alot, although I realize some are worse than others.

Quote from: "Voter"I'm more religious than my parents. Lots of people are. Since this is to be a general letter, you need to rethink this argument.

You can't argue that environment plays a huge role in influencing what someone will believe. There may be other factors, which explain why you're more religious than your parents, and why I'm less religious than mine. In my opinion those factors are purely genetic in nature.

Quote from: "Voter"Good question - why would you do that? You're projecting your own shortcomings and failure as a Christian onto all Christians.

That's a very caustic and insulting statement to make to someone you don't know. In fact it doesn't make sense in relation to the question, which was:

QuoteFor no reason, with no backing, I associated the beauty of the world with the god of the bible. Why would I do that?

Would you care to further explain your response?

Quote from: "Voter"Some churches rely on emotion, but not all do. If this is to be a general letter, you need to rework this.

Wrong. They all do. Do you think people come to Jesus from reasoning it out? Nope. All evangelical pastors rely on the use of emotional manipulation to get you in and then to get you to tithe. At which point they get you to go out and make disciples. It's really all one big network marketing scheme. Only nobody gets a Ferrari (except Joel Olsteen).  

Quote from: "Voter"By proclaiming that there is no rational evidence to be Christian, you shut down the possibility for rational discussion.

There is no rational evidence for Christianity. If there was we would all be Christians. When it comes to Christianity, there's nothing rational to discuss. All miracle claims and God-men raising from the dead.

Quote from: "Voter"Can't say based on the little you've provided. Maybe your father would have done better to point out that we spend billions on health care, and that kills 200,000 a year - for more than Iraq.

Ha!! A great justification for war. It's safer than the American Healthcare system! Great stuff.

It's really incredible to me that the vast majority of Christians are supporters of war. WWJB? (Who Would Jesus Bomb)

QuoteI don't think Dodge is 'chastising' her dad by believing differently than him. Chastising involves punishment, or treating someone differently based on their beliefs. That type of behavior is ethically wrong. Christian parents do this to their kids alot, although I realize some are worse than others.

Chastise can mean to criticize severely. Severe is a matter of opinion, but there's criticism there.

QuoteThat's a very caustic and insulting statement to make to someone you don't know. In fact it doesn't make sense in relation to the question, which was: For no reason, with no backing, I associated the beauty of the world with the god of the bible. Why would I do that?Would you care to further explain your response?

In general, a primary aim of Christianity is to maintain faith, so someone who becomes an atheist after having passionate faith for twenty years has failed as a Christian.

In particular, he accepted an association without reason or backing. He seems to be admitting this was in error. I'm just agreeing.

QuoteWrong. They all do. Do you think people come to Jesus from reasoning it out? Nope. All evangelical pastors rely on the use of emotional manipulation to get you in and then to get you to tithe. At which point they get you to go out and make disciples. It's really all one big network marketing scheme. Only nobody gets a Ferrari (except Joel Olsteen).

With that definition of evangelical, not all pastors or churches are evangelical. Mine isn't. Reason is emphasized greatly over emotion.

QuoteThere is no rational evidence for Christianity. If there was we would all be Christians.

Incorrect. Evidence is not necessarily conclusive. Testimony in a courtroom is evidence, but all the jurors don't necessarily agree with it.

QuoteWhen it comes to Christianity, there's nothing rational to discuss. All miracle claims and God-men raising from the dead.

Miracle claims can be discussed rationally.

QuoteHa!! A great justification for war. It's safer than the American Healthcare system! Great stuff.

That statistic helps put 4,000 deaths over several years in perspective, at least to rational people.

Quote from: "Voter"Incorrect. Evidence is not necessarily conclusive. Testimony in a courtroom is evidence, but all the jurors don't necessarily agree with it.

There is valid juridical evidence and there is valid scientific evidence. And proving something in the court of science is in some ways way harder that proving something in the court of law.

For instance, a witness observation is often considered strong evidence in court but is very weak evidence (or not evidence at all) in science.

And when it comes to Christianity, there is no scientific backup for its very foundation, and as such it's a shaky construction in the eyes of science at best. Just another weird hypothesis.

Thanks to myleviathan for pointing out some huge flaws in this guy's "critique". I was going to take care of it tonight but he beat me to it in a very polite and witty manner.

I'd like to point out some other things Voter seems to have misunderstood.

QuoteI'd give their opinions greater weight than those of people on the internet who've never done anything tangible for me.

First of all, it's made evident by this statement that you have never met an atheist in real life. For that, I am very sorry. I remember what it was like, and I could never had stepped out of my comfort zone if someone hadn't challenged my assumptions about god. I will always be thankful for that, and I hope one day that you can experience it as well. I would say that I could try to be that person for you, but you obviously don't take "people on the internet" very seriously, which isn't really fair, considering that we're all real people who just happen to be communicating in this means.

But there's something else in this statement that bothers me. My parents are very special to me. I didn't say they weren't. But why should their opinions be special? Their concern for my well being is not related in any way to the validity of their opinions about life. I don't really see how you can refute that.

There is something else you took the wrong way, and this is important.

QuoteI'd give their opinions greater weight than those of people on the internet.

It's not about weighing opinions of different people. Don't you see that? It's about evidence. It's about reason.

I didn't mean to imply that listening to parents is a bad thing. After all, we all learn from our parents, it's imperative for survival. They teach us many important things, like don't touch the stove burner, don't cross the street without looking both ways, treat other people as you would like to be treated, etc.

It's just that when we grow up, we examine those things and realize why we were taught them. I was taught not to touch the stove burner because the high temperature will burn me. I do not blindly cross the street because the chances of me being run over are very high. I treat other people as I would like to be treated because I realize that they are just like me and I want them to do the same, so we can all live together in harmony.

But if you examine why your parents taught you a particular religion, you realize the reason is simply this: their parents taught them. And that, my friend, is not enough. So you have to look for your own reasons.

QuoteYou're chastising your father for having an opposing viewpoint.

Alright, when you say something like this, it makes me think that you're arguing for the sake of arguing. I am upset (not even close to chastising) because my father chastises my brother. I am not upset because of his viewpoint. I made this perfectly clear.

QuoteLots of people are.

Not really. It's hard to dispute the word, "lots" because it's very vague. but if you said "most", you'd be dead wrong. Most people follow the religion of their parents; this is a fact, unlike your ambiguous, anecdotal statement. Why do you think that is?

http://www.wadsworth.com/religion_d/special_features/popups/maps/matthews_world/images/w001.jpg

QuoteYou went from theism to atheism. Lots of people have. You need to rethink this argument.

I haven't a clue as to what you're trying to say here. What does that have to do with what you quoted?

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

They are shortcomings indeed, and I am very ashamed of them. But your are completely wrong to say they are unique to me. You would list Hell as a good reason to accept Jesus, would you not? (That's not a rhetorical question, so answer it.) You would associate the beauty of the world with the God of the Bible, would you not? These are all things that Christians do. How exactly are you telling me that they're shortcomings?

