Do Atheists have an emptiness which needs filling?

[Danno 1,228]

Hey The Patriot -

Who is angry The Maven? You have implied someone in this thread is, and I see nobody expressing anger. I've stated I should be angry at specific individuals - not even relgion in general, but I'm not. I am fascinated by the real history involved here and as I said find it far more interesting than the phony apologetics. Despite all the insults levied by Danno too, that didn't make me angry.

I had years of people I trusted lying to me, knowing they were lying while they were doing it. I can remember very specific sentences now that were clearly manipulative means of pretending not to lie while doing just that. That did affect me. For many years it kept me in ignorance and believing superstitious nonsense. I finally decided to undertake an academic study of Christian history and wow did that open my eyes.

Dude you are going to have to stick with one story here.... Either you lost your faith at a very young age as earlier posted or at you undertook "an academic study of Christian history and wow did that open my eyes."

At what age did you "fall away"?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Dude you are going to have to stick with one story here.... Either you lost your faith at a very young age as earlier posted or at you undertook "an academic study of Christian history and wow did that open my eyes."

At what age did you "fall away"?

I imagine, shortly after he had a close encounter with a clergy member.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Hey The Patriot -

The Bible says the two sets of ten commandments are the same. All the apologetic gibberish you quoted can't change that:

Hold onto your hate, if that gets you through the night, but cherry-picking from one website here, and one website there, is not the same as a critical examination of ancient history and humanities. THAT IS the realm of Apologetics.

[james&olya 1,121]

A true understanding of what is behind this new 'church' is easily had when you back up a bit and consider what is behind the existence of churches and religions in the first place. Studying the actual history of religions and especially christianity leaves any logical person with the conclusion that man 'created' god! It was a basic human need to have an understanding of our origin as well as a way to bring some sense of justice to life on this planet. The actual details of all the different religions sprang from the unique circumstances and social/spiritual needs of the groups creating them. One of those needs from way back and continuing today is to have social order, a physical place to come together and enjoy the shared myths and social rules they believe in. This is not dependent on a belief in a supreme being. This need exists in many people whether they believe in God or are atheists. Why is it surprising when in an era where the biblical account of creation has been so thoroughly replaced by a scientific understanding of our origin that people accepting this science and its logical inferences would still find it socially satisfying to come together in a church-like kind of setting? As humans we are inherently social beings. Religion did not create our need for social structure. Rather our need for social structure was incorporated into religions when religion also was responsible for explaining our existence.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

A true understanding of what is behind this new 'church' is easily had when you back up a bit and consider what is behind the existence of churches and religions in the first place. Studying the actual history of religions and especially christianity leaves any logical person with the conclusion that man 'created' god! It was a basic human need to have an understanding of our origin as well as a way to bring some sense of justice to life on this planet. The actual details of all the different religions sprang from the unique circumstances and social/spiritual needs of the groups creating them. One of those needs from way back and continuing today is to have social order, a physical place to come together and enjoy the shared myths and social rules they believe in. This is not dependent on a belief in a supreme being. This need exists in many people whether they believe in God or are atheists. Why is it surprising when in an era where the biblical account of creation has been so thoroughly replaced by a scientific understanding of our origin that people accepting this science and its logical inferences would still find it socially satisfying to come together in a church-like kind of setting? As humans we are inherently social beings. Religion did not create our need for social structure. Rather our need for social structure was incorporated into religions when religion also was responsible for explaining our existence.

There are still some things that science has yet to explain, or to come to terms with, in a manner that would be accepted by most people. If you really understood the nature of the universe and the world around us, you should be terrified how fragile human existence really is. And nothing humans can do now, or probably in the future, will ever change that, without some sort of conscious extraterrestrial intervention. All this hippie save the planet bullshit, this new Gaiaism, is really just a reversion to aboriginal religions, not science at all, somehow trying to appease the natural elements.

Think of a car - all you really need to know is how to drive it, where to put the gasoline, and how often you should have it serviced. You really don't need to understand the internal working of a combustion engine, or these days, the logic of the engine management system. You take for granted, if you follow the correct ritual, that your car will get you where you need to go. In that manner, even though most people realize that the creation and flood stories are probably myths, or a simplification of what happened, nobody is really out there explaining life and death to them, except religion in its various forms. People would like to believe there is more to this existence, and that some piece of their own consciousness continues to exist beyond death. What does science have to offer to prepare them in that regard?

Edited February 17, 2013 by The Patriot

[james&olya 1,121]

There are still some things that science has yet to explain, or to come to terms with, in a manner that would be accepted by most people. If you really understood the nature of the universe and the world around us, you should be terrified how fragile human existence really is. And nothing humans can do now, or probably in the future, will ever change that, without some sort of conscious extraterrestrial intervention. All this hippie save the planet bullshit, this new Gaiaism, is really just a reversion to aboriginal religions, not science at all, somehow trying to appease the natural elements.

