Could the very high rate of mental illness in Europe be related to religion decline?

[Justinian2]

You have to provide some evidence to back up your claims first. That's the way it works in the real world. I do hope you are trolling.

What's your profession? (Are you paid to troll?)

[dafydd]

Need to get the author of the OP back here. I think that the insanity of the atheists is partial proof of the OP's supposition that insanity is the result of diminishing religion.

He's got a point. Good groups tend to increase sanity. Bad groups and people (atheists and bullies) tend to decrease sanity. The good groups are family, work and religious groups. The bad groups are police, psychiatrists and the courts.

The police, psychiatrists and the courts do some good when they bad people from the other groups.

Inductively give more proof to those suppositions and the OP is proved.

I assume that includes scientologists. We will take it that you have no evidence to back up your claim that atheists are insane. I know lots of atheists and they are all well balanced people, that is why they are atheists.

[dafydd]

What's your profession? (Are you paid to troll?)

Asking awkward (for you) questions that you dodge is not trolling. Yet another word that you do not know the meaning of. I worked for a photogravure firm as a reprograph. I am now retired and a musician. I don't see why you have to know that. Are you going to continue in this evidence-free trolling mode? It is entertaining but does not add to anyone's knowledge.

[Paulhoff]

Hitchens vs God,

7nIRJVmZ4K8

Paul

:) :) :)

[tsig]

I have reason to believe that psychiatrists are frequently lunatics. The police and judges are also frequently mad.

When a policeman rushes into your house following a son that protested a traffic violation, pulls his gun out and says (in the police report) he would have shot him except that the younger brother stepped in front of the gun, what do you think?

I'm 65 years old. I've seen and experienced too much not to be forever cynical of the police, psychiatrists and judges.

I used to keep records of the incidents of bad police conduct, bad judicial conduct and bad psychiatry. However, that only made me sad. Now I ignore these things to the best of my ability and I resent being reminded of them.

How about teachers, bankers, engineers, MDs, and Wall Street bond investors?

[Justinian2]

I assume that includes scientologists. We will take it that you have no evidence to back up your claim that atheists are insane. I know lots of atheists and they are all well balanced people, that is why they are atheists.

I know a lot of atheists. None have any balance what so ever. They are all angry, caustic, unappreciative, hostile, unconstructive, demeaning, uninformative, bullies, insulters, harassers, trolls and otherwise totally insane. Insanity is their most important product.

[dafydd]

I know a lot of atheists. None have any balance what so ever. They are all angry, caustic, unappreciative, hostile, unconstructive, demeaning, uninformative, bullies, insulters, harassers, trolls and otherwise totally insane. Insanity is their most important product.

Now you are lying and trolling. Pure male bovine excrement. The ignore button calls. You are a waste of time and bandwidth. If you are sixty five then I am the King of China.

[excaza]

I know a lot of atheists. None have any balance what so ever. They are all angry, caustic, unappreciative, hostile, unconstructive, demeaning, uninformative, bullies, insulters, harassers, trolls and otherwise totally insane. Insanity is their most important product.

If I actually thought you were serious, I'd be insulted.

[tsig]

I know a lot of atheists. None have any balance what so ever. They are all angry, caustic, unappreciative, hostile, unconstructive, demeaning, uninformative, bullies, insulters, harassers, trolls and otherwise totally insane. Insanity is their most important product.

If they're that rotten why do you associate with them?

[dafydd]

If they're that rotten why do you associate with them?

Birds of a feather.....

[Zelenius]

I know a lot of atheists. None have any balance what so ever. They are all angry, caustic, unappreciative, hostile, unconstructive, demeaning, uninformative, bullies, insulters, harassers, trolls and otherwise totally insane. Insanity is their most important product.

Ever hear about "selective perception"?

[Resume]

I know a lot of atheists. None have any balance what so ever. They are all angry, caustic, unappreciative, hostile, unconstructive, demeaning, uninformative, bullies, insulters, harassers, trolls and otherwise totally insane. Insanity is their most important product.

You keep using the word insanity . . . I'm pretty sure you're using it incorrectly. You know that it's more a legal term than a clinical one, right?

[Mudcat]

1) Tardive dyskinesia.
2) Ritalin
3) Prozac

One of those three is not like the others.

One year, everytime I would read about a mass murder I would also read that the murderer was taking Ritalin, Prozac or other psychiatric medications.This is just wrong on two accounts: 1.) Most murders involve multiple offenders, 2.) mass murders account for about 4% (http://www.murdervictims.com/murder_statistics.htm) of all murders, which in itself is a minority (http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0306.pdf) of crimes committed.

A small study of just under 100 children that assessed long-term outcome of stimulant use found that 6% of children became psychotic after months or years of stimulant therapy. Wow! Six percent! From a study that you didn't link to, no less! Are we supposed to be impressed?

[Mister Agenda]

A thinking man at last.

I agree with much of your statement that: However, that man requires a belief system of some type to be able to help. Perhaps that belief system is provided by his study of the human condition. Perhaps a new study of the human condition is better than older studies of the human condition as elucidated in various bibles. Perhaps it is comparable. I don't know which is better, but I know that the black hole of atheism is totally bankrupt.

Theism isn't a belief system either. There are numerous belief systems that a theist or an atheist can hold. Neither is a belief system in itself.

I will assume for the moment that your facts here have some merit: I'm not sure exactly what that comparison means. It may mean only that the diagnosis of mental illness is more frequent in the USA. It may be that in the USA the drug companies have motivated doctors to prescribe more of their medications. It may mean that in the USA we are all given the illusion, by schools and government, that competition is essential and friendship is not (the result of this philosophy may drive people mad.)

What it means is that one would be ill-advised to try to draw conclusions from such muddled information.

The USA has a gun loving sub culture that could be somewhat responsible. In the USA, the policeman is more likely to turn his weapon on himself and his family than on the criminal. Then you get into the madness of a culture that prefers to nurture competition rather than friendship and then outsources all the jobs to countries where the people earn $1/day. It has been proven that jobs make a person sane.

I'm not sure how to relate this to the OP.

We should leave religion alone. This world already has enough failed experiments.

You're going to need to qualify that some. Surely you don't mean people should be able to do whatever they want in the name of their religion and not even face criticism?

[Justinian2]

Hitchens vs God,

7nIRJVmZ4K8

Paul

:) :) :)

I believe in a creator. Just as there was a creator of the game of chess, I believe that inductive reasoning can show that there was a creator of the universe.

Like Hitchens, I don't think god is obsessed with playing every life ever lived anymore than the creator of the game of chess is obsessed with playing every game of chess ever played.

Hitchens' position is that God isn't the evil dictator that controls our lives or day to day activities. I have been saying the same - although the translation from English to English hasn't always been exact, to say the least.

Hitchens didn't invest himself into the fight that their is no creator. Hitchens didn't invest much time in bashing religion either. Hitchens did, however, say that a belief in a god as a horrible dictator was anti-productive. I have been saying the same - although the translation from English to English hasn't always been exact, to say the least.

The position of the atheists on this thread is barbaric and should not be supported in the least. Hitchens, however, has a message that should be listened to.

[dafydd]

I believe in a creator. Just as there was a creator of the game of chess, I believe that inductive reasoning can show that there was a creator of the universe.

Like Hitchens, I don't think god is obsessed with playing every life ever lived anymore than the creator of the game of chess is obsessed with playing every game of chess ever played.

Hitchens' position is that God isn't the evil dictator that controls our lives or day to day activities. I have been saying the same - although the translation from English to English hasn't always been exact, to say the least.

Hitchens didn't invest himself into the fight that their is no creator. Hitchens didn't invest much time in bashing religion either. Hitchens did, however, say that a belief in a god as a horrible dictator was anti-productive. I have been saying the same - although the translation from English to English hasn't always been exact, to say the least.

The position of the atheists on this thread is barbaric and should not be supported in the least. Hitchens, however, has a message that should be listened to.
Wrong, yet again.

[Justinian2]

I've belonged to protestant beliefs that focused on the New Testament; the story of Christ. These protestant beliefs do not dwell on god as the terrible dictator, but on a God that was like Christ.

[Justinian2]

Wrong, yet again.
Coming from you, that means I was right again.

[dafydd]

Coming from you, that means I was right again.

No. Dream on.

[Agatha]

What "barbaric position" do you claim the atheists on this thread hold? I have been an atheist all my life and cannot think of any subject on which my opinion/position could be said to be barbaric. You made this remarkable claim, let us see the evidence.

[Mudcat]

No. Dream on.
His ego is of legendary proportions, I'll give him that.

[excaza]

I've belonged to protestant beliefs that focused on the New Testament; the story of Christ. These protestant beliefs do not dwell on god as the terrible dictator, but on a God that was like Christ.