QuoteSome churches rely on emotion, but not all do.

Are you saying that you you've never felt God's presence? I'm not trying to be facetious, I'm really not, but you have to admit you're contradicting yourself. I never said that churches rely on emotion. I said I was affected by emotion! Are you not affected by emotion? Are you saying that has nothing to do with your belief? I'm honestly confused.

QuoteYou are your father's son.

You are obviously just trying to hit a nerve here, and i find it uncivil, not to mention very un-Christlike! You're saying that I'm just like my father? Your reasons behind this:

QuoteBy proclaiming that there is no rational evidence to be Christian, you shut down the possibility for rational discussion.

I am suggesting that there is no rational evidence(because I have looked my whole life)and if you'd like to refute that, by all means, you have my full attention.

Quote from: "Voter"Chastise can mean to criticize severely. Severe is a matter of opinion, but there's criticism there.

It could, but dodge said 'chastise', not criticize. Obviously it's more than mere criticism or she would have used that word. She has described the home environment as 'totalitarian'. I have a feeling chastisement does not stop at criticism.

Quote from: "Voter"In general, a primary aim of Christianity is to maintain faith, so someone who becomes an atheist after having passionate faith for twenty years has failed as a Christian.

It makes you sound mean and low to talk so bluntly of a failure, whatever it's nature. If your version of God does exist don't you think it's His job to judge failure? You can't throw failure into anybody's face lightly.

Quote from: "Voter"In particular, he accepted an association without reason or backing. He seems to be admitting this was in error. I'm just agreeing.

I see. Like you have more support for your faith than any of us former Christians did? Bull. Your faith just requires less.

Quote from: "Voter"With that definition of evangelical, not all pastors or churches are evangelical. Mine isn't. Reason is emphasized greatly over emotion.

Are you a seven day adventist by any chance? You smell like one. Reason may be greatly emphasized over emotion, but emotion is still an extremely important component of faith accross the board. Themes like sacrifice, love, hope, are all important to all denominations of Christianity, and they are all very emotionally stimulating. All church leaders worth their salt know how to tweak your emotional brain.

Quote from: "Voter"

QuoteThere is no rational evidence for Christianity. If there was we would all be Christians.

Incorrect. Evidence is not necessarily conclusive. Testimony in a courtroom is evidence, but all the jurors don't necessarily agree with it.

That's because it's all second-hand evidence. The evidence for the existence of Christ is much worse than evidence second-hand, because it's removed by a couple thousand years. At least courtroom testimony is fresh. It's interesting you compare evidence for Christianity and courtroom evidence, considering lawers are expert in knowing how to emotionally manipulate the jury. The clergy does the same thing.

Quote from: "Voter"Miracle claims can be discussed rationally.

Sure they can, but the claims themselves are not rational in any way shape or form.

Quote from: "Voter"

QuoteHa!! A great justification for war. It's safer than the American Healthcare system! Great stuff.

That statistic helps put 4,000 deaths over several years in perspective, at least to rational people.

By rational people do you mean people who jump in the name of Jesus anytime a republican cries war? You're comparing the death rate for an entire nation to the death rate of one military campaign. That's a priest-craft perspective for you. Besides, there have obviously been far more deaths than 4,000. That's just American soldiers. What a senseless loss for all.

This is why I think that children (no matter their parents belief is) should be taught about all religions.Even though I am an atheist,I believe that my thoughts should not be forced upon my children.I want them to think about what is best for them.If when they are older and tell me they believe in a christian god,then I will make sure they know about the good and bad.But it's not my choice it's theirs.

If only people would see that murder is murder even in the name of a God.I think you are doing a good thing for your brother.It's a shame that parents tell their children to be good just because God is watching.

Quote from: "Asmodean"

Quote from: "Voter"Incorrect. Evidence is not necessarily conclusive. Testimony in a courtroom is evidence, but all the jurors don't necessarily agree with it.

There is valid juridical evidence and there is valid scientific evidence. And proving something in the court of science is in some ways way harder that proving something in the court of law.

For instance, a witness observation is often considered strong evidence in court but is very weak evidence (or not evidence at all) in science.

And when it comes to Christianity, there is no scientific backup for its very foundation, and as such it's a shaky construction in the eyes of science at best. Just another weird hypothesis.

Seeing as religion is generally not discussed in the court of science, whatever that is, I don't get your point.

Quote from: "Voter"Seeing as religion is generally not discussed in the court of science, whatever that is, I don't get your point.

Here, "court of science" refers to scientific acknowledgement of a valid theory or a valid fact. The very basis of religion is neither. It is, at best, a weak hypothesis. No matter how much you discuss it, it remains exactly that. So why bother discussing it then? Bring home some evidence, then we'll talk.

QuoteFirst of all, it's made evident by this statement that you have never met an atheist in real life. For that, I am very sorry. I remember what it was like, and I could never had stepped out of my comfort zone if someone hadn't challenged my assumptions about god. I will always be thankful for that, and I hope one day that you can experience it as well. I would say that I could try to be that person for you, but you obviously don't take "people on the internet" very seriously, which isn't really fair, considering that we're all real people who just happen to be communicating in this means.

Yes, I've met a real live atheist. I had a poli sci profesoor who was a liberal atheist. We used to go to a bar after class.

QuoteBut there's something else in this statement that bothers me. My parents are very special to me. I didn't say they weren't. But why should their opinions be special? Their concern for my well being is not related in any way to the validity of their opinions about life. I don't really see how you can refute that.

One factor to consider in evaluating conflicting views is the motivation of the people giving those views. It's not the only factor, but it's certainly relevant.

QuoteIt's not about weighing opinions of different people. Don't you see that? It's about evidence. It's about reason.

No, I don't see that from your letter, which goes further into your personal story than into evidence.

QuoteBut if you examine why your parents taught you a particular religion, you realize the reason is simply this: their parents taught them. And that, my friend, is not enough. So you have to look for your own reasons.

I teach my children my religion because I've spent a lot of time contemplating life and have concluded my religion is true, and offers both temporal and eternal benefits.

QuoteAlright, when you say something like this, it makes me think that you're arguing for the sake of arguing. I am upset (not even close to chastising) because my father chastises my brother. I am not upset because of his viewpoint. I made this perfectly clear.

You seem upset with his viewpoint that he has the right to push his beliefs onto his children.

QuoteNot really. It's hard to dispute the word, "lots" because it's very vague. but if you said "most", you'd be dead wrong. Most people follow the religion of their parents; this is a fact, unlike your ambiguous, anecdotal statement.

Who's more likely to see your letter - people who are more religious than their parents, or people who are just following what their parents did? The latter may be greater in number, but they generally don't go to religion or atheism forums.

QuoteI haven't a clue as to what you're trying to say here. What does that have to do with what you quoted?

The fact that you changed your view indicates that it was not "virtually impossible" to do so.

QuoteThey are shortcomings indeed, and I am very ashamed of them. But your are completely wrong to say they are unique to me.

I didn't say that. These things are common in my experience.