Think of a car - all you really need to know is how to drive it, where to put the gasoline, and how often you should have it serviced. You really don't need to understand the internal working of a combustion engine, or these days, the logic of the engine management system. You take for granted, if you follow the correct ritual, that your car will get you where you need to go. In that manner, even though most people realize that the creation and flood stories are probably myths, or a simplification of what happened, nobody is really out there explaining life and death to them, except religion in its various forms. People would like to believe there is more to this existence, and that some piece of their own consciousness continues to exist beyond death. What does science have to offer to prepare them in that regard?

Life is fragile, whether or not you are religious. I don't see why that means any of us needs to feel terrified. I do think that people who are unable to accept their certain eventual mortality are far more likely to need the crutch of religion along with its childish delusions of eternal life. Science has nothing to offer but the truth. And if the truth is something you cannot handle I guess religion is your refuge!

As to 'hippie save the planet bullshit', what sane individual or society fouls its own nest?! We don't advocate 'appeasing' any natural elements but we do seem to have a need to appease an alarmingly large number of right-wing loonies. If it is aboriginal to believe in living in harmony with the ecosystem we are a part of and which is essential to our long-term survival as a species than call me aboriginal! You may not need to or even be able to understand how your car works but it remains critically important to know what you must do to take care of it. Try putting water in your gas tank, sand in your oil filler, emptying your radiator, driving with no air in the tires! What we are doing to our planet is arguably as bad as some of these. Even the writers of the bible had an appreciation of the need to respect and live in harmony with the natural world.

[elmcitymaven 9,711]

Who is angry The Maven? You have implied someone in this thread is, and I see nobody expressing anger. I've stated I should be angry at specific individuals - not even relgion in general, but I'm not. I am fascinated by the real history involved here and as I said find it far more interesting than the phony apologetics. Despite all the insults levied by Danno too, that didn't make me angry.

I had years of people I trusted lying to me, knowing they were lying while they were doing it. I can remember very specific sentences now that were clearly manipulative means of pretending not to lie while doing just that. That did affect me. For many years it kept me in ignorance and believing superstitious nonsense. I finally decided to undertake an academic study of Christian history and wow did that open my eyes.

You know, it is possible that 1) other people read sentiments expressed here slightly different than you do (I see if not anger at religion, at least grumpiness directed that way) and 2) it's not always about you. To be honest, I haven't even done more than skim your posts.

All I was saying was that as a life-long non-believer who has zero interest in the number of angels dancing on a pin, I may have a less visceral reaction to religion and its effects in society. Some of my atheist friends who are the most virulently anti-religion (as opposed to my apathy towards belief) are formerly deeply religious, and express their atheism with the zeal of a convert. I can't get that worked up since there's no religious past for me to reject. I have no issue with people who are true believers as long as their belief does not affect my right not to believe, and that should be vice versa. I have no real desire to take others' beliefs away from them, and I respect their right to believe. I will never dissuade them, nor wish to do so, and I lack much intellectual curiosity in their various mythologies. You appear to be interested.

I believe we are following different strands of the conversation here.

[Buxi&Dusk 6]

I'm not going back for the quotes, unless that is a rule. If one is going to claim that atheists do "less of this in their community" and "commit suicide more" Then I would enjoy reading through those research articles myself. I don't think it is fair for anyone to make claims about a population and not back it up with links to journal articles or papers to actual research.

And gee, wasn't it a christian that wrote on a bill in a restaurant recently, saying they give to g-d? That sounds like "helping out" to me.

[decocker 7,198]

Dude you are going to have to stick with one story here.... Either you lost your faith at a very young age as earlier posted or at you undertook "an academic study of Christian history and wow did that open my eyes."

At what age did you "fall away"?

danno, when are you going to stop trying to tell people what their experiences actually were and how they misappropriately processed their own history? not everyone operates in black and white mode, it is most certainly possible to lose your faith at a young age AND learn more about a subject later on in life. get over yourself.

[Danno 1,228]

danno, when are you going to stop trying to tell people what their experiences actually were and how they misappropriately processed their own history? not everyone operates in black and white mode, it is most certainly possible to lose your faith at a young age AND learn more about a subject later on in life. get over yourself.

I hear you but a person needs to either present themself as a Doubting thomas who gave up on faith or a firm believer who lost their faith in God.

It seems dishonest to play the "I was in this deep" when in fact the person had only a budding faith at best.

[Danno 1,228]

I'm not going back for the quotes, unless that is a rule. If one is going to claim that atheists do "less of this in their community" and "commit suicide more" Then I would enjoy reading through those research articles myself. I don't think it is fair for anyone to make claims about a population and not back it up with links to journal articles or papers to actual research.