So, whatever is convenient for you and makes you feel better.

[Justinian2]

What "barbaric position" do you claim the atheists on this thread hold? I have been an atheist all my life and cannot think of any subject on which my opinion/position could be said to be barbaric. You made this remarkable claim, let us see the evidence.

Show me where the Atheists on this thread have NOT been barbaric.

Let's put it another way. If I agree with Hitchins 95% of what Hitchens said in that video and have been expressing those viewpoints which have been vigorously denied and ridiculed by the 'Atheists' here, then you must not believe in Hitchens or do it barbarically.

[Justinian2]

So, whatever is convenient for you and makes you feel better.

Another English to English mistranslation.

[dafydd]

Show me where the Atheists on this thread have NOT been barbaric.

.

Quote something barbaric that an atheist has said here. Put your money where your mouth is. Look up the meaning of the word 'barbaric' first.

[kmortis]

Show me where the Atheists on this thread have NOT been barbaric.

Let's put it another way. If I agree with Hitchins 95% of what Hitchens said in that video and have been expressing those viewpoints which have been vigorously denied and ridiculed by the 'Atheists' here, then you must not believe in Hitchens or do it barbarically.

Well, going by the various meanings of "barbaric" I have:
(linguistic)We're all speaking relatively good English. Granted, it's not koine Greek, so I guess "technically" that's barbaric
(historic)Not one of us has plundered a village, small or otherwise.
(colloquial)We've been more or less polite during the entire stretch of the thread. A few flare ups, where atheists have been involved, but overall this thread hasn't really been that much of a trouble maker.

So, of the three definitions, only one do we have atheists acting "barbarically" and then if that's included everyone in the thread no matter their religious persuasion would be considered barbaric.

[excaza]

Another English to English mistranslation.

I'm sorry you are unable to comprehend.

[dafydd]

Well, going by the various meanings of "barbaric" I have:
(linguistic)We're all speaking relatively good English. Granted, it's not koine Greek, so I guess "technically" that's barbaric
(historic)Not one of us has plundered a village, small or otherwise.
(colloquial)We've been more or less polite during the entire stretch of the thread. A few flare ups, where atheists have been involved, but overall this thread hasn't really been that much of a trouble maker.

So, of the three definitions, only one do we have atheists acting "barbarically" and then if that's included everyone in the thread no matter their religious persuasion would be considered barbaric.

But how many of us stammer?

[kmortis]

But how many of us stammer?

That's more of a verbal tic and wouldn't necessarily show up in the printed word. Unless someone is using a speech to text program.

Also, I'm unaware that "Barbaric" implies "stammer", but I can see the connection.

[AdMan]

Well, going by the various meanings of "barbaric" I have:
(linguistic)We're all speaking relatively good English. Granted, it's not koine Greek, so I guess "technically" that's barbaric
(historic)Not one of us has plundered a village, small or otherwise.
(colloquial)We've been more or less polite during the entire stretch of the thread. A few flare ups, where atheists have been involved, but overall this thread hasn't really been that much of a trouble maker.

So, of the three definitions, only one do we have atheists acting "barbarically" and then if that's included everyone in the thread no matter their religious persuasion would be considered barbaric.


Justinian2 must have an LRH-approved definition of the word.

[dafydd]

That's more of a verbal tic and wouldn't necessarily show up in the printed word. Unless someone is using a speech to text program.

Also, I'm unaware that "Barbaric" implies "stammer", but I can see the connection.

mid-14c. (adj.), from M.L. barbarinus (cf. O.Fr. barbarin "Berber, pagan, Saracen, barbarian"), from L. barbaria "foreign country," from Gk. barbaros "foreign, strange, ignorant," from PIE base *barbar- echoic of unintelligible speech of foreigners (cf. Skt. barbara- "stammering," also "non-Aryan"). Greek barbaroi (n.) meant "all that are not Greek," but especially the Medes and Persians. Originally not entirely pejorative, its sense darkened after the Persian wars. The Romans (technically themselves barbaroi) took up the word and applied it to tribes or nations which had no Greek or Roman accomplishments. The noun is from late 14c., "person speaking a language different from one's own," also (c.1400) "native of the Barbary coast;" meaning "rude, wild person" is from 1610s.

[dafydd]

Justinian2 must have an LRH-approved definition of the word.

A nonsense definition. Oops, how barbaric of me.

[kmortis]

mid-14c. (adj.), from M.L. barbarinus (cf. O.Fr. barbarin "Berber, pagan, Saracen, barbarian"), from L. barbaria "foreign country," from Gk. barbaros "foreign, strange, ignorant," from PIE base *barbar- echoic of unintelligible speech of foreigners (cf. Skt. barbara- "stammering," also "non-Aryan"). Greek barbaroi (n.) meant "all that are not Greek," but especially the Medes and Persians. Originally not entirely pejorative, its sense darkened after the Persian wars. The Romans (technically themselves barbaroi) took up the word and applied it to tribes or nations which had no Greek or Roman accomplishments. The noun is from late 14c., "person speaking a language different from one's own," also (c.1400) "native of the Barbary coast;" meaning "rude, wild person" is from 1610s.

Ahh..see I knew that the word was quasi-onomatpedic, in that the Greeks heard the non-Greek tribes of the day and were aghast at the crudeness of the languages that they heard. Cool.

[dafydd]

Ahh..see I knew that the word was quasi-onomatpedic, in that the Greeks heard the non-Greek tribes of the day and were aghast at the crudeness of the languages that they heard. Cool.

Why does Justinian come to mind when I read the phrase 'crudeness of language'?

[kmortis]

A nonsense definition. Oops, how barbaric of me.

See, there's our problem, we actually use the accepted definition rather than one of our own creation. I really wish that if someone was going to create a neologism they'd have the common decency to make an actual new word rather than just co-opting an existing one. It's so confusing.

[kmortis]

Why does Justinian come to mind when I read the phrase 'crudeness of language'?

My guess? Priming_(psychology)

[dafydd]

If Justinian dropped his Humpty Dumpty approach to language then he may be able to communicate with us.

[excaza]

If Justinian dropped his Humpty Dumpty approach to language then he may be able to communicate with us.

You need to find God* first.




*the God according to Protestants, otherwise you're a filthy barbarian.

[kmortis]

If Justinian dropped his Humpty Dumpty approach to language then he may be able to communicate with us.

It does make me wonder if there's a Scientology teaching that atheists are barbaric/uncivilized. I mean, he seems to be using it to mean that we're not following along with his "religion, any religion, is a good thing" schtick. Really not sure what to make of it. Would be nice to hold an actual conversation with him though. *sigh*

[AdMan]

It does make me wonder if there's a Scientology teaching that atheists are barbaric/uncivilized. I mean, he seems to be using it to mean that we're not following along with his "religion, any religion, is a good thing" schtick. Really not sure what to make of it. Would be nice to hold an actual conversation with him though. *sigh*


No culture in the history of the world, save the thoroughly depraved and expiring ones, has failed to affirm the existence of a Supreme Being. It is an empirical observation that men without a strong and lasting faith in a Supreme Being are less capable, less ethical and less valuable to themselves and society....A man without an abiding faith is, by observation alone, more of a thing than a man.


http://www.scientology.org/faq/scientology-beliefs/what-is-the-concept-of-god-in-scientology.html

[kmortis]

Huh...well waddya know. There IS a Scientology teaching like that.

[catsmate1]

Because He defeated death and was raised from the dead, calling all men unto Himself.
:rolleyes: Will you be providing some evidence for this? Or is your unsupported opinion supposed to be enough?

[catsmate1]

Do people still smite nowadays?
Yes but there's more paperwork required.:)

[catsmate1]

Australia is a very secular place, and I think generally is moving away from organised religion, but we still have our fair share of the moderately religious and even whackjob zealots.

ETA: put it this way, there is a CoS within walking distance of here. Im not sure theyre all that successful though.
Given its involvement in the Walicki and Vitkovic murder cases and Eastgate's arrest for covering up child sex abuse, that doesn't surprise me.

[Mudcat]

Yes but there's more paperwork required.:)

Not if you make a proper saving throw of 1 on a 5D100 :cool:

[Justinian2]

It does make me wonder if there's a Scientology teaching that atheists are barbaric/uncivilized. I mean, he seems to be using it to mean that we're not following along with his "religion, any religion, is a good thing" schtick. Really not sure what to make of it. Would be nice to hold an actual conversation with him though. *sigh*

My lawyer advised me to always meet people in person because I was good at being interactive. I think hand movement and facial expressions are a big part of communication and that we can read people and be read by people through body language.

Looking at my discussions over the last month and there are only two people (you're one) that have been civil.