QuoteYou would list Hell as a good reason to accept Jesus, would you not? (That's not a rhetorical question, so answer it.)

Sure.

QuoteYou would associate the beauty of the world with the God of the Bible, would you not? These are all things that Christians do. How exactly are you telling me that they're shortcomings?

It's a shortcoming that you did so automatically, without reason. Now, not all are called to have reason along with faith, and obviously reason cannot be complete, else there is no faith. But in your case, you apparently needed to search out reasons for your faith.

QuoteAre you saying that you you've never felt God's presence? I'm not trying to be facetious, I'm really not, but you have to admit you're contradicting yourself. I never said that churches rely on emotion. I said I was affected by emotion! Are you not affected by emotion? Are you saying that has nothing to do with your belief? I'm honestly confused.

I read that paragraph as an argument that churches rely on emotion to get and keep people. If that's not what you meant, I missed your point.

QuoteYou are obviously just trying to hit a nerve here, and i find it uncivil, not to mention very un-Christlike!

If you never saw Christ hit a nerve, you didn't read your Bible nearly enough.

QuoteI am suggesting that there is no rational evidence(because I have looked my whole life)and if you'd like to refute that, by all means, you have my full attention.

For existence of a god in general, creation and design are evidence. For the Christian God, the Bible is evidence. Note that something doesn't need to be irrefutable in order to be evidence. People can reasonably disagree in their conclusions from the evidence.

Quote from: "Asmodean"

Quote from: "Voter"Seeing as religion is generally not discussed in the court of science, whatever that is, I don't get your point.

Here, "court of science" refers to scientific acknowledgement of a valid theory or a valid fact. The very basis of religion is neither. It is, at best, a weak hypothesis. No matter how much you discuss it, it remains exactly that. So why bother discussing it then? Bring home some evidence, then we'll talk.

Most people discuss lots of things that have nothing to do with science.

QuoteIt could, but dodge said 'chastise', not criticize. Obviously it's more than mere criticism or she would have used that word. She has described the home environment as 'totalitarian'. I have a feeling chastisement does not stop at criticism.

Again, severe criticism is a dictionary definition of chastisement.

QuoteIt makes you sound mean and low to talk so bluntly of a failure, whatever it's nature. If your version of God does exist don't you think it's His job to judge failure? You can't throw failure into anybody's face lightly.

OK, I'm throwing it seriously in his face. Maintaining faith for life is a primary goal of Christianity. He did not maintain that faith. Therefore he failed as a Christian. He should probably mature as an atheist before attempting to write general letters supporting it.

QuoteI see. Like you have more support for your faith than any of us former Christians did? Bull. Your faith just requires less.

Can't argue with your omniscience.

QuoteAre you a seven day adventist by any chance? You smell like one.

No.

QuoteReason may be greatly emphasized over emotion, but emotion is still an extremely important component of faith accross the board. Themes like sacrifice, love, hope, are all important to all denominations of Christianity, and they are all very emotionally stimulating. All church leaders worth their salt know how to tweak your emotional brain.

I think most atheists also accept themes like sacrifice, love and hope, and a secular leader worth his salt knows how to use these themes for emotional effect. Such themes are an important component of humanity across the board.

QuoteThat's because it's all second-hand evidence. The evidence for the existence of Christ is much worse than evidence second-hand, because it's removed by a couple thousand years. At least courtroom testimony is fresh. It's interesting you compare evidence for Christianity and courtroom evidence, considering lawers are expert in knowing how to emotionally manipulate the jury. The clergy does the same thing.

OK, we agree that the Bible is evidence.

QuoteSure they can, but the claims themselves are not rational in any way shape or form.

Extraordinary claims (God spoke to me) require extraordinary evidence (miracles).

QuoteBy rational people do you mean people who jump in the name of Jesus anytime a republican cries war? You're comparing the death rate for an entire nation to the death rate of one military campaign. That's a priest-craft perspective for you. Besides, there have obviously been far more deaths than 4,000. That's just American soldiers. What a senseless loss for all.

Yes, I'm making that comparison, and the number of deaths in the military campaign is insignificant compared to the number caused by our healthcare system. Far more good would be done if the evening news focused on deaths by medicine than deaths in Iraq. War deaths apparently have a greater emotional impact on you than iatrogenic deaths.

Quote from: "Voter"Most people discuss lots of things that have nothing to do with science.

Ah, but that's not the point, now is it?

I can discuss something as a scientist or as a guy next door. As the scientist, I would have to demand proof to substantiate a theory or a fact. As the guy next door, I can spin all kinds of wild tales with no regard to proof.

Sure, we can discuss religion on many levels. But when it comes to its foundation (the existence of gods), there really is nothing to discuss until some form of good evidence is presented. Thus, such a conversation usually takes the following form:

someone: There is a God!

me: Prove it.

someone:I have seen it/felt its presense (Or they just say: "Prove that there isn't")

me: Laugh

Quote from: "Asmodean"

Quote from: "Voter"Most people discuss lots of things that have nothing to do with science.

Ah, but that's not the point, now is it?

Yes, it is. Your premise seems to be that if something can't be discussed on a scientific level, it's not worth discussing. The fact that most conversations take place on other than a scientific level shows that most people disagree with you. This discussion on discussions is an example. You haven't presented scientific evidence to support your case.

QuoteI can discuss something as a scientist or as a guy next door. As the scientist, I would have to demand proof to substantiate a theory or a fact. As the guy next door, I can spin all kinds of wild tales with no regard to proof.

Do you have scientific evidence that the typical next door neighbor will accept all kinds of wild tales as true without regard to proof? If not, this is one of those tales, and the neighbors aren't buying it.

QuoteSure, we can discuss religion on many levels. But when it comes to its foundation (the existence of gods), there really is nothing to discuss until some form of good evidence is presented.

Why should I accept your unilateral declaration that only scientific evidence is "good" evidence? Looks like another wild tale.

Quote from: "Voter"Why should I accept your unilateral declaration that only scientific evidence is "good" evidence? Looks like another wild tale.

For me, in the scope of the bigger picture, you must provide scientific proof if you are making a declaration upon which you want to pass laws.  I can easily say that Mithras is dismayed when people have too many kids and will send to a hellish death anyone who has more than 2 kids.  Because I want to protect the immortal souls of everyone on earth, I say we should pass a global law banning people from having more than 2 kids.  Even though your having 3 kids does no harm to me whatsoever, I want that law passed because Mithras can't be wrong.  He's a god, it's in a book, that's proof enough, right?  Wouldn't you want scientific proof that this god exists and that he did say that before making that kind of unilateral law?

That premise sounds as ludicrous to me as banning gay marriage.  I want scientific proof that your god exists because there is no reason to ban gay marriage other than one based on the Christian bible wherein it states that god doesn't care for homosexuality (or homosexual sex, however you view it).

Claim: There is/is not a God.
Style: Quantitative/Binary
Question: What is the state of something?
Realm: Science, as it is a provable or disprovable fact.

