Topic: Health and Religion - page 140. (Read 210868 times)

It never ceases to amaze me the things people assume about that which they have done zero research

Non sequitur. Trying to convince someone of your point of view is not "poison", so the rest of your argument doesn't follow.


When? Is this a blanket statement or do you have a list of "Atheist revival" events?


I'm sure that means something but not sure what. Can you explain?

Atheism is a poison, because they themselves won't believe and tries to make others same like them. Such incidents were taking over all parts of the world. Even some promoting such idiotic behavior as a trend so to attract others.

Seriously... science is the only method for discovering morals...

Could you imagine if people actually acted on biblical morality? Have you read Leviticus? Everyone would be a murderer!


What would morality be without philosophy?

Emmanuel Kant gives a great method for discovering right from wrong behavior... basically, ask the question, "What would happen to society if everyone did xxx"... What would happen if everyone was a thief, or murderer?... easy peasy...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative

Aristotle wrote the book on Ethics (literally) in 350 BC! (Before Christ)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicomachean_Ethics

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groundwork_of_the_Metaphysic_of_Morals

I can't agree with the statement that science "does however not give you any values or instruction how to live your life whatsoever". Plenty of scientific disciplines do just that; from the social sciences to ecological sciences. Philosophy is also in a way a science (or maybe a meta-science) since it's the study of the nature of knowledge. There are many philosophical writings about how to live a happy life (see Alain de Botton's "Consolations of Philosophy").

Social sciences, ecological sciences and philosophy are much better able to inform us about the various possible life choices that may or may not make us happy than a brittle, unchanging and dogmatic social construct created thousands of years ago.

Todays western liberal atheism is a "posion" because it is an worldview that gives you and the group evolutionary disadvantages. Thus western liberal atheism societies will cease to exist and become replaced with societies with an evolutionary functional worldview. A evolutionary functional worldview does not have to be organised supernatural religion as "christian" or "muslim" it must however contain a set of values which makes the members live a evolutionary successfull life.


Science does say how the world works and it does give you mental tools to solve particular problems but it does however not give you any values or instruction how to live your life whatsoever. For science it does not matter if you live or if you die or if you have a wife and family or if you become a drug addict. A successfull society must have someting more than science to guide its members in life.

If you have already heard what Christians have to say, you could skip the Catholic parts and just listen to Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry... that should save you an hour
(Christopher Hitchens starts at the 14 minute mark)

Although some of his arguments are Catholic specific, Hitchens could have just as thoroughly ripped any Protestant denomination a new one... he's an amazing orator

For me i just go along with my environment. If im with atheists, then i talk with any topics. If i'm with my religious friends, i just do as they say to get the free goods.

Good for you! I wish I had that sort of self control. This is more like me:




I think it's less that the title is provocative, and more that many of us are sensitive to less scrupulous members posting "proofs of god" and making sweeping assertions and then completely failing to back them up.

So, when I see an OP that seems designed to insult rather then to provide a base for rational debate, I assume that poster falls into the "talking of of the butt" category rather than someone who wants a serious (and therefore enjoyable) debate. Feel free to ignore my advice (it may even be the smart move) but if you want a rational debate, start with underselling rather than overselling the premise.

The only reason you hear anything at all from Atheists is because Christians can't mind their damn business...

Christians keep making religious laws, hating gays, wasting money on 10-commandment statues and cop bumper stickers that say, "In God We Trust", just do be dicks... it's the Christians being fuckheads!

If Christians would leave Atheists alone, we would quit bashing your stupid ass religion and let you believe whatever silly nonsense you want to believe

But, since Christians constantly fail to mind their own business, we must defend ourselves... usually through logic and truth and reading you bible passages

My Bitcointalk time is up for today.
I will be back tomorrow after I watch the video linked upthread.

Just to clarify I chose the term poison in the OP to be purposefully provocative.
I wanted people to read it.

I think I underestimated how sensitive this topic is.
The purpose of this post was to share knowledge not offend.
A more accurate title would be.

Is Atheism Unhealthy?

I think you misunderstand what Atheism is...

Atheism is not a philosophy...

Atheism is the rejection of the Christian philosophy...