And gee, wasn't it a christian that wrote on a bill in a restaurant recently, saying they give to g-d? That sounds like "helping out" to me.

IN fact I think he might have been a minister..... which is why the story had legs.

Another tight-wade Atheists is hardly news.

The woods are full of research on the topic.

http://www.pewforum.org/Religion-News/Religious-people-make-better-citizens-study-says.aspx

[Danno 1,228]

I'm not going back for the quotes, unless that is a rule. If one is going to claim that atheists do "less of this in their community" and "commit suicide more" Then I would enjoy reading through those research articles myself. I don't think it is fair for anyone to make claims about a population and not back it up with links to journal articles or papers to actual research.

And gee, wasn't it a christian that wrote on a bill in a restaurant recently, saying they give to g-d? That sounds like "helping out" to me.

And since you asked about the mental state of our Atheists friends, here is what mental health professionals have found.

Religiously unaffiliated subjects had significantly more lifetime suicide attempts and more first-degree relatives who committed suicide than subjects who endorsed a religious affiliation. Unaffiliated subjects were younger, less often married, less often had children, and had less contact with family members. Furthermore, subjects with no religious affiliation perceived fewer reasons for living, particularly fewer moral objections to suicide. In terms of clinical characteristics, religiously unaffiliated subjects had more lifetime impulsivity, aggression, and past substance use disorder. No differences in the level of subjective and objective depression, hopelessness, or stressful life events were found. CONCLUSIONS: Religious affiliation is associated with less suicidal behavior in depressed inpatients. After other factors were controlled, it was found that greater moral objections to suicide and lower aggression level in religiously affiliated subjects may function as protective factors against suicide attempts. Further study about the influence of religious affiliation on aggressive behavior and how moral objections can reduce the probability of acting on suicidal thoughts may offer new therapeutic strategies in suicide prevention.

http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/article.aspx?articleid=177228

Edited February 17, 2013 by Danno

[Brc 14]

And since you asked about the mental state of our Atheists friends, here is what mental health professionals have found.

Religiously unaffiliated subjects had significantly more lifetime suicide attempts and more first-degree relatives who committed suicide than subjects who endorsed a religious affiliation. Unaffiliated subjects were younger, less often married, less often had children, and had less contact with family members. Furthermore, subjects with no religious affiliation perceived fewer reasons for living, particularly fewer moral objections to suicide. No differences in the level of subjective and objective depression, hopelessness, or stressful life events were found. CONCLUSIONS: Religious affiliation is associated with less suicidal behavior in depressed inpatients. After other factors were controlled, it was found that greater moral objections to suicide and lower aggression level in religiously affiliated subjects may function as protective factors against suicide attempts. Further study about the influence of religious affiliation on aggressive behavior and how moral objections can reduce the probability of acting on suicidal thoughts may offer new therapeutic strategies in suicide prevention.

http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/article.aspx?articleid=177228

This is an issue of confusing correlation and causation, and yes, psychological studies are often rife with this mistake. Even more egregious of the correlation/causation error is the reporting of such studies. A correlation by no means is evidence of causation, only that there is a relationship of coincidence. There may be other reasons that are the actual cause of the phenomenon being studied. This is often the case, and the social sciences are prone to this problem.

For example, the quote given above mentions "In terms of clinical characteristics, religiously unaffiliated subjects had more lifetime impulsivity, aggression, and past substance use disorder." Fine, if indeed this is true. But what is the cause? Are these characteristics due to non-affiliation, or is it the other way around? Is non-affiliation due to these characteristics? OR, is there any causal relationship at all, or merely correlation? And forget about the concept of control in these type of studies. In scientific terms, these controls are laughable.

[Novembro 1,763]

Lot of butthurt itt. Who cares what people believe?

[Danno 1,228]

This is an issue of confusing correlation and causation, and yes, psychological studies are often rife with this mistake. Even more egregious of the correlation/causation error is the reporting of such studies. A correlation by no means is evidence of causation, only that there is a relationship of coincidence. There may be other reasons that are the actual cause of the phenomenon being studied. This is often the case, and the social sciences are prone to this problem.

For example, the quote given above mentions "In terms of clinical characteristics, religiously unaffiliated subjects had more lifetime impulsivity, aggression, and past substance use disorder." Fine, if indeed this is true. But what is the cause? Are these characteristics due to non-affiliation, or is it the other way around? Is non-affiliation due to these characteristics? OR, is there any causal relationship at all, or merely correlation? And forget about the concept of control in these type of studies. In scientific terms, these controls are laughable.

"People believe what they want to believe and disregard the rest"

You just offered some folks something to cling to their concerning their misguided beliefs.

Meanwhile they look down on folks who doubt Global warming or whatever.

Some of you peeps crack me up you're so full of it.