Claim: God loves us/God created us in its image/etc.
Style: Qualitative/Descriptive
Question: What is the driving force behind an action?
Realm: Philosophy or other non-scientific area as it argues motivation or another unprovable (assumptive) situation.

The realm of science has provided us with innumerable advances for the well-being of humanity. The realm of philosophy (or theology, for that matter) has provided us with advances in how to think about being human, but doesn't provide an ounce of food.

Which is more important?

Quote from: "Voter"Yes, it is. Your premise seems to be that if something can't be discussed on a scientific level, it's not worth discussing.

Never said that.

Quote from: "Voter"The fact that most conversations take place on other than a scientific level shows that most people disagree with you. This discussion on discussions is an example. You haven't presented scientific evidence to support your case.

That's because it's not my cause we are discussing here

Quote from: "Voter"Do you have scientific evidence that the typical next door neighbor will accept all kinds of wild tales as true without regard to proof? If not, this is one of those tales, and the neighbors aren't buying it.

Where did I say or imply ANYTHING about truth? Please give me the exact quote.

...No? Now stop reading between my lines. There is NOTHING there when I'm talking to religious types.

Quote from: "Voter"Why should I accept your unilateral declaration that only scientific evidence is "good" evidence? Looks like another wild tale.

Only scientific evidence is any good for science. It also, slowly but surely, comes to dominate the court of law. Why? Because of its quality. Why should YOU accept it? Because of it's quality. But you probably never will so this is pointless. Besides that, read rlrose328's post above.

QuoteVoter wrote:
Yes, it is. Your premise seems to be that if something can't be discussed on a scientific level, it's not worth discussing.

Never said that.

So what did you mean by:

"Here, "court of science" refers to scientific acknowledgement of a valid theory or a valid fact. The very basis of religion is neither. It is, at best, a weak hypothesis. No matter how much you discuss it, it remains exactly that. So why bother discussing it then? Bring home some evidence, then we'll talk."

Quote from: "Voter""Here, "court of science" refers to scientific acknowledgement of a valid theory or a valid fact. The very basis of religion is neither. It is, at best, a weak hypothesis. No matter how much you discuss it, it remains exactly that. So why bother discussing it then? Bring home some evidence, then we'll talk."

You religious types DO excel at putting things between the lines that were never there...  

I was talking about the "court of science", which I defined for you. There is no scientific basis for a scientific discussion regarding the existence of gods and thus it's not worth discussing in scientific circles.

Oh, and in the future, before complaining, read my entire reply to a particular point, will you? Even the last sentence

QuoteThere is no scientific basis for a scientific discussion regarding the existence of gods and thus it's not worth discussing in scientific circles.

Uh, OK. Not sure why you'd bring that up in a discussion about an open letter to theists, and frankly this sounds like you just can't admit you're wrong, but whatever.

Quote from: "Voter"Uh, OK. Not sure why you'd bring that up in a discussion about an open letter to theists,

Quote from: "Voter"

QuoteThere is no rational evidence for Christianity. If there was we would all be Christians.

Incorrect. Evidence is not necessarily conclusive. Testimony in a courtroom is evidence, but all the jurors don't necessarily agree with it.

In response to your reply here.

Quote from: "Voter"and frankly this sounds like you just can't admit you're wrong, but whatever.

I'm not that thick-headed. When it's clear that I'm wrong, I admit it. Now where exactly did I make an error in out little conversation?

In your own words - why bother discussing it?

Well, Voter, thanks for clearing those things up. I have to remind myself that the purpose of this thread is not to prove you wrong, it's to improve upon my earnest letter by seeing how a Christian responds to it.

So let's have a look at how Voter responded:

#1 - He argues that your parents are more likely to be correct simply because they're your parents. [spoiler:11dashr4]

QuoteThat they've presumably demonstrated a greater concern for your well-being than anyone you might meet on the street makes them special. I'd give their opinions greater weight than those of people on the internet who've never done anything tangible for me.

[/spoiler:11dashr4]
#2 - He attacks me for wanting to have my own opinions and wanting my brother to have his own as well. [spoiler:11dashr4]

QuoteYour father chastises your brother for having an opposing viewpoint. You're chastising your father for having an opposing viewpoint.

[/spoiler:11dashr4]
#3 - He feels the need to prove that the Iraq war is justified. (which is not the point of the letter at all, just an example of an opinion my brother is not allowed to have) [spoiler:11dashr4]

QuoteCan't say based on the little you've provided. Maybe your father would have done better to point out that we spend billions on health care, and that kills 200,000 a year - for more than Iraq.

[/spoiler:11dashr4]
#4 - He claims that he is more religious than his parents.(which is one of the snootiest and judgmental things a christian could ever say) In other words, each christian that reads this letter is going to try his best to prove that the themes do not apply to him.[spoiler:11dashr4]

QuoteI'm more religious than my parents. Lots of people are.

[/spoiler:11dashr4]
#5 - He claims that I am just not as good of a Christian as he is, and that is the source of the problem. [spoiler:11dashr4]

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

[/spoiler:11dashr4]
#6 - He claims that he is not religiously influenced by his emotions (and therefore the letter does not apply to him)
[spoiler:11dashr4]

QuoteSame as above. Some churches rely on emotion, but not all do.

[/spoiler:11dashr4]
#7 - He plays the insult card so he doesn't have to take me seriously, and then claims that Jesus would do the same. [spoiler:11dashr4]

QuoteYou are your father's son. By proclaiming that there is no rational evidence to be Christian, you shut down the possibility for rational discussion.

[/spoiler:11dashr4]


I will try to revise the letter so that these defense mechanisms will be more difficult to resort to.

Quote from: "Voter"In your own words - why bother discussing it?

"It" in this case being..? Christianity? No real point in discussing it beyond the entertainment value of such discussion.

OK, I see from your last post that you're not taking this letter thing seriously. Since that's off the table, my reaction to the OP would be:

Child has strict father. Child reaches young adulthood, adopts opposite worldview of father, feels an exciting rush of freedom, wants to tell others about his discoveries. Happened a million times, nothing new to discuss.

Ok, it's not like I wasn't expecting this reaction. But does that mean I should be less personal when conversing with a believer? I mean, I want to show my brother how alike we really are. I don't think he will respond like Voter, but maybe part of him will. It's not that I'm afraid of the prospect of him disagreeing with me. It's just...I don't want him to shut me out like Voter has.

I mean, as powerful and sly as religion is, I guess there's part of me, deep down, that believes smart people, viewing the evidence, can change their minds. I did, and I'm nothing special. It's just overwhelming, how can you not? If I could have a nickel for every time I asked someone that question.  

QuoteChild has strict father. Child reaches young adulthood, adopts opposite worldview of father, feels an exciting rush of freedom, wants to tell others about his discoveries. Happened a million times, nothing new to discuss.

Child has father. Child can't think for himself and conclude from the overwhelming evidence that the bible can't be accurate, so he keeps believing, and fights to the teeth while never even considering that it may not be the inerrant word of god. Happened a million times.The point is, I can't let my brother be one million and one.

