Topic: Health and Religion - page 138. (Read 210900 times)

Atheism is a different kind of poison than the standard toxic chemical or toxic gas. It takes a different kind of anti-toxin instruction.

Okay, so you didn't say anything.   

Hey! Philosophy is *the* science! That's why "the sciences" were originally called "natural sciences", if I remember my undergrad philosophy correctly (don't take that as a given).

Just because studies are available doesn't mean you should use them. You're making a very strong statement that requires equally strong proof. Lots of anecdotal evidence != strong proof.

If I was to write "Religion is poison" I can guarantee you my arguments would be watertight, and the only studies I would use to support my argument would be published and peer reviewed research with a valid methodology and adequate statistical analysis.

The studies on fertility, health, and wellbeing reported in the OP.
Is it perfect or level 1A evidence no but it's the data currently available on the topic.

What data available? Self reported surveys? And now you're claiming philosophy is not a science?

Your conclusion is unsupported by the data available.

The social sciences have not been shown to be a functional replacement for the common moral code provided by religion. This lack is evidenced by the reduced wellbeing, health and fertility of those who reject the traditional moral code in favor of atheism.

This is easy to understand. The religious fear sin and modern leftism as they perceive these to be inherently dangerous. There are some good reasons to feel this way.

No, we don't. My response clearly refuted his statement:

you are right .. i hate religious persons's hypoccrisy.. they say we dont hate atheism but they are scared atheists to death.. i dont get this thing..

Well at least he's a good Christian.

Without Atheism there would be nearly no science. Religion is responsible for the darkest ages of humanity and science.

So genocide is your Christian solution.  I must say it is inline with your Bible.  Congrats you are following the Bible. 

BTW, it is you that is spreading bronze age nonsense to children.

I do not know if this is some sort of inside joke but this comment is not helpful.

This thread is about sharing knowledge and helping people. I never make moderated threads and cannot prevent you from posting anything you want but I would kindly ask that if you are not on board with the purpose of this thread that you do not post in it.

Everyone has their toxic materials. It's upon the people to get affected by it.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=I'm rubber you're glue
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pot calling the kettle black

At least be original with your trolling...

If atheists went into their closet, and didn't even propagate, we could all wait until the cancer of atheism died out. We could tell by the stench coming out of the closet.

But now because atheists are spreading their poisonous cancer to many people, especially to the children, the only thing left for GOOD religious folks to do is to attempt to stamp out the cancer of atheism in every way possible.

Let me refer you to my previous comment:

Let me rephrase this argument. Societies need moral codes. Religion is about unifying people behind a common moral code. Atheists reject this moral code because its divine origin cannot be proven scientifically.

As of today we do not have a functional replacement for the common moral code provided by religion. This lack is evidenced by the reduced wellbeing, health and fertility of those who reject the traditional moral code in favor of atheism.

Religion is therefore an ancient relic that is likely to grow in power and influence as that those who reject it are unintentionally reducing their evolutionary fitness.


Bingo we have a winner.

I would only add that I am not certain there is any evolutionarily functional worldview that does not include religion.  

Religion has been there from the beginnings of human culture. We have evolved and adapted in an environment with religion at its core. The idea that you can simply reject it without very deep thought on the consequences is foolish arrogance. The data in the opening post indicate that those choosing to do so end up suffering from this arrogance.

Whether you view religion as an adaptive code that developed with and shaped human history or as divine wisdom handed to us by a wiser being the conclusion is the same. As of today religion may be a requirement for a sustainable and evolutionarily functional worldview.

I agree when you state that atheism is not a philosophy. My comment above was unclear let me restate.

Atheism is the rejection of religious philosophy. It is the nothingness that is created by the rejection of traditional values and morals. Atheism creates a void and that void tends to be filled. The path of least resistance is the embrace of Hedonism. If God is dead then everything becomes permitted.

The error is your belief that the rejection of religion is not detrimental when choosing between right and wrong. Kantianism, Aristotelianism, Stoicism are interesting moral philosophies but they are inefficient propagators limiting their relevance. Sure some few atheist may adopt something functional like Stoicism. Many more will likely fill that nothingness with something toxic. The embrace of Hedonism leads us to glorify or at least fail to criticize unhealthy behavior like the dating apocalypse. This destruction of traditional morality is probably the ultimate cause of the dramatic decline in wellbeing and fertility we see in atheists. Forced to choose a new moral code and left to their own devices many atheist choose poorly.
  
I watched the majority of that video you linked above. The first hour was dominated by two very articulate atheists ripping into the Catholic Church for horrific crimes committed in past by individuals acting in the name of the church and by the church itself. Since I am not Catholic I lost interest at a little over the 1 hour mark. I have argued elsewhere why ancient “body count” arguments are a poor metric.