Scientology teaches that "Love conquers all". But it also advises you not to waste your time communicating with the angry people, the suppressive people or the anti Scientologists because it wastes time that could be better spent helping those that need and want help.

[catsmate1]

Looks like the great Deceiver, Hitler, deceived you with his words the same way he deceived the English Prime Minister Chamberlin, who proudly held up and waved the peace agreement he made with Hitler, and the way he deceived Stalin with the Non-Agression pact he made with Russia. That deception cost Russia about 20 million lives.
And yet again an xian lies.
"But the historical record is very clear. He grew up as a Catholic in Vienna. During his early adult life he lapsed somewhat as a regular churchgoer but never actually stopped "believing." During his rise to power he leaned more towards Lutheran theology.

He never believed in Odinism despite the fact that some of his upper echelon promoted it. Hitler actually mocked Atheists. He believed Jesus was an Aryan and tried to promote this idea too. His anti-semitism was a traditional part of European Christianity at the time; though he inflamed it, as had many in previous pogroms who used it for their own purposes. And he even states that modern Jews were Atheistic as a means of reviling them.""I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord"
--Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 2

I had so often sung 'Deutschland über Alles' and shouted 'Heil' at the top of my lungs, that it seemed to me almost a belated act of grace to be allowed to stand as a witness in the divine court of the eternal judge and proclaim the sincerity of this conviction.
- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1

Even today I am not ashamed to say that, overpowered by stormy enthusiasm, I fell down on my knees and thanked Heaven from an overflowing heart for granting me the good fortune of being permitted to live at this time.
- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 5

What we have to fight for is the necessary security for the existence and increase of our race and people, the subsistence of its children and the maintenance of our racial stock unmixed, the freedom and independence of the Fatherland; so that our people may be enabled to fulfill the mission assigned to it by the Creator.
- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 8

But if out of smugness, or even cowardice, this battle is not fought to its end, then take a look at the peoples five hundred years from now. I think you will find but few images of God, unless you want to profane the Almighty.
- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 10

In short, the results of miscegenation are always the following: (a) The level of the superior race becomes lowered; (b) physical and mental degeneration sets in, thus leading slowly but steadily towards a progressive drying up of the vital sap. The act which brings about such a development is a sin against the will of the Eternal Creator. And as a sin this act will be avenged.
- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 11

Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise.
- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf Vol. 2 Chapter 1

Thus inwardly armed with confidence in God and the unshakable stupidity of the voting citizenry, the politicians can begin the fight for the 'remaking' of the Reich as they call it.
- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf Vol. 2 Chapter 1

It may be that today gold has become the exclusive ruler of life, but the time will come when man will again bow down before a higher god.
- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf Vol. 2 Chapter 2

Once again the songs of the fatherland roared to the heavens along the endless marching columns, and for the last time the Lord's grace smiled on His ungrateful children.
- Adolf Hitler reflecting on World War I, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Chapter 7

Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith ...we need believing people.
- Adolf Hitler, April 26, 1933, speech made during negotiations leading to the Nazi-Vatican Concordant

We were convinced that the people need and require this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.
- Adolf Hitler, Speech in Berlin, October 24, 1933

"... I do not merely talk of Christianity, no, I also profess that I will never ally myself with the parties which destroy Christianity."
—Adolf Hitler, February 15, 1933, speech in Stuttgart

"National Socialism neither opposes the Church nor is it anti-religious, but on the contrary, it stands on the ground of a real Christianity."
—Adolf Hitler, August 26, 1934, speech in Koblenz

"This human world of ours would be inconceivable without the practical existence of a religious belief."
—Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

"I may not be a light of the church, a pulpiteer, but deep down I am a pious man, and believe that whoever fights bravely in defense of the natural laws framed by God and never capitulates will never be deserted by the Lawgiver, but will, in the end, receive the blessings of Providence."
—Adolf Hitler, 1944

[excaza]

Scientology teaches that "Love conquers all".

Oh boy, how much did they charge you for that?

Also, calling people barbaric and/or insane isn't a very loving gesture. Unless you're an insane barbarian.

[Justinian2]

Oh boy, how much did they charge you for that?

Also, calling people barbaric and/or insane isn't a very loving gesture. Unless you're an insane barbarian.

See the hostility here?

[Mojo]

See the hostility here?


Yes:
The position of the atheists on this thread is barbaric and should not be supported in the least.
Ya, the atheists on this forum are stark raving mad!
I know a lot of atheists. None have any balance what so ever. They are all angry, caustic, unappreciative, hostile, unconstructive, demeaning, uninformative, bullies, insulters, harassers, trolls and otherwise totally insane. Insanity is their most important product.

[Justinian2]

And yet again an xian lies.
"I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord"
--Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 2

etc.



Thank you. I love reading the works of screwballs like Hitler. I love to see how he twists the truth to fit his needs.

I think that power and wealth make you think that God approves of what you are doing.

[Justinian2]

Back on topic, how's the unemployment rate in Europe?

I think good jobs are necessary for sanity. Perhaps it isn't the diminishing religious atmostphere that's causing insanity but the diminishing economy.

LONDON — Europeans are plagued by mental and neurological illnesses, with almost 165 million people or 38 percent of the population suffering each year from a brain disorder such as depression, anxiety, insomnia or dementia, according to a large new study.

Cause and effect may be reversed. Perhaps the diminishing economy is causing insanity rather than insanity negatively effecting the economy as the OP article suggests.

With only about a third of cases receiving the therapy or medication needed, mental illnesses cause a huge economic and social burden -- measured in the hundreds of billions of euros -- as sufferers become too unwell to work and personal relationships break down.

[Paulhoff]

I believe in a creator. Just as there was a creator of the game of chess, I believe that inductive reasoning can show that there was a creator of the universe.

That is nice, who made your creator?


The position of the atheists on this thread is barbaric and should not be supported in the least. Hitchens, however, has a message that should be listened to.

This is nice, believing in a god is barbaric, seeing that it can be anything you want it to be, it is a simple concept and can not be supported with fact.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Paulhoff]

I've belonged to protestant beliefs that focused on the New Testament; the story of Christ. These protestant beliefs do not dwell on god as the terrible dictator, but on a God that was like Christ.

But your Jesus did not throw out the Old Testament, so what gives you the right to do that, outside of cherry-picking which you guys love to do.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Paulhoff]

Coming from you, that means I was right again.

Right as anyone else without proof in their beliefs.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Paulhoff]

Happy days are here again!

Yes, christains are losing ground as they should.

Paul

:) :) :)

[dafydd]

This is nice, believing in a god is barbaric



There is nothing more primitive than believing in a god.

[Justinian2]

That is nice, who made your creator?


After a billion years and thousands of wars all history might be lost. If I was working in a billion year old civilization, I might be working on a project to simulate what the early history was like in a computer. The simulation would be perfect, like life itself. The simulation would even give me the option of entering the simulation as a god, a spirit, or another person.

Of course, the creator of our universe could also be a simulation and so on and so forth. The original 'god' could be something really primative built of the primal building blocks - bits of matter that just create other bits of matter.

Maybe the fundamental 'God' is just bits of matter, space and time that can create other bits of matter, space and time.

There you have it. That's one possible God scenario. There are others.

[Justinian2]

In conclusion: Anything is possible. God in the likeness of man is possible and, perhaps, probable. Heaven and hell are possible. God's involvement in our lives is possible. Angels are possible. And, of course, Satan is possible.

[Mudcat]

In conclusion: Anything is possible. God in the likeness of man is possible and, perhaps, probable. Heaven and hell are possible. God's involvement in our lives is possible. Angels are possible. And, of course, Satan is possible.

Lovely, except for the part where you forgotten that just because it's possible doesn't mean it happened.

[Locknar]

I've moved about 14 bickering (ie. breach of rule 0, rule 11, rule 12) posts to AAH. Please ensure your posts are civil/polite, on topic, and address the argument vs attack the arguer.

[tsig]

delete

[tsig]

Thank you. I love reading the works of screwballs like Hitler. I love to see how he twists the truth to fit his needs.

I think that power and wealth make you think that God approves of what you are doing.

Thank you for starting this thread I love reading the works of screwballs like L Ron. I love to see how he twists the truth to fit his needs.

I think that power and wealth make you think that God approves of what you are doing.

[tsig]

In conclusion: Anything is possible. God in the likeness of man is possible and, perhaps, probable. Heaven and hell are possible. God's involvement in our lives is possible. Angels are possible. And, of course, Satan is possible.

Is you being wrong possible?

[joolz]

In other words -- there is NO evidence of Europeans going crazy more often than Americans, and you are desperately trying to come up with excuses for that.


I'd guess you could both be right?

One end result can have many routes to it.

