Religious belief is a deteriment to social development

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: sdbest This paper "Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies" concludes that "The U.S. is ... the least efficient western nation in terms of converting wealth into cultural and physical health. Understanding the reasons for this failure is urgent, and doing so requires considering the degree to which cause versus effect is responsible for the observed correlations between social conditions and religiosity versus secularism." In other words, religion appears to hurt societies. Could this be true? I think so.

In other words gross overstatement of personal opinion instead of fact?

Only Bhutan measures gross national happiness as something to be recorded and improved. In Norway with a small population and a socialist medical system there average health is probably superior. Here in the US we have an overweight nation and a healthcare system not everyone can afford.

So yah I'm not surprised people in Norway are "better off" in some ways but I think its ridiculous to say its because their atheists.

Quote by: Galaxar The paper is the sort of pseudo-scientific twaddle which, sadly, is far too common in the academic world today.

Then ignore and denigrate its findings, relying on nothing but your general bias which must be comfortably absolute, beyond question, and without error.

Quote by: Galaxar Have your mother explain the concept of sarcasm to you some time.

As my mother is no longer able to assist in this matter and you have no knowledge of my mother's academic achievements, for your erudition this is the definition of sarcasm:

1. harsh or bitter derision or irony.
2. a sharply ironical taunt; sneering or cutting remark

Perhaps you could explain my misunderstanding of the "concept of sarcasm".

Put sarcastically, if you're stumped by the meaning of erudition, the definition is here for your convenience.

[Galaxar]

Quote by: davedes Norway, although definitely not "the most atheist" nation, certainly does have a lot of non-believers. The majority of Norwegians, albeit not necessarily self-identified atheists, seem to fall under the category of either atheist, agnostic, and/or non-believers in God.

Come on, now, you're just playing silly word games. How many people who self-identify as atheists would also admit to a belief in "some sort of spirit or life force?" They may not be go-to-church-every-Sunday believers, but it's still a long shot from atheism by any reasonable definition of the term.

Quote by: davedes It's not unheard of for a cartoonist to manipulate certain statistics to make their work more humorous and more presentable. Really... it's just a cartoon!

It's still dishonest. I don't like it when Jack Chick does it. Why should I lower my standards for this cartoonist?

[Galaxar]

Quote by: sdbest Then ignore and denigrate its findings, relying on nothing but your general bias which must be comfortably absolute, beyond question, and without error.

Say what you please, the paper was psuedo-scientific rubbish. And it's easier (and somewhat cowardly) to accuse others of bias and ignorance rather than deal with the fact that intelligent and reasonable people see the world in a radically different way than you do.

[Galaxar]

Quote by: sdbest Perhaps you could explain my misunderstanding of the "concept of sarcasm".

You see, my remarks about race were clearly an ironic analogy, intended to show in a forceful way the flawed reasoning you were employing by putting it into another context where you would perhaps be less blinded by your own biases in the matter. Your literal response indicated to me that you missed this altogether and apparently thought I was seriously taking this position. I therefore assumed that you are irony impaired.

Quote by: sdbest Put sarcastically, if you're stumped by the meaning of erudition, the definition is here for your convenience.

(yawn) Do you really think I'm so insecure about my intelligence and education that such a childish taunt would matter much to me? A little advice for you: In the future, don't be so quick to assume that someone who's had a paper published in a scholarly journal really knows what he's talking about. Many if not most so-called intellectuals are quacks.

Quote by: Galaxar Many if not most so-called intellectuals are quacks.

And, of course, you can defend this assertion with empirical evidence, because someone with your "intelligence" and "education" would never make such a broad charge based only on uninformed opinion.

[Jack]

How many people who self-identify as atheists would also admit to a belief in "some sort of spirit or life force?" They may not be go-to-church-every-Sunday believers, but it's still a long shot from atheism by any reasonable definition of the term.

How so? Atheism is a statement of disbelief, specifically in the existence of gods. It does not state or infer what an atheist does believe. An atheist can be a "new-ager", think crystals have a life force, that we're the spawn of aliens... There's no dogma for atheists to follow that dictates what they will believe.

[Galaxar]

Quote by: sdbest And, of course, you can defend this assertion with empirical evidence, because someone with your "intelligence" and "education" would never make such a broad charge based only on uninformed opinion.

The charge is based on my common sense observations of human nature and of intellectuals in general. I haven't observed that the eggheads are any less susceptible to vanity and peer pressure than the common run of humanity.

[Galaxar]

Quote by: Jack How so? Atheism is a statement of disbelief, specifically in the existence of gods. It does not state or infer what an atheist does believe. An atheist can be a "new-ager", think crystals have a life force, that we're the spawn of aliens... There's no dogma for atheists to follow that dictates what they will believe.

Excuse me, but I was talking specifically about people who self-identify as atheists. I'm rather skeptical there could be very many such people who also believe in a "spirit or life force." And if there truly is no "dogma," idea or doctrine commonly held among atheists, then there is little point in speaking of a category of people called atheists.

It simply isn't reasonable to speak of someone who believes in a "spirit or life force" as an atheist. When someone does, the nasty suspicion arises that he is trying to "win by definition," i.e. arbitrarily redefining terms to suit himself.