Quote from: "dodgecity"Ok, it's not like I wasn't expecting this reaction. But does that mean I should be less personal when conversing with a believer? I mean, I want to show my brother how alike we really are. I don't think he will respond like Voter, but maybe part of him will. It's not that I'm afraid of the prospect of him disagreeing with me. It's just...I don't want him to shut me out like Voter has.

I think that sharing some personal information is very helpful to the conversation when talking to a believer. But don't get offended when they reject your arguments even though you've put your whole heart into a discussion. Voter is great practice (thanks, Voter). This is a very typical discussion with a Christian.

However he's more of a tool than others I've talked to. It would be a nice discussion without the personal attacks he's throwing at you.

Quote from: "dodgecity"Ok, it's not like I wasn't expecting this reaction. But does that mean I should be less personal when conversing with a believer? I mean, I want to show my brother how alike we really are. I don't think he will respond like Voter, but maybe part of him will. It's not that I'm afraid of the prospect of him disagreeing with me. It's just...I don't want him to shut me out like Voter has.

I mean, as powerful and sly as religion is, I guess there's part of me, deep down, that believes smart people, viewing the evidence, can change their minds. I did, and I'm nothing special. It's just overwhelming, how can you not? If I could have a nickel for every time I asked someone that question.

What evidence did you view? You admittedly believed without reason. Upon questioning, did you:

- read a study Bible all the way through and follow the cross-references?
- read a systematic theology, for instance Hodge's?
- read apologetics from the church fathers?
- read modern apologetics, for instance Lewis?
- read the Catholic encyclopedia?

For centuries, really smart people have been making really smart arguments both for and against Christianity. Did you try to find and understand support for the Christian faith? I don't say this to be insulting or combative, but it really seems as though you traded one set of emotional beliefs for another.

QuoteChild has strict father. Child reaches young adulthood, adopts opposite worldview of father, feels an exciting rush of freedom, wants to tell others about his discoveries. Happened a million times, nothing new to discuss.

Child has father. Child can't think for himself and conclude from the overwhelming evidence that the bible can't be accurate, so he keeps believing, and fights to the teeth while never even considering that it may not be the inerrant word of god. Happened a million times.The point is, I can't let my brother be one million and one.[/quote]
Why not?

Surveys show that religious people tend to be happier than nonreligious. Based on the Iraq thing I take it that this may also be a conservative/liberal issue. Conservatives report greater happiness and mental health than liberals, and give more time, money and literally blood to others. What are you trying to save him from? Or is this really an attempt to validate your own change of heart?

Quote from: "Voter"Surveys show that religious people tend to be happier than nonreligious. Based on the Iraq thing I take it that this may also be a conservative/liberal issue. Conservatives report greater happiness and mental health than liberals, and give more time, money and literally blood to others. What are you trying to save him from? Or is this really an attempt to validate your own change of heart?

I'm curious as to what surveys you're talking about for that giving more time, money and blood thing.

I agree that religious people tend to be happier and have less mental health issues than the nonreligious.  The religious have God to whom they can turn with all of their troubles, telling him and having him shoulder the burden for you.  I don't have that luxury.  I have to shoulder my burdens on my own, with the help of my spouse and a few of my friends.  If I feel like I'm going crazy, I can't just ask some invisible friend to give me strength... I have to make a call and find someone I have to pay to listen to me and give me advice.

I'm okay with these choices.  For me, they are the only choices I have because the thought of sitting here, talking to myself when I have a problem (my interpretation of praying) seems ludicrous to me.  I act, I don't talk silently to myself.  And because I have to act on all of my problems, I tend to be a little high-strung at times.

I know many religious folks who talk about how much they give... but I see very little giving going on.  

So please, cite some actual studies that have been done... provide links, etc., on donations and charity and giving blood.  I can see how you'd find more stats of religious people doing the charity thing because there are so many more churches for religious folk than non-religious folk... they've cornered the market on charity.  But there are plenty of secular charities in the world who are on top of things as well.

ADDED:
Okay, I found a book by Arthur C. Brooks from 2006 (http://magicstatistics.com/2006/11/17/religious-conservatives-donate-far-more-than-secular-liberals/) which states that conservatives give more than liberals in terms of donations and blood.  

Here is some food for thought on that book. (http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/archives/2006/12/conservatives_a.html)

Quote1. These findings are interesting partly because they don't fit into any simple story: conservatives are more generous, and upper-income people are more conservative [typo fixed; thanks, Dan], but upper-income people give less than lower-income people. Such a pattern is certainly possible--in statistical terms, corr(X,Y)>0, corr(Y,Z)>0, but corr(X,Z)<0)--but it's interesting.

2. Since conservatives are (on average) richer than liberals, I'd like to see the comparison of conservative and liberal donations made as a proportion of income rather than in total dollars.

3. I wonder how the blood donation thing was calculated. Liberals are only 25% of the population, so it's hard to imagine that increasing their blood donations could increase the total blood supply by 45%.

4. The religious angle is interesting too. I'd like to look at how that interacts with religion and ideology.

5. It would also be interesting to see giving as a function of total assets. Income can fluctuate, and you might expect (or hope) that people with more assets would give more.

I picked those up in a recent article on morality in conservatives and liberals. Actually it's in the responses to that article (http://www.edge.org/discourse/vote_morality.html). Scroll down to the section by Michael Shermer, publisher of Skeptic magazine.

Further, according to the National Opinion Research Center's General Social Surveys, 1972-2004, 44 percent of people who reported being "conservative" or "very conservative" said they were "very happy" versus only 25 percent of people who reported being "liberal" or "very liberal." A 2007 Gallup poll found that 58 percent of Republicans versus only 38 percent of Democrats said that their mental heath is "excellent." One reason may be that conservatives are so much more generous than liberals, giving 30 percent more money (even when controlled for income), donating more blood, and logging more volunteer hours. And it isn't because conservatives have more expendable income. The working poor give a substantially higher percentage of their incomes to charity than any other income group, and three times more than those on public assistance of comparable incomeâ€"poverty is not a barrier to charity, but welfare is. One explanation for these findings is that conservatives believe charity should be private (through religion) whereas liberals believe charity should be public (through government).

Here's another (http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdateNarrow&BarnaUpdateID=272)

One of the most significant differences between active-faith and no-faith Americans is the cultural disengagement and sense of independence exhibited by atheists and agnostics in many areas of life. They are less likely than active-faith Americans to be registered to vote (78% versus 89%), to volunteer to help a non-church-related non-profit (20% versus 30%), to describe themselves as "active in the community" (41% versus 68%), and to personally help or serve a homeless or poor person (41% versus 61%). They are also more likely to be registered to vote as an independent or with a non-mainstream political party.