Maybe we Europeans suffer from more depression etc because we'd rather be in that deep, horrendous, nightmarish, pit of despair and retain our sanity, than use religion as a crutch and blame everything on a mythical being just to anaesthetize ourselves from reality by giving us a false notion that it's all "god's" fault?

Then again, a lot of the weird stuff we hear about Americans is that the insane people who decide to do a lot of the mass killings and/or provoke hatred and/or bigotry and/or intolerance are because they think a mythical being is telling them to do all that bad stuff, either through 'voices' or by misreading books written centuries ago.

Both impact on mental illness - but from opposite causes. For some mental illness is internalised into depression, for others it's externalised into mass killings and bigotry.

If my clinical depression is the price I pay for my atheism then it's a price I'm willing to pay.

cheerz

joolz

[Elizabeth I]

Waaaait a minute. I thought Scientologists didn't believe in mental illness? So what's all this talk about atheists being "insane"?

[TheGoldcountry]

Waaaait a minute. I thought Scientologists didn't believe in mental illness? So what's all this talk about atheists being "insane"?

I think Justinian has created his own very broad definition of insanity. Apparently, anyone who has ever been deluded, has ever suffered from chemical dependency, has ever shown anger, has ever been affected by stress, or has ever doubted the principles that he believes in (I won't use the name for fear of being reprimanded) is insane. If you're not "clear," you're insane, for all intensive purposes.

[Akhenaten]

In other words -- there is NO evidence of Europeans going crazy more often than Americans, and you are desperately trying to come up with excuses for that.





I'd guess you could both be right?





No, not really. Either there is or there isn't evidence of higher levels of crazy in Europe than in the US.

There isn't.



One end result can have many routes to it.





Perhaps, but DOC and Justinian have both chosen the non sequitur route and that's (one of many reasons) why they're wrong.



Maybe we Europeans suffer from more depression etc because . . .

<polite snip>





The whole point, however, is that you don't.



Then again, a lot of the weird stuff we hear about Americans is that the insane people who decide to do a lot of the mass killings and/or provoke hatred and/or bigotry and/or intolerance are because they think a mythical being is telling them to do all that bad stuff, either through 'voices' or by misreading books written centuries ago.





I find myself completely unable to argue with this, although it's probably a bit naughty of us to single out the Merkins.



If my clinical depression is the price I pay for my atheism then it's a price I'm willing to pay.

cheerz

joolz





I think it's more likely that it's just coincident, and the two aren't tied to each other. In any case I find it encouraging that you're not willing to seek relief from one illness by inflicting yourself with another.

:)


Anyway . . .

Welcome to the mad house.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/209954b06e8b167056.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=18240)

[Craig B]

Of course, the creator of our universe could also be a simulation and so on and so forth. The original 'god' could be something really primative built of the primal building blocks - bits of matter that just create other bits of matter. Maybe the fundamental 'God' is just bits of matter, space and time that can create other bits of matter, space and time. There you have it. That's one possible God scenario. There are others. I certainly hope there are others! God as a simulation, and also cobbled together from primitive material building blocks. This European is about to suffer mental disorders by just thinking about that!

What is this material God a "simulation" OF? And who created the primitive matter which was used when the simulation was constructed - by whom?

[zooterkin]

I've belonged to protestant beliefs that focused on the New Testament; the story of Christ. These protestant beliefs do not dwell on god as the terrible dictator, but on a God that was like Christ.

Really? Did you not say you'd been a Scientologist all your life?

ETA: You did:


...
As a Lifelong Scientologist, all but one year spent outside of the Co$
...

So, when were you a Protestant?

[Multivac]

I think there are several inductive proofs for the creator. There are inductive proofs for each possible structure of the universe and all allow for the existence of a creator. There are several generic inductive proofs and individual proofs. It's silly to argue that a creator does not exist and could not exist.

No. Without proof that a creator exists it is silly to argue that one does exist.


You said that, I did not. Of course you are correct given your rewording of my statement.

I didn't reword anything. God does not exist.

My supposition is that religion keeps society sane. I don't think there's any doubt about that.

There most definitely is doubt about this bizarre statement. How can believing in a non-existent sky-daddy help to keep society sane?



Ya, the atheists on this forum are stark raving mad! I also have reason to believe that psychiatric medications are frequently not only useless, but harmful. I have reason to believe that psychiatrists are frequently lunatics. The police and judges are also frequently mad.

So everyone is mad except you, and people who believe in a no-existent creator?

Jobs, schools and religions are the only groups that increase sanity that I have ever seen in my life. Good families are also beneficial. I am talking about jobs, schools and religions that contain great people; not the atheist/bully type.

The maddest people I have ever met are all religious.

Scientologists eventually study all the religions.

If you read the posts in this forum, the posters who generally know the most about religion are the atheists. This is because many atheists will study various religions before reaching the conclusion that god doesn't exist.

[Lamuella]

In conclusion: Anything is possible. God in the likeness of man is possible and, perhaps, probable. Heaven and hell are possible. God's involvement in our lives is possible. Angels are possible. And, of course, Satan is possible.

for broad enough definitions of possible.

How do you conclude that "god in the likeness of man" is "probable"?

Plus, what does any of this have to do with mental health?

[Craig B]

How do you conclude that "god in the likeness of man" is "probable"?

Plus, what does any of this have to do with mental health? Seeing a human being, but believing you are in fact seeing a god, is not without a certain relevance to mental health.

[Justinian2]

for broad enough definitions of possible.

How do you conclude that "god in the likeness of man" is "probable"?

Plus, what does any of this have to do with mental health?

I thought that god in the likeness of man was probable if we were part of a giant simulation done by a race that is a billion years advanced of us. If they are running a simulation in order to learn their early but lost history, then they would simulate themselves and we would be like their early selves. However, if they are a billion years advanced of us, they probably look quite different from us now. To them, we aren't even as advanced as the horseshoe crab is to us. We would be classified as living fossils. But the point is, we would be like they were.

On the other hand, if they are only a mere million years advanced of us, we might be considered to be in their image.

Perhaps the simulated universe is a bubble universe that has been 'banged' out, so to speak.

If a historical simulation is the goal, then we would be in their image, would we not?

[Justinian2]

for broad enough definitions of possible.

How do you conclude that "god in the likeness of man" is "probable"?

Plus, what does any of this have to do with mental health?

The OP connects mental health to religion. The atheists believe that religion is archaic and I was just showing how that viewpoint could be wrong. I was promoting the idea that the atheists are not particularly sane in that they have jumped on a super simple version of life because of the human characteristic and desire to over simplify everything down to one and only one correct idea; complex ideas being too much for them.

[Lamuella]

I thought that god in the likeness of man was probable if we were part of a giant simulation done by a race that is a billion years advanced of us.


Yes, and if the world were created by cadbury's, we'd all be made of delicious milk chocolate. Saying "if (unprovable nonsense) were true than (other unprovable nonsense) is probable" is saying nothing at all.

The OP connects mental health to religion. The atheists believe that religion is archaic and I was just showing how that viewpoint could be wrong. I was promoting the idea that the atheists are not particularly sane in that they have jumped on a super simple version of life because of the human characteristic and desire to over simplify everything down to one and only one correct idea; complex ideas being too much for them.

or to put it another way it had nothing whatsoever to do with mental health. Gotcha.

[excaza]

The OP connects mental health to religion. The atheists believe that religion is archaic and I was just showing how that viewpoint could be wrong.
That's what you've been trying to do? Fooled me.

I was promoting the idea that the atheists are not particularly sane in that they have jumped on a super simple version of life because of the human characteristic and desire to over simplify everything down to one and only one correct idea; complex ideas being too much for them.
You have that exactly backwards. Faith in a deity is the ultimate simplification.

[Craig B]

Justinian2

Beings evolved a billion years before us are not God, by any definition. Since God by definition has infinite powers, these other evolved beings are not one inch closer to being God than we are. Your bizarre fantasy looks like the result of ingestion of mind altering substances rather than the meditation of a religious person contemplating the Divinity.

And how can it be "probable" that such a simulation has taken place? More probable than what? Less probable than what?

[Justinian2]

I didn't mean ALL atheists.
Many atheists on this thread only like over simplifications.

Are many atheists are simpletons? :D

[Lamuella]

I didn't mean ALL atheists.


This is called "backpedalling". It frequently happens when people who express opinion as fact get called on it.

[Justinian2]

Justinian2

Beings evolved a billion years before us are not God, by any definition. Since God by definition has infinite powers, these other evolved beings are not one inch closer to being God than we are. Your bizarre fantasy looks like the result of ingestion of mind altering substances rather than the meditation of a religious person contemplating the Divinity.

And how can it be "probable" that such a simulation has taken place? More probable than what? Less probable than what?