Do you really find this sort of endless nitpicking and quibbling interesting? I find it a waste of time.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: Galaxar Excuse me, but I was talking specifically about people who self-identify as atheists. I'm rather skeptical there could be very many such people who also believe in a "spirit or life force." And if there truly is no "dogma," idea or doctrine commonly held among atheists, then there is little point in speaking of a category of people called atheists. It simply isn't reasonable to speak of someone who believes in a "spirit or life force" as an atheist. When someone does, the nasty suspicion arises that he is trying to "win by definition," i.e. arbitrarily redefining terms to suit himself. Do you really find this sort of endless nitpicking and quibbling interesting? I find it a waste of time.

Atheism really is the greatest copout in any debate

You don't have to claim any stance, set of rules, or guidelines, its whatever your personal see as a reasonable objective person. If an atheist going out and kills people it doesn't say anything about other atheists. That kinda of attitude is only reserved for theists since the acts of one has a clear impact on the rest.

[Morality Games]

Usually the people who calls themselves atheists would be better termed secular humanists, to differentiate themselves from those new agers.

[HelioPrime]

That might not even be the best term, since a powerful pope could have secular goals of worldly power and conquest and at the same time be considered a humanist pope because of his concern over art and lore that other clergy reject.

[davedes]

Quote by: Galaxar How many people who self-identify as atheists would also admit to a belief in "some sort of spirit or life force?" They may not be go-to-church-every-Sunday believers, but it's still a long shot from atheism by any reasonable definition of the term.

Lots of self-identified atheists are also very spiritual -- including myself.

An atheist is one who does not believe in god(s). Atheism says nothing about secularity or spirituality.

Do you really find this sort of endless nitpicking and quibbling interesting? I find it a waste of time.

Coming from the very person who nitpicked the hell out of an innocent cartoon...

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: HelioPrime Atheism really is the greatest copout in any debate You don't have to claim any stance, set of rules, or guidelines, its whatever your personal see as a reasonable objective person. If an atheist going out and kills people it doesn't say anything about other atheists. That kinda of attitude is only reserved for theists since the acts of one has a clear impact on the rest.

I think most atheists would agree.. If an exceptional number of atheists were killing and raping, then there must be something detrimental about lack of belief in gods.. or at least something beneficial about belief in gods.

The thing is, we atheists don't have to worry about that 'cause that's not happening.. and there's evidence that it's the other way around.

[Galaxar]

Quote by: davedes Lots of self-identified atheists are also very spiritual -- including myself. An atheist is one who does not believe in god(s). Atheism says nothing about secularity or spirituality.

If you use some vague, nebulous and essentially meaningless definition of the word "spiritual," then, yes, I suppose an atheist could be called "spiritual." But it looks like a silly word game to me.

Quote by: davedes Coming from the very person who nitpicked the hell out of an innocent cartoon...

'Scuse me? Those were not minor flaws. The cartoonist was clearly cherry picking his facts to present a highly idealized picture of Norway, and he got them wrong. I object when a fundamentalist propagandist like Jack Chick does things like this. Why shouldn't I object when an atheist propagandist pulls the same kind of dumb stunt?

[Galaxar]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer The thing is, we atheists don't have to worry about that 'cause that's not happening.. and there's evidence that it's the other way around.

If you believe that, how would you like to trade your car for some magic beans?

[davedes]

Quote by: Galaxar If you use some vague, nebulous and essentially meaningless definition of the word "spiritual," then, yes, I suppose an atheist could be called "spiritual." But it looks like a silly word game to me.

Spirituality has always been vaguely defined. It simply deals with the "spirit." This does not mean god(s).

There are many spiritual atheists. Entire religions have been formed around spiritual atheism (Theravada Buddhism, for example).

It would be very ignorant to imply that atheists cannot be spiritual.

[Jack]

It simply isn't reasonable to speak of someone who believes in a "spirit or life force" as an atheist.

Where in the disbelief of gods does it indicate a disbelief in a life force? Are you assuming that force to be supernatural? Theists need to grasp the point that atheism defines a single point of disbelief, that of a disbelief in gods. It indicates nothing further.

You don't have to claim any stance, set of rules, or guidelines, its whatever your personal see as a reasonable objective person. If an atheist going out and kills people it doesn't say anything about other atheists.

Exactly right, because their atheism only describes a single disbelief. Did they kill because of their disbelief in gods? Then you might have a case for inditing other atheists. However it's more likely they'll kill because of something they do believe or some mental aberration, like thinking god told them to kill.

[Maryjane]

Atheism really is the greatest copout in any debate

Those gosh darn atheist have all the fun! None of the guilt!

You don't have to claim any stance, set of rules, or guidelines, its whatever your personal see as a reasonable objective person. If an atheist going out and kills people it doesn't say anything about other atheists.

Yup, that's pretty accurate. The only thing we share a collective agreement on is we do not believe in god(s).

Religious or non, if someone's a murderer, it has more to do with who they are as a person, not in their beliefs (or non). *Unless you are killing in the name of the lord, then that's a different story.

That kinda of attitude is only reserved for theists since the acts of one has a clear impact on the rest.

Not true. It's when theist claim superiority that they get attitude handed right back to them. I've never had one harsh word with Jimmy the Pro and Winter Wind. I like them both very much. They know how to debate without making it personal.