One of the outcomes of this profile - and one of the least favorable points of comparison for atheist and agnostic adults - is the paltry amount of money they donate to charitable causes. The typical no-faith American donated just $200 in 2006, which is more than seven times less than the amount contributed by the prototypical active-faith adult ($1500). Even when church-based giving is subtracted from the equation, active-faith adults donated twice as many dollars last year as did atheists and agnostics. In fact, while just 7% of active-faith adults failed to contribute any personal funds in 2006, that compares with 22% among the no-faith adults.

Quote from: "Voter"Again, severe criticism is a dictionary definition of chastisement.

Let's focus on the intention of the author, not a line in a dictionary.

Quote from: "Voter"OK, I'm throwing it seriously in his face. Maintaining faith for life is a primary goal of Christianity. He did not maintain that faith. Therefore he failed as a Christian. He should probably mature as an atheist before attempting to write general letters supporting it.

Listen to yourself, Voter. You admit to throwing failure into the face of another human being. If you don't see the error in that, then there is seriously something wrong with you. Sounds to me like you have a self-esteem issue.

Quote from: "Voter"I Can't argue with your omniscience.

I admire your avoidance techniques.

Quote from: "Voter"I think most atheists also accept themes like sacrifice, love and hope, and a secular leader worth his salt knows how to use these themes for emotional effect. Such themes are an important component of humanity across the board.

We're all human, of course - thanks for pointing that out. But you can't have faith without emotion. If you had evidence that God existed, you could make an empirical, emotionless decision that God exists. You woudn't need faith. So let's get one thing straight. No one believes in Christ based on hard, sober evidence. You can attempt to apply logic to faith once the decision for faith has been made, as in the case of apologetics, but (I'll repeat) No one believes in Christ based on hard, sober evidence. A decision for faith is ALWAYS an emotional decision because faith requires emotion.

When did you decide you would follow Christ, Voter? Tell us about it.

Quote from: "Voter"OK, we agree that the Bible is evidence.

Sure, for some the Bible is sufficient evidence for faith. Others are more discriminating, though. The quality of evidence should be taken into account before deciding whether or not you can believe that God ghost impregnated a woman. The Council of Nicea back in the 4th century wasn't sure which books to canonize, only that Constantine wouldn't let anybody leave until they had decided. The clergy was under threat of a Roman Emperor. If the Council of Nicea was necessary for 4th century clergy to vote on which books might be authentic (since redaction was so common), the likelihood of those books being trustworthy as evidence of miraculous claims is no stronger than the likelihood of other books having similar miracle claims. Most people never take all of that into account while making a 'decision for Christ'. They don't have the capability or the desire to do so. They just want to be accepted and loved.

Quote from: "Voter"Extraordinary claims (God spoke to me) require extraordinary evidence (miracles).

A rational person doesn't consider miracles as valid evidence when they're written in a 2,000 year old book. Especially when, almost too conveniently, none happen today (which contradicts Jesus' claim that greater miracles would be produced by His followers). Again, rational people are a little more discriminating in what may be accepted as evidence.

Quote from: "Voter"Yes, I'm making that comparison, and the number of deaths in the military campaign is insignificant compared to the number caused by our healthcare system. Far more good would be done if the evening news focused on deaths by medicine than deaths in Iraq. War deaths apparently have a greater emotional impact on you than iatrogenic deaths.

No death is insignificant, Voter. Why do theists view life so cheaply?

And by the way, iatrogenic deaths have a great emotional impact on me. My grandfather died because of a hospital mistake. But it was an accident. Nobody intended to kill my grandfather. That's the risk of surgery. But intentional killing is different. Why don't you understand that? How can you justify the number war deaths with the number of hospital deaths?

I've been thinking a great deal about this charity issue.  I know that I donate blood, as to several of my non-theist friends.  We have also donated many many hours of time to charities, mostly with the aged and young who are chronically ill.  So it's hard to not take that type of thing personally.

When I think back several years, I can think of a few reasons I didn't get involved sooner.  I wanted to donate money and time, but no matter where I looked, all I found was religious organizations.  While I did donate to them via the United Way through my job, I wanted to find a secular organization that I felt would disseminate the money, goods, and services more fairly and NOT require the recipients to participate in some sort of faith-based program.

Now, several years later, there are secular organizations in which I can become involved.  I don't trust faith-based charities because so many have been shown to require the recipients to attend services or change their life in some way in order to receive the funds or goods.  I disagree with that.

This leads me to wonder how many non-believers are out there that are in the same boat... wanting to participate but having a hard time finding a secular cause with which to become involved because any that are secular or atheistic are less vocal about their fundraising.

The group of atheists with whom I socialize are all very socially active... so I wonder where they are getting their statistics.

I don't really get the health argument and what that has to to with the war in Iraq? Doctors are there to save people's lives isn't it? Without health care thousands of additional people would die. Are you willing to  remove health care from public life? and by doing that go back to Middle Ages' standards, where ever illness is a punishment from God and treated as such (by driving out the evil spirit or other superstitious nonsenses). Would you ask a priest to sacrifice some animals for you to cure you the "Bible way" in case you get sick, or would you go to your doctor for help?.

Quote from: "Tom62"Would you ask a priest to sacrifice some animals for you to cure you the "Bible way" in case you get sick, or would you go to your doctor for help?.

...And if you had a bad case of bacterial meningitis, would The Healerâ,,¢ have even a remote chance of success or would you just not wake up one morning? ... My bet is on the coffin.

Quote from: "myleviathan"Let's focus on the intention of the author, not a line in a dictionary.

What has the author said that indicates the father has gone beyond the verbal in his chastisement?

Quote from: "Voter"Listen to yourself, Voter. You admit to throwing failure into the face of another human being. If you don't see the error in that, then there is seriously something wrong with you.

Instead of "throwing failure into the face," which IIRC was your spin on it to make VOter look like a big ol' meany, call it introducing cognitive dissonance in order to get him to examine himself. Call it an intervention. People are forced to face their failures all the time, and mature people come out better for it.

When evaluating people as political candidates, job or loan applicants, business partners, etc, rational people consider their past failures. Dodge has recently failed at one philosophy and is admittedly in a passionate phase about the next. There's nothing wrong with pointing out that, "Hey, you were just as passionate about Christianity, and now think it's false. Maybe you should let the passions cool and do more research before preaching atheism to your brother and others."

QuoteSounds to me like you have a self-esteem issue.

OK Dr. Phil.

QuoteWe're all human, of course - thanks for pointing that out. But you can't have faith without emotion. If you had evidence that God existed, you could make an empirical, emotionless decision that God exists. You woudn't need faith. So let's get one thing straight. No one believes in Christ based on hard, sober evidence. You can attempt to apply logic to faith once the decision for faith has been made, as in the case of apologetics, but (I'll repeat) No one believes in Christ based on hard, sober evidence. A decision for faith is ALWAYS an emotional decision because faith requires emotion.

When did you decide you would follow Christ, Voter? Tell us about it.

No one is a strong atheist based on hard, sober, empirical evidence. The author is admittedly passionately atheist, and it's not reading too much in to suggest that the emotions of the family dynamics may have played a role in the rejection of the father's belief system.