Where did you get that definition? Could not a person of today seem like a god to more primative races. Technology gives a person the apparency of super powers. On the other hand, a person a billion years advanced of us might have super powers. A mere two hundred years ago a cell phone was inconceivable.

[excaza]

I didn't mean ALL atheists.

Good joke.

Need to get the author of the OP back here. I think that the insanity of the atheists is partial proof of the OP's supposition that insanity is the result of diminishing religion.

He's got a point. Good groups tend to increase sanity. Bad groups and people (atheists and bullies) tend to decrease sanity.

[Lamuella]

Where did you get that definition? Could not a person of today seem like a god to more primative races.

"seems like a god" is not the same thing as "a god". otherwise we could claim we orbit a god (the sun) and a god orbits us (the moon).

This has nothing to do with mental health, by the way. Nothing.

[Justinian2]

Justinian2

Beings evolved a billion years before us are not God, by any definition. Since God by definition has infinite powers, these other evolved beings are not one inch closer to being God than we are. Your bizarre fantasy looks like the result of ingestion of mind altering substances rather than the meditation of a religious person contemplating the Divinity.

And how can it be "probable" that such a simulation has taken place? More probable than what? Less probable than what?

You've got to read me carefully, I'm tricky. I said IF such a simulation is done, it is probable that we would be in the image of god.

The key word is IF.

I actually don't think we are the basic form for the universe because of how that universe would have evolved. I actually believe that the basic form of the universe is as different as a computer program is from a computer. Imagine what a shock you'd get if you jumped out of a computer program and onto a computer motherboard! I think real reality is like that. I think real reality is vastly different from what we see and perceive.

I'm just defending traditional religions here. Scientifically, all things are possible. The viewpoint that god and other things are impossible is completely absurd.

[Mister Agenda]

Where did you get that definition? Could not a person of today seem like a god to more primative races. Technology gives a person the apparency of super powers. On the other hand, a person a billion years advanced of us might have super powers. A mere two hundred years ago a cell phone was inconceivable.

I'm pretty sure an individual a billion years more advanced than us technologically would have powers that to us would seem godlike. 'Seems godlike' does not equal 'god'. Especially a god who created the universe in which we find ourselves.

[excaza]

Scientifically, all things are possible.

Where did you get that idea from?

[Mister Agenda]

I'm just defending traditional religions here. Scientifically, all things are possible. The viewpoint that god and other things are impossible is completely absurd.

Depends on the god. A lot of people believe in a God that is omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and that has free will. Now THAT is completely absurd. AND impossible.

[Justinian2]

You are able to see and perceive only your immediate universe. That's evolution. You have no need to see beyond your four dimensions. Furthermore, it's not in your survival interests to see beyond this immediate universe.

[Justinian2]

Depends on the god. A lot of people believe in a God that is omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and that has free will. Now THAT is completely absurd. AND impossible.

I don't think so. Go believe and have faith.

[Craig B]

Depends on the god. A lot of people believe in a God that is omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and that has free will. Now THAT is completely absurd. AND impossible. Then of course there is no God. Or must we contemplate some mini god possessing lesser powers, like say Vulcan who could do volcanoes, but unlike Mercury was no use at speedy communications?

Surely we haven't been reduced to the necessity of refuting the existence of a pantheon of mildly supernatural creatures living on a mountain top. In any case, the existence of such entities is as easy to deny as the existence of the Big One.

[Mister Agenda]

I don't think so.

Omniscience + Omnipotence=a being that can do other than what it knows it is going to do. A contradiction.

Omnipotence + Omnibenevolence=a being that wants a world without evil but does not have it. A contradiction.

Omniscience + Free Will=a being that knows everything it is going to do and can still do otherwise. A contradiction.

Omnibenevolence + Free Will=a being that can choose to do whatever it wants but can never choose to do evil. A contradiction.

'I don't think so' doesn't quite cut it as a counter-argument.

[Lamuella]

You've got to read me carefully, I'm tricky. I said IF such a simulation is done, it is probable that we would be in the image of god.

The key word is IF.


yes, the key word that you didn't use before when you said "God in the likeness of man is possible and, perhaps, probable"

[Mister Agenda]

Then of course there is no God. Or must we contemplate some mini god possessing lesser powers, like say Vulcan who could do volcanoes, but unlike Mercury was no use at speedy communications?

Surely we haven't been reduced to the necessity of refuting the existence of a pantheon of mildly supernatural creatures living on a mountain top. In any case, the existence of such entities is as easy to deny as the existence of the Big One.

Not quite as easy. At least the mini-gods don't necessarily suffer from internal contradiction, only lack of evidence for their existence and nothing for which they are needed as an explanation.

Fortunately, the monotheists have done for most of the mini-gods, and the one that's left is just a pile of omnis that's the product of hundreds of generations of a 'my god is bigger than your god' game. It's like an Irish Elk whose antlers are so big that they've become a hindrance to its survival.

[Craig B]

Not quite as easy. At least the mini-gods don't necessarily suffer from internal contradiction, only lack of evidence for their existence and nothing for which they needed as an explanation. I take your point. But lack of evidence does it for me.

[Mister Agenda]

I take your point. But lack of evidence does it for me.

Likewise.

[Justinian2]

I tend to believe in mini gods myself but I’m not going to debate the point. I believe that religious tolerance is the best idea. I’d also rather not believe in a god that is a dictator or in a god that likes suffering.

God, the gods, the god force or nature certainly allows suffering.

[Lamuella]

It should be noted that none of this has anything to do with mental health. At all.

[AdMan]

I believe that religious tolerance is the best idea.


Except when it comes to lack of religious belief, apparently. Then in your mind we're all subhuman.

[Resume]

I believe that religious tolerance is the best idea.


That's great. So could you get the religious to practice tolerance? Oh yeah, inclusion rather than exclusion.

[excaza]

I believe that religious tolerance is the best idea.
Your posting history suggests otherwise.

I’d also rather not believe in a god that is a dictator or in a god that likes suffering.

Wonderfully illustrating my problem with religion, it gets adjusted based on how people would rather or would rather not have their deity behave. We have no idea how the universe formed, so instead of just being comfortable with not knowing, someone proclaims it was some external force/deity/whatever (referred to as 'god' for the remainder because I don't feel like typing).

Great, now we supposedly have an answer about the origins of the universe. Now this god created the universe, the galaxies, the planets, the life forms. No wait, we can show how galaxies, planets, and life forms can arrive, a god isn't necessary here. Oh, ok, that makes sense! Well that's how those things came about, but a god created the universe! Or maybe one would say that their god created the mechanisms for all these things. Either way, we still have some deity controlling the rules.

Now we get to life forms. People get cancer, people get sick, people who do everything right can suddenly die for no reason. Well, wait a second, your deity created all things, remember? Then your deity created the capacity for suffering. You'd rather believe your deity is not responsible for suffering? Tough patooties. You can't have it both ways. You can't continually change your beliefs while simultaneously asserting that it's the absolute truth and we just need to have faith. That's a ****** way of explaining the universe.

[Justinian2]

That's great. So could you get the religious to practice tolerance? Oh yeah, inclusion rather than exclusion.

Supposition: Perhaps religious tolerance is a key to world and individual sanity.

[excaza]

Supposition: Perhaps religious tolerance is a key to world and individual sanity.

Or just not treating people like **** because they disagree with you. I don't see how religion is relevant.

[Lamuella]

Supposition: Perhaps religious tolerance is a key to world and individual sanity.

supposition: perhaps you're making crap up as you go along.

[Resume]

Supposition: Perhaps religious tolerance is a key to world and individual sanity.

When are they gonna start?

[Justinian2]

supposition: perhaps you're making crap up as you go along.

Garbage talk: Yes, I'm making this crap up as I go along. I am staying within my own playing field, however. My playing field is larger than yours. Mine is bigger than yours.

Supposition: Perhaps religious tolerance is a key to sanity. Perhaps religious tolerance is also first manifested in the personality of the god you endorse/support.

[excaza]

Supposition: Unicorns.

[Darat]

When are they gonna start?

Hey give them some time! After all it's a rather revolutionary idea for most of them, come back in 2000 years and they may have started.

[Lamuella]

Hey give them some time! After all it's a rather revolutionary idea for most of them, come back in 2000 years and they may have started.

in 500 years they will be trying and burning the intolerant after extracting confessions of their intolerance in an auto da fe

[excaza]

in 500 years they will be trying and burning the intolerant after extracting confessions of their intolerance in an auto da fe

I just hope this backwards trend doesn't include shoes with buckles.

[joolz]

No, not really. Either there is or there isn't evidence of higher levels of crazy in Europe than in the US.

There isn't.