Basically... Atheists were sitting along, minding their own business...
Then some Christians came along, told us about this God character
We read your book, but it's all wrong
End result is... we don't believe you or your book... we reject it as false
That's the end of our philosophy...

Some people don't even go that far... some people never listened or read your book, though most of us have... many were raised as Christians throughout our childhood

Atheism isn't a philosophy, it's a rejection of your false claims... Atheists don't believe anything in particular beyond, "Christianity is wrong" (really, all religions are wrong, but I'm being specific for you)

Religion can also to reduce lifespan and increase unhappiness, and not just for its practitioners but outsiders too.

Even if religion provably increases lifespan and happiness in some groups, moderate doses of alcohol have been proven to achieve the same thing. If atheism is poison, is theism an addictive drug?

Here is the data on religion and wellbeing. They do not describe their methodology nearly as much as I would like but based on their reported 95% confidence intervals it appears that yes you can use the word significantly.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/152732/religious-higher-wellbeing-across-faiths.aspx

Here is a more generic study where they did not separate religious by group and it is more clear they achieved statistical significance.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/152723/Religious-Americans-Enjoy-Higher-Wellbeing.aspx



I am sorry if I upset you for that was not my intention. This post is about exploring whether adopting a certain philosophical view atheism may harmful to those who choose to adopt it. I believe the answer to that question appears to be yes. Atheist like everyone else have a right to believe whatever they want. However, they also have a right to be informed of all the potential pros and cons of that decision.

I don' think anyone is purposely trying to insult you or your beliefs. I think the OP just riled up a bunch of people who otherwise might not be quite so rude. But you're right, there's no need for rudeness or insults in the discussion.

Maybe the OP created this thread with that title because he has experienced rudeness with your co-fellow theist. And I'm experiencing it too, that they are persecuting us much with their foul words. Even it hurts me when theists replies to my posts with such foul words regarding my faith with Dearest Jesus Christ. I still respect and love them as what the Lord commands us.

Societies need myths.  Religion is unifying people behind a common cause.  Atheists reject this myth because its irrational claims cannot be explained scientifically.

Religious people and Atheists might share other myths such as nationalism, patriotism, humanism, human rights, capitalism, socialism, money etc.

These common beliefs are needed for any large society to function.

Today we have many replacements for the religion myth, making it obsolete.  In scientific revolution (which we are now), secular societies will progress faster than religious societies, because religion is hindering a scientific progress.

The OP and title of this thread does not make sense.  Atheism is just one of many world views (most rational, and most compatible with science).  Any world view that is compatible with scientific revolution is also the most beneficial to societies.

Religion is an ancient relic that will eventually be abandoned as such.

This is pretty much how all my theist friends feel. It wasn't until I came to BCT that I started to feel that atheism was anything unusual and that some people out there would like to persecute a minority for its beliefs.

There are even Christians who have posted that killing atheists wouldn't be a sin or even murder, because god commands it. I know this only reflects the attitude of a tiny minority of theists, but it's not at all acceptable to me.

bonski no one is saying that atheist are poison = bad people. At least I certainly am not saying that seeing as how I was an agnostic/atheist for the entirety of my adult life.

The argument in this thread is that the philosophy of atheism is poisonous aka harmful/damaging/destructive to the atheist.

That also applies to religion. If you think atheism is poisonous, then you must think theism is just as poisonous. There's certainly much more historical evidence of religious persecution.


Theism posits a god. Atheism not "anti-theism" in the same way that amoral is not "anti-moral". Regardless of historical accident or human preference, the scientific preference is for any additional hypothesis (eg there is a god) to be proven. "Atheism" does not require any additional hypothesis, since there is no proof the theist position reflects reality.

Therefore the "theist" frame of reference -- regardless of how long it has been around, or to which authorities you appeal -- is one that should be considered hypothetical until proven otherwise.



Significantly? What is the p value on that? How did you get "significantly" out of that study?  You certainly didn't quote any stats.


If you're trying to prove that a minority of the population is evil and poisonous, you'd best use very clear and well documented experimental evidence only, instead of anecdotes. Use of anecdotes taints the reading of the experimental evidence you've included.

If you'd written all that about some other minority, this post would have been labelled "hate speech" regardless of how much anecdotal or abstract evidence you have.