QuoteSure, for some the Bible is sufficient evidence for faith. Others are more discriminating, though. The quality of evidence should be taken into account before deciding whether or not you can believe that God ghost impregnated a woman.

Lots of people find the quality of evidence sufficient.

QuoteThe Council of Nicea back in the 4th century wasn't sure which books to canonize, only that Constantine wouldn't let anybody leave until they had decided. The clergy was under threat of a Roman Emperor. If the Council of Nicea was necessary for 4th century clergy to vote on which books might be authentic (since redaction was so common), the likelihood of those books being trustworthy as evidence of miraculous claims is no stronger than the likelihood of other books having similar miracle claims.

Are you claiming that they just agreed to vote for a random collection in order to be released from the council without debate on the merits? Can you support that claim?

QuoteA rational person doesn't consider miracles as valid evidence when they're written in a 2,000 year old book. Especially when, almost too conveniently, none happen today (which contradicts Jesus' claim that greater miracles would be produced by His followers). Again, rational people are a little more discriminating in what may be accepted as evidence.

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

QuoteNo death is insignificant, Voter. Why do theists view life so cheaply?

And by the way, iatrogenic deaths have a great emotional impact on me. My grandfather died because of a hospital mistake. But it was an accident. Nobody intended to kill my grandfather. That's the risk of surgery. But intentional killing is different. Why don't you understand that? How can you justify the number war deaths with the number of hospital deaths?

I'm not justifying war deaths, I'm pointing out that far many more American deaths could be prevented if the public debate shifted from the Iraq war to our health care system. Is the point to save lives or to make certain politicians look bad?

Quote from: "Tom62"I don't really get the health argument and what that has to to with the war in Iraq? Doctors are there to save people's lives isn't it? Without health care thousands of additional people would die. Are you willing to  remove health care from public life? and by doing that go back to Middle Ages' standards, where ever illness is a punishment from God and treated as such (by driving out the evil spirit or other superstitious nonsenses). Would you ask a priest to sacrifice some animals for you to cure you the "Bible way" in case you get sick, or would you go to your doctor for help?.

I would keep the parts that work and abandon the rest. Modern healthcare is good with trauma, diagnosis, and some acute bacterial infections. Other than that, drugs and surgery are big business that make some people rich at the expense of others.

Quote from: "rlrose328"I've been thinking a great deal about this charity issue.  I know that I donate blood, as to several of my non-theist friends.  We have also donated many many hours of time to charities, mostly with the aged and young who are chronically ill.  So it's hard to not take that type of thing personally.

When I think back several years, I can think of a few reasons I didn't get involved sooner.  I wanted to donate money and time, but no matter where I looked, all I found was religious organizations.  While I did donate to them via the United Way through my job, I wanted to find a secular organization that I felt would disseminate the money, goods, and services more fairly and NOT require the recipients to participate in some sort of faith-based program.

Now, several years later, there are secular organizations in which I can become involved.  I don't trust faith-based charities because so many have been shown to require the recipients to attend services or change their life in some way in order to receive the funds or goods.  I disagree with that.

This leads me to wonder how many non-believers are out there that are in the same boat... wanting to participate but having a hard time finding a secular cause with which to become involved because any that are secular or atheistic are less vocal about their fundraising.

The group of atheists with whom I socialize are all very socially active... so I wonder where they are getting their statistics.

Shermer is a columnist for Scientific American, so he presumably knows how to accurately summarize and report the results of a study. He's the publisher of Skeptic magazine, so he has no motivation to skew his report in favor of religion.

Religion also improves health and life expectancy (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/401091.stm).

A large US study found that religious folk had lower blood pressure, less depression and anxiety, stronger immune systems and generally cost the health-care system less than people who were less involved in religion.

The research looked at 4,000 old people from North Carolina, and found that of the 1,177 who died during a six-year period, 22.9% were frequent church attenders, compared with 37.4 who were infrequent attenders.

Another link (http://longevity.about.com/od/longevityboosters/a/religion_life.htm)

Researchers have found that weekly attendance at religious services is associated with 2 to 3 additional years of life. The researchers analyzed existing data and found that people who attended religious services on a weekly basis lived, on average, 2 to 3 years longer than other people. These findings were controlled for other factors such as amount of physical exercise and taking cholesterol medications.

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?

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:

Quote from: "Voter"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:

Quote from: "Michael Shermer"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:

Quote from: "Michael Shermer"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:

Quote from: "Voter"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.

Quote from: "Voter"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.

Quote from: "voter"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.

Quote from: "voter"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.

Quote from: "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?

QuoteANd 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.

QuoteWhile 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?

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "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.

QuoteAnd 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.

@ 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.

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!

   

Quote from: "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?

Quote from: "Voter"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?

Quote from: "SteveS"

Quote from: "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?

QuoteYou 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?

QuoteBut 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.

Quote from: "Voter"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.

Quote from: "Voter"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:

Quote from: "Voter"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?

Quote from: "Voter"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.

Quote from: "Voter"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:

Quote from: "Thomas Gray"Where ignorance is bliss, 'Tis folly to be wise

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.

Quote from: "SteveS"No. I can't recall berating you personally or accusing you of being deliberately or intentionally misleading.

Quote from: "SteveS"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?

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:

Quote from: "Voter"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?

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.

Apology accepted. Funny how no one butts in and jumps on the atheist for the personal attack. But anyway...

QuoteForgive me, but the only conclusion you can draw from the statistics is that a correlation exists.

In this case, that's enough of a conclusion. I once took a research methods course and understand perfectly well that correlation does not indicate causation. I also know that it's often prudent to act on correlation despite this lack. For instance, suppose there are correlations between high blood pressure and heart disease, between exercise and reduction in blood pressure, but causative agents have not yet been discovered and substantiated. If I have high blood pressure, I'm going to start exercising, despite ignorance of the mechanics.

Quote1) 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.

Does a correlation between smoking and lung cancer support the idea that all smokers will develop lung cancer? Of course not. But don't you agree it's a good idea to quit smoking?

Quote2) 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?

First, some factors are objective, like lifespan and charitable giving. Second, yes, self-reported happiness is weaker due to subjectivity, but I'd still give it some weight.

QuoteI 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/intelli ... ligion.htm (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.

Happiness commonly changes throughout life. Intelligence is pretty stable, at least if you're using IQ as a measure. So I disagree. It's fairly easy to imagine a change in lifestyle having an impact on happiness. People actively seek such change. There are industries built on that concept. However, it's difficult to imagine a change in lifestyle having such an impact on intelligence.

QuoteWhat 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

This study might be helpful if you were choosing what country to move to. The other is more helpful for an American deciding whther to be religious or not.

QuoteAnyway, 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.

Yes, people misuse correlation studies by inferring causation from them. However, you err in the other direction, by discounting their practical application due to the causation issue. Correlations can help us make health, career, and many other choices, even though causation has not been determined.

QuoteSure - 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,

I have no problem with that. You could make a Biblical argument predicting that.