<snip>

Anyway . . .

Welcome to the mad house.




Me bad. Newbie screw up on the 'quote post' front. Tried to quote posters further back in that thread. I wasn't referring directly to the OP but to specific comments discussing whether there is a higher rate of mental illness in Europe or in the USA.

The OP simply stated that the European rate was high, it didn't say highER than x, y or z, and comparison of Europe vs the USA is not possible using Wittchen's analysis as it did not extend outside Europe. As you rightly say, there is no evidence either way and to make any inference that either is higher from a 'European only' study is illogical.

The reason I'm stating that they could both be right, is that 'an increase in secularism and decrease in religiosity could be a major reason for the very high rate of mental illness in Europe' doesn't preclude a similar argument that 'a decrease in secularism and increase in religiosity could be a major reason for the equally high rate [as claimed by a poster] of mental illness in the USA'. Of course both statements could equally be wrong, or even be true if you swap locations.

Until, and unless, Wittchen's analysis is carried out outside Europe using identical criteria we cannot state whether that analysis would show higher rates of mental illness in Europe or the USA, and even if it did show identical rates we could not draw a conclusion that the rates were the same for identical reasons, per my point above, unless specific analysis is done on the causes to prove whether none, one or both of the above statements is/are correct.

So I think that means we are on the same side. Discussion of who is crazier or why isn't possible using the study referred to in the OP. Insufficient data. Interesting discussion though, and fun to compare crazies!

No offence to 'merkans out there, just replying to a post that used your place as a comparison to Europe.

Thanks for the welcome, been lurking a while but this was an interesting discussion and couldn't resist it :-)

cheerz

joolz

[dafydd]

Perhaps we should have a separate thread to discuss whether religion causes more mental illness than atheism. I'm inclined to think it does but I have no proof.

[Mudcat]

I thought that god in the likeness of man was probable if we were part of a giant simulation done by a race that is a billion years advanced of us. If they are running a simulation in order to learn their early but lost history, then they would simulate themselves and we would be like their early selves.

The problem here being that a simulation wouldn't play out the same as the actual events, so they wouldn't be able to learn what you're implying.

[Justinian2]

The problem here being that a simulation wouldn't play out the same as the actual events, so they wouldn't be able to learn what you're implying.

I used to tweak my circuit simulations over and over until I got them to do what I wanted them to do.

[dafydd]

I used to tweak my circuit simulations over and over until I got them to do what I wanted them to do.

Your private life is your own affair. This is a family site.

[Mudcat]

I used to tweak my circuit simulations over and over until I got them to do what I wanted them to do.

So you'd make simulation to observe a confirmation bias? Justinian, you need to really work out what you are trying to say.

[Justinian2]

So you'd make simulation to observe a confirmation bias? Justinian, you need to really work out what you are trying to say.

The purpose of tweaking the simulation was to get an accurate computer model for the circuit. Once the model was made accurate, it could be used to predict circuit performance under various conditions and with various modifications.

Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias, myside bias or verification bias[1]) is a tendency for people to favor information that confirms their preconceptions or hypotheses regardless of whether the information is true.[Note

No, this wasn't a confirmation bias. This was making computer adjustments to perfect a computer model. We had to guess the stray capacitance and inductance until we go a model that behaved the way the circuit did.

Once the model was obtained, further tweaks to fudge the output would have been confirmation bias.

[dafydd]

The purpose of tweaking the simulation was to get an accurate computer model for the circuit. Once the model was made accurate, it could be used to predict circuit performance under various conditions and with various modifications.



No, this wasn't a confirmation bias. This was making computer adjustments to perfect a computer model. We had to guess the stray capacitance and inductance until we go a model that behaved the way the circuit did.

Once the model was obtained, further tweaks to fudge the output would have been confirmation bias.

And this proves that atheists are insane? You fart about with computers, so what?

[tsig]

And this proves that atheists are insane? You fart about with computers, so what?

The highest percentage of woo warriors are computer programmers. It's the feel of total control that programming gives them.

[dafydd]

The highest percentage of woo warriors are computer programmers. It's the feel of total control that programming gives them.

I suppose that it makes up for their lack of control of reality.

[tsig]

I suppose that it makes up for their lack of control of reality.

They think computers are reality.

[dafydd]

They think computers are reality.

They don't answer back. Ideal for woos.

[Mudcat]

They don't answer back. Ideal for woos.

They do in fact answer back... precisely the way they are programed to. Which is more than 'God' ever has. Maybe that is supposed to fill in a certain void? Nah, couldn't possibly be...

[Justinian2]

.................Atheists Murders
Austria..........12.2.......0.56
Japan............51.8.......0.83
Germany..........34.6.......0.84
Denmark..........43-80......0.85
Netherlands......39-44......0.87
Ireland..........4.5........1.25
Chile............33.8.......1.33
Canada...........16.2.......1.62
Czech Republic...64.3.......1.67
New Zealand......34.7.......1.76
Bangladesh.......0.1........2.4
Latvia .........40.6.......3.6
United States....16.1.......4.8
Estonia .........75.7.......6.3
Mexico .........20.5.......18
South Africa.....15.1.......32
Venezuela........27.........48

I compared two of the Wikipedia charts. There was a long list of countries in the list of homicides and a long list of countries and their percent non religious. Only the countries listed above were on both lists.

I sorted the list by murders.

It didn't show a correlation between religiousness and the number of murders.

There might be a correlation between poverty and murders or drug use and murders.

[Edward Palamar]

This does not prove that JC existed.

My fruits also bear Christ witness.

[Edward Palamar]

You have proof of the existence of this god of whom you speak?

A wicked generation demands proof.

[slingblade]

I compared two of the Wikipedia charts. There was a long list of countries in the list of homicides and a long list of countries and their percent non religious. Only the countries listed above were on both lists.

You failed statistics, I take it?

Your comparisons are flawed. I'm sure you can't figure out in what way.
Hint: you haven't established any correlation between the two lists. Simply comparing two randomly chosen sets of data isn't going to give you the correlation you're seeking.

Comparing the number of non-religious persons in a given country with the number of murders in a given country doesn't tell you how many murders were committed by non-religious persons. Unless, of course, you decide that all murders must have been committed by non-religious persons, which the data doesn't support.

Here, try this, instead:

Citing four different studies, Zuckerman states: "Murder rates are actually lower in more secular nations and higher in more religious nations where belief in God is widespread." He also states: "Of the top 50 safest cities in the world, nearly all are in relatively non-religious countries."

Within the United States, we see the same pattern. Citing census data, he writes: "And within America, the states with the highest murder rates tend to be the highly religious, such as Louisiana and Alabama, but the states with the lowest murder rates tend to be the among the least religious in the country, such as Vermont and Oregon."

And these findings are not limited to murder rates, as rates of all violent crime tend to be higher in "religious" states. Zuckerman also points out that atheists are very much under-represented in the American prison population (only 0.2%).

There you go.

[slingblade]

My fruits also bear Christ witness.

No.

[Justinian2]

The statistics were from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreligion#cite_note-dentsu-4
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

[Justinian2]

You failed statistics, I take it?

Your comparisons are flawed. I'm sure you can't figure out in what way.
Hint: you haven't established any correlation between the two lists. Simply comparing two randomly chosen sets of data isn't going to give you the correlation you're seeking.

Comparing the number of non-religious persons in a given country with the number of murders in a given country doesn't tell you how many murders were committed by non-religious persons. Unless, of course, you decide that all murders must have been committed by non-religious persons, which the data doesn't support.

Here, try this, instead:



There you go.

Well thank you for the data. I will consider it, but I think the author of that article left out some factors like poverty, drug use, and socialism.

The low rate of atheism in prison might be due to the fact the inmates are trying to suck up and impress people that they have changed and will lead the good life if paroled.

Inappropriate emotional outbursts and sarcasm are not indicative of intelligence. If you are trying to convince me that atheists are decent people, then start with respect and politeness. That will work better than raw atheistic arguments.

[Mudcat]

but I think the author of that article left out some factors like poverty, drug use, and socialism.


That's because other studies factor in those factors where as this was focused on a specific set of factors :rolleyes:

[slingblade]

Inappropriate emotional outbursts and sarcasm are not indicative of intelligence.

Then you might want to consider restraining yourself, and refrain from using them.

[joolz]

Perhaps we should have a separate thread to discuss whether religion causes more mental illness than atheism. I'm inclined to think it does but I have no proof.

Well, there's the basic assumption that if you are religious then you are delusional so you are already half way there, but I'd guess it must help your feelings if you can abdicate responsibility for your woes onto a mythical being. Then again, trying to maintain the facade of your religion against all the inherent contradictions it has must twist the mind quite a bit.

Methinks more research is needed!

joolz

[Sun Countess]

Garbage talk: Yes, I'm making this crap up as I go along. I am staying within my own playing field, however. My playing field is larger than yours. Mine is bigger than yours. Yes, yes, and your ancestors could beat up our ancestors. Do you have any arguments besides "Neener neener?"

Supposition: Perhaps religious tolerance is a key to sanity. Perhaps religious tolerance is also first manifested in the personality of the god you endorse/support.
The God of Abraham is not a very tolerant god, so many of his followers are also intolerant. I could only wish that the religious could be more tolerant of those with other beliefs and practices.


Justinian, DOC, any other theists out there, what do you make of the inquisitions and witch hunts? Were those products of a "sane" religious society? How about Jim Jones or David Koresh or Marshall Applewhite? Did their religious beliefs promote sanity among their communities? What do you think about the desperate masses travelling to Lourdes to touch a statue? Is that a sign of a sane person? When you see a sea of Muslims bowing down toward Mecca, do you consider that a sign of group sanity? How about those holy rollers in a pentecostal church, waving their arms and speaking in tongues?


I'm just wondering what types of religious beliefs or practices you think would be a good representation of "sanity." From where I stand, it all looks nutty.

[Mudcat]

From where I many stand, it all looks nutty.

fixed that for you

[devnull]

A wicked generation demands proof.

I have a legal contract here that you signed, it says you must wire me all your money.

Would you like any evidence of this assertion, or just my bank A/C details?

[The Norseman]

The highest percentage of woo warriors are computer programmers. It's the feel of total control that programming gives them.
This does not compute.

[The Norseman]

Justinian, DOC, any other theists out there, what do you make of the inquisitions and witch hunts? Were those products of a "sane" religious society?
Just don't ask Edward Palamar. He'll end up saying something incoherent about fruits and nuts...

[tsig]

My fruits also bear Christ witness.

Your apples are singing hymns?

[tsig]

A wicked generation demands proof.

A stupid generation doesn't demand proof.

[Mojo]

Perhaps we should have a separate thread to discuss whether religion causes more mental illness than atheism. I'm inclined to think it does but I have no proof.Well, there's the basic assumption that if you are religious then you are delusional so you are already half way there...


But which way round are the cause and effect?

[Akhenaten]

My fruits also bear Christ witness.





Revelation 18:14-16


14 And the fruits that thy soul lusted after are departed from thee, and all things which were dainty and goodly are departed from thee, and thou shalt find them no more at all.

15 And there shall in that time be rumours of things going astray, and there will be a great confusion as to where things really are, and nobody will really know where lieth those little things with the sort of raffia work base, that has an attachment.

16 At this time, a friend shall lose his friends’s hammer and the young shall not know where lieth the things possessed by their fathers that their fathers put there only just the night before around eight o’clock.


I'm not 100% sure about those last two verses, although they seem congruent with the rest of Revelation so they're prolly genuine enough for our purpose here.

[excaza]

They think computers are reality.

http://www.blogcdn.com/blog.moviefone.com/media/2010/12/tron101.jpg

It could happen...

[excaza]

<snip> sarcasm are not indicative of intelligence.
I would submit Akhenaten's posting history as a counter to that argument.

If you are trying to convince me that atheists are decent people, then start with respect and politeness.
Why on earth would I respect someone who doesn't believe I'm worth of respecting? Why would I be polite to someone who starts off by calling me insane?

[Justinian2]

Doesn't mean that the Golden rule isn't a bad rule to start with.

From what I've read, the best strategy goes like this:
Start with altruism
If it's reciprocated, continue
If it's not, return tit-for-tat
repeat if necessary

My original point was more that there's no reason to jump down Justininan's throat due to this. There's WAY better reasons for that.

Great post!

I never thought the golden rule applied to self defense. The Christians I knew also believed that you should also "Turn the other cheek".

However, I like your intrepretation better and I actually try to follow the listed strategy.

I added item 5 to the list as people will forget who started the hostilities if they go on too long.

Start with altruism
If it's reciprocated, continue
If it's not, return tit-for-tat
repeat if necessary
return to item 1 on a new day

[Justinian2]

Yes, yes, and your ancestors could beat up our ancestors. Do you have any arguments besides "Neener neener?"


The God of Abraham is not a very tolerant god, so many of his followers are also intolerant. I could only wish that the religious could be more tolerant of those with other beliefs and practices.


Justinian, DOC, any other theists out there, what do you make of the inquisitions and witch hunts? Were those products of a "sane" religious society? How about Jim Jones or David Koresh or Marshall Applewhite? Did their religious beliefs promote sanity among their communities? What do you think about the desperate masses travelling to Lourdes to touch a statue? Is that a sign of a sane person? When you see a sea of Muslims bowing down toward Mecca, do you consider that a sign of group sanity? How about those holy rollers in a pentecostal church, waving their arms and speaking in tongues?


I'm just wondering what types of religious beliefs or practices you think would be a good representation of "sanity." From where I stand, it all looks nutty.
I'm starting with altruism on this new day.

My ancestors were devoutly protestant. One of them signed a petition that vouched for the one of the witches that were on trial in Salem MA. That was a brave thing to do in that era.

I think that people have a natural inclination to find fallacies/excuses that support their bias/prejudice. They will use the laws, rules or principles that they are most familiar with.

I believe that the religion isn't bad, it's the person that turns to the religion for the excuses to support his bias/prejudice that is bad. Hypothetically, a bad atheist would use the law or psychiatry for the excuses to support his bias/prejudice.

If you don't like part of this argument let's discuss one objection with civility (one at a time). After all, it's a new day and I don't like steps 3, and 4.

[dafydd]

I would submit Akhenaten's posting history as a counter to that argument.


Why on earth would I respect someone who doesn't believe I'm worth of respecting? Why would I be polite to someone who starts off by calling me insane?

And a Nazi.

[Justinian2]

I have religious beliefs. I don't, however, believe the membership of most religious groups is much more moral than the mores of the general population.

Some of the membership of religious groups, the ones that use the religion to cloak their nefarious life, are very bad.

Having said that, I also believe that the mores of the members of religious groups that sincerely want to help others is vastly superior to the mores of the general population.

[dafydd]

Just don't ask Edward Palamar. He'll end up saying something incoherent about fruits and nuts...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8H4IC9ttIU

[tsig]

http://www.blogcdn.com/blog.moviefone.com/media/2010/12/tron101.jpg

It could happen...

As long as the generators spin.

[Sun Countess]

I have religious beliefs. I don't, however, believe the membership of most religious groups is much more moral than the mores of the general population.

Some of the membership of religious groups, the ones that use the religion to cloak their nefarious life, are very bad.

Having said that, I also believe that the mores of the members of religious groups that sincerely want to help others is vastly superior to the mores of the general population.

You seem to be saying that if you compare the very best of the religious with the the full spectrum of the general population (the majority of whom are also religious), then the best people are superior. How is this a surprise?

[Filippo Lippi]

New, one size-fits-all, response to these threads

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=7853531#post7853531

[Justinian2]

You seem to be saying that if you compare the very best of the religious with the the full spectrum of the general population (the majority of whom are also religious), then the best people are superior. How is this a surprise?

Lost in Translation. Is it difficult to understand how a translation like this can completely pervert the original meaning?

[Sun Countess]

Lost in Translation. Is it difficult to understand how a translation like this can completely pervert the original meaning?
Here's what you said:

Having said that, I also believe that the mores of the members of religious groups that sincerely want to help others is vastly superior to the mores of the general population. This is a very small, specifically select group of people. You are selecting them based on the basis of their sincerity and their altruism. You then compare this group to the general population. Of course they'll be superior.


My question to you is: What percentage of religious people sincerely want to help others? I don't run across that many. For instance, if I look at the slate of candidates for the Republican presidential nomination, most of whom flaunt their religion to pander to the basest "morals" of their electoral base, I can't think of a single one who has better morals than I do. An air of smug superiority, sure. A wish to inflict their narrow and bigoted viewpoints on the populace at large, definitely. Where are you seeing these religious people who sincerely want to help others? (Outside of your small circle of independent scientologists, of course. :rolleyes: )

[Justinian2]

Here's what you said:
This is a very small, specifically select group of people. You are selecting them based on the basis of their sincerity and their altruism. You then compare this group to the general population. Of course they'll be superior.


My question to you is: What percentage of religious people sincerely want to help others? I don't run across that many. For instance, if I look at the slate of candidates for the Republican presidential nomination, most of whom flaunt their religion to pander to the basest "morals" of their electoral base, I can't think of a single one who has better morals than I do. An air of smug superiority, sure. A wish to inflict their narrow and bigoted viewpoints on the populace at large, definitely. Where are you seeing these religious people who sincerely want to help others? (Outside of your small circle of independent scientologists, of course. :rolleyes: )

Each religion has their good, their bad and their ugly. Hypocrites of any religion should really be scrutinized. The trouble is that the criteria used for determining who is good and who is bad in the flock is determined by the minister or the leader of the church.