I admit I just skimmed...but why argue over if religion produces happiness?  I doubt anyone here still believes in Santa or the Tooth Fairy just because the idea makes them happy.  If we found out tomorrow that God exists but is actually Satan, I'd be happier to continue not believing...that wouldn't change what is real and I wouldn't be able to convince myself of an alternate reality.  No thinking person chooses their worldview based on what makes them happy, they decide based on what they can gather and extract from the available evidence.

QuoteNo thinking person chooses their worldview based on what makes them happy, they decide based on what they can gather and extract from the available evidence.

We were discussing unthinking people, at least as far as religion goes.

Thanks for the response.

Quote from: "Voter"I also know that it's often prudent to act on correlation despite this lack. For instance, suppose there are correlations between high blood pressure and heart disease, between exercise and reduction in blood pressure, but causative agents have not yet been discovered and substantiated. If I have high blood pressure, I'm going to start exercising, despite ignorance of the mechanics.

Sure, it may often be prudent, but it can just as easily be in err.  Sticking with the medical example, here's an excerpt from wikipedia (full page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlatio ... ite_note-0 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation#cite_note-0)):

Quote from: "wiki"In a widely-studied example, numerous epidemiological studies showed that women who were taking combined hormone replacement therapy (HRT) also had a lower-than-average incidence of coronary heart disease (CHD), leading doctors to propose that HRT was protective against CHD. But controlled trials showed that HRT caused a small and significant increase in risk of CHD. Re-analysis of the data showed that women undertaking HRT were more likely to be from socio-economic groups ABC1, with better than average diet and exercise regimes. The two were coincident effects of a common cause, rather than cause and effect as had been supposed.

The problem is that if (I don't know if they did or not, but if) doctors began prescribing HRT to people to prevent CHD, much as above one might decide to start exercising, it isn't really a no-cost proposition.  In other words, it isn't even fair to say "what's the harm?".  HRT presumably has a cost associated with it and actually seemed to correlate, in a more focused study, with increased CHD risk.  Focusing only on the connection between HRT and CHD might be ignoring other correlations with HRT, some of them potentially negative, and also other correlations with CHD.

Quote from: "Voter"Does a correlation between smoking and lung cancer support the idea that all smokers will develop lung cancer? Of course not.

Agreed.  Which means that there is a difference between an individual and a correlation group.  Although there is a strong correlation between smokers and lung cancer, that doesn't mean that an individual smoker will develop lung cancer or that an individual non-smoker will not.  What is important to the individual is what actually does occur with him.  Translate this idea to individual choices and personal happiness, and I think it becomes easy to see that these percentages aren't as meaningful as they might at first appear.  What is important to my own happiness is what makes me happy, not what makes everybody else happy.

Incidentally,

Quote from: "Voter"But don't you agree it's a good idea to quit smoking?

Speaking for myself, yes - I do.  

Quote from: "Voter"First, some factors are objective, like lifespan and charitable giving. Second, yes, self-reported happiness is weaker due to subjectivity, but I'd still give it some weight.

Fair enough.  My only observation would be that surely a great many factors must correlate with lifespan, and it is easy to entertain the idea that a simple correlation between being politically conservative and living longer might be subject to the correlation/causation problems.  Here is a reference to a research that correlated loneliness with possible health issues, for example: http://www.productivity501.com/lonliness-is-unhealthy/1016/.  If religious people regularly attend church, this could very well combat loneliness.  Could this be a factor?  Maybe.  Is the loneliness correlation itself problematic?  Maybe.  It seems hard to make a definitive conclusion to such a complex issue from simple high-level correlations.

Quote from: "Voter"Intelligence is pretty stable, at least if you're using IQ as a measure. So I disagree.

Actually, I think we agree on this point.  I did say that I thought it was wrong to conclude that your intelligence will change if you flip between belief and non-belief.

Quote from: "Voter"This study might be helpful if you were choosing what country to move to. The other is more helpful for an American deciding whther to be religious or not.

I can't help but disagree with this.  Do you honestly think that people choose to become religious based on a study of the personal and societal effects correlated with followers of faith?  Do people decide to become religious because they studied correlations of beneficial societal or personal effects against the followers of the faith, and if so, do they renounce their faith if the alternative changes and begins to correlate more strongly with the said benefits?  If not, then I think I have a reasonable challenge to the idea that these studies are helpful to an individual who is deciding to become religious or not.  If they are not used to help guide their choices for this purpose, then in what manner are they "helpful" for this purpose?

Quote from: "Voter"Instead of "throwing failure into the face," which IIRC was your spin on it to make VOter look like a big ol' meany, call it introducing cognitive dissonance in order to get him to examine himself. Call it an intervention. People are forced to face their failures all the time, and mature people come out better for it.

This is a direct quote from your first post:

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

Then you admitted to throwing failure in Dodge's face. Again, this is a direct quote:

QuoteOK, I'm throwing it seriously in his face. Maintaining faith for life is a primary goal of Christianity. He did not maintain that faith. Therefore he failed as a Christian. He should probably mature as an atheist before attempting to write general letters supporting it.

I haven't spun anything you've said. You've been very direct.

Also, I don't think you've 'introduced cognitive dissonance'. Dodge already experienced cognitive dissonance when he started to lose faith, and the resolution of that dissonance is his current atheism.

Furthermore, I would understand your concern if you were trying to help Dodge as a struggling Christian. But I don't get any inclination you're trying to help Dodge's faith as much as you're defending your own (at his expense). For instance, you claim that Dodge has completely failed in the way of Christianity, and instead of trying to encourage him, you tell him he should keep his letter to himself until his atheism matures.

I guess I'm just questioning your intentions for responding to the OP. You're not trying to help him develop those ideas, and you're not trying to get him to think further about Christianity, so what is your intention? It seems mostly defensive in nature, but correct me if I'm wrong.

Quote from: "Voter"No one is a strong atheist based on hard, sober, empirical evidence.

Atheism is the most natural, common-sense conclusion that can be drawn from the information that humans can sense. It can be claimed that there is some sort of extra-sensory reality that we cannot see, hear, smell, touch, or taste. However these claims cannot be universally verified. Since they can't be universally verified, anyone can claim anything about the spiritual realm, and be no more or less correct than anyone else. To make matters worse, people who do claim some sort of extra-sensory realm disagree as to its details. If there was a spiritual realm that could be reached, everyone who could reach it would agree on which god is in charge. As it happens, they can not.

Since the claims cannot be universally verified, no man can expect the belief of another in their religion of choice. Also, no religion can be regarded as morally superior to others.

Based on information that humans CAN universally sense, God or gods are not a viable conclusion. History and tradition propigate them, not readily observable facts or common sense.

Quote from: "Voter"

QuoteSure, for some the Bible is sufficient evidence for faith. Others are more discriminating, though. The quality of evidence should be taken into account before deciding whether or not you can believe that God ghost impregnated a woman.

Lots of people find the quality of evidence sufficient.

You're saying lots of people believe it so it must be true. Since when was truth determined by popularity?