Ministers of small protestant congregations can pretty much mold the church as they want. People that want to join that congregation will. People that do not want to join the congregation will not. As a result, some congregations do a lot of good and other allow the green river strangler to worship in their midst.

Independent Scientologists are similar in that it's up to the group to enforce the mores.

The Church of Scientology and the Catholic church have huge hierarchies to enforce the mores of the group. Their mores reflect the guy at the top too.

Today you either get individual nuts or groups of nuts with a leader who is nuts.

[joolz]

I have religious beliefs. I don't, however, believe the membership of most religious groups is much more moral than the mores of the general population.

Some of the membership of religious groups, the ones that use the religion to cloak their nefarious life, are very bad.

Having said that, I also believe that the mores of the members of religious groups that sincerely want to help others is vastly superior to the mores of the general population.


Define 'help'. If you mean Mother Theresa's definition of 'help' by allowing people to suffer in agony because it's 'good' for them in her eyes then give me an atheists help any day!

If you mean the way that recently publicised catholic priests 'helped' the youth of their flocks, condoned by their leader, then give me a satanists help any day!

You don't need religion to have high morals - in fact, religion possibly limits you to morals as defined by your particular religion, whereas atheists don't have their morals limited in that way.

Limiting your morals could be a contributor to mental illness for religious folk if they see that the church next door has better morals than theirs, eg some religions genuinely help the sick and young.

joolz

[Roger Ramjets]

I believe that the religion isn't bad, it's the person that turns to the religion for the excuses to support his bias/prejudice that is bad.The person creates the religion. If he creates a religion to support his bias/prejudice, then there's a good chance that religion will turn out bad. IMO any religion whose core beliefs are lies is suspect from the start. I'm not saying some good can't be found in it, but its very nature makes it open to abuse.

Hypothetically, a bad atheist would use the law or psychiatry for the excuses to support his bias/prejudice.Agreed. However, one thing the atheist has going for him is that at least he doesn't try to invoke imaginary gods to support his bias/prejudice. In practice it is harder for an atheist to get away with such behavior because he can only support his position by secular means, which are open to criticism and rational debate.

[let`s talk]

I don't think the rate in Europe is way higher than in the US or somewhere else. They just have a better social and health care and as the result- better records. While in the US things could be much worse. They are just not well-recorded.

[Roger Ramjets]

The Church of Scientology and the Catholic church have huge hierarchies to enforce the mores of the group. Their mores reflect the guy at the top too.For sure, but the Catholic Church has been around for a lot longer and has many more mainstream members, with a much stronger tradition to maintain. Therefore it is less influenced by the current 'guy at the top' than a cult whose original leader is not long gone.

The Catholic church has been embraced by society at large, and integrated into the sociopolitical systems of whole countries. A such it is much more than 'just' a religion. It has managed to do this because its leaders were pragmatic and allowed it to evolve and mature as people's mores changed. This is in contrast to cults which try to rigidly enforce the current leader's peculiar ideas, thereby alienating themselves from the general population.

Today you either get individual nuts or groups of nuts with a leader who is nuts.Has that not always been so?

Christianity started out as one or more cults, with peculiar ideas that went against the establishment. These cults had limited appeal, but the Romans condensed and refined the theology and integrated it into their own sociopolitical system. This gave it legitimacy and much wider appeal, which has allowed the Catholic Church to thrive for two thousand years.

We see the same thing happening today with the Mormon Church. Started by a conman to satisfy his sexual desires, it struggled against the authorities and came close to being destroyed. But subsequent leaders were smart enough to use 'continuing revelation' to remove some of its more destructive doctrine and make it more acceptable to the mainstream.

Could the Church of Scientology pull off the same trick? I doubt it. It's core doctrine is just so wacky that what's left wouldn't be worth keeping. I think the only hope would be if it was to 're-invent' itself in a more benign form that rejects the silly supernatural claims and destructive cult activities.

[TimCallahan]

I keep wondering why this thread is still going. We've already disproved the central assertion of the OP in spades. Is there really anything more to talk about on this subject?

[dafydd]

But which way round are the cause and effect?

That is a moot point.

[Justinian2]

Define 'help'. If you mean Mother Theresa's definition of 'help' by allowing people to suffer in agony because it's 'good' for them in her eyes then give me an atheists help any day!

If you mean the way that recently publicised catholic priests 'helped' the youth of their flocks, condoned by their leader, then give me a satanists help any day!

You don't need religion to have high morals - in fact, religion possibly limits you to morals as defined by your particular religion, whereas atheists don't have their morals limited in that way.

Limiting your morals could be a contributor to mental illness for religious folk if they see that the church next door has better morals than theirs, eg some religions genuinely help the sick and young.

joolz


I don't see any limitation of mores among the religious. As a protestant I grew up with churches spawned by a nearby divinity college. Consequently the membership was of much greater mores and intelligence then the norms for the area.

As a Scientologist I was a member of an org before the COS was taken over by David MisCaviage. The Scientologists were frequently professionals who also graduated from the best colleges. We delivered a lot of one on one help via various types of auditing and made huge positive changes in people. The morality of that group was higher and much more beneficial than the protestant congregations to which I had belong earlier in my life.

Since I know nothing about the mores or charity of atheists, perhaps you could enlighten me.

How could I know anything about atheists since nobody I ever met in person professed to being an atheist? Nobody I ever met even hinted that they didn't believe in god except for the Buddhists and I never met any of them in person either.

Tell me about the good deeds and nature of atheists.

[Justinian2]

For sure, but the Catholic Church has been around for a lot longer and has many more mainstream members, with a much stronger tradition to maintain. Therefore it is less influenced by the current 'guy at the top' than a cult whose original leader is not long gone.

The Catholic church has been embraced by society at large, and integrated into the sociopolitical systems of whole countries. A such it is much more than 'just' a religion. It has managed to do this because its leaders were pragmatic and allowed it to evolve and mature as people's mores changed. This is in contrast to cults which try to rigidly enforce the current leader's peculiar ideas, thereby alienating themselves from the general population.

Has that not always been so?

Christianity started out as one or more cults, with peculiar ideas that went against the establishment. These cults had limited appeal, but the Romans condensed and refined the theology and integrated it into their own sociopolitical system. This gave it legitimacy and much wider appeal, which has allowed the Catholic Church to thrive for two thousand years.

We see the same thing happening today with the Mormon Church. Started by a conman to satisfy his sexual desires, it struggled against the authorities and came close to being destroyed. But subsequent leaders were smart enough to use 'continuing revelation' to remove some of its more destructive doctrine and make it more acceptable to the mainstream.

Could the Church of Scientology pull off the same trick? I doubt it. It's core doctrine is just so wacky that what's left wouldn't be worth keeping. I think the only hope would be if it was to 're-invent' itself in a more benign form that rejects the silly supernatural claims and destructive cult activities.

Independent Scientology is integrating itself into the mainstream. People that say they hate Scientology occasionally get delivered the processes without being told they are getting Scientology. They wind up accepting Scientology as delivered outside the COS.

Scientology is very down to earth. 99% of Scientology has NOTHING to do with ANYTHING mentioned by the critics.

90% of Scientology is Dianetics, study 'tech', Ethics, TRs, the resolution of problems, the resolution of upsets with others, and the resolutions of goals not fulfilled.

Only when the person does all this, all the mundane things, does he say "This is great, let's continue to the OT levels, I demand more Scientology". Scientology starts at the bottom, not the top.

Did you know that somewhere around level 30, the Masons mention Lucifer as their enlightener? Their upper levels are secret too.

[Justinian2]

Nothing the critics have said about Scientology on this forum has been true.

It would be MORE truthful to sum up the movie "It's a Wonderful Life" by saying merely that the main character goes nuts and is bailed out by his friends"

[Justinian2]

I keep wondering why this thread is still going. We've already disproved the central assertion of the OP in spades. Is there really anything more to talk about on this subject?

The OP is this:
I was surprised to see just how high the figures for mental illness are in Europe.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44394646/#.Tma_hI672_I

I maintain that an increase in secularism and decrease in religiosity could be a major reason.

Part of the OP is the concept that a decrease in religion has led to an increase in mental illness. I have suggested that it is the lack of tolerance for other religions and cultures that has led to an increase in mental illness. I haven't seen any tolerance from the atheists here.

I grew up in a town with no colored folk of any type. Our high school had no people of African, Asian, or Indian descent. I also didn't know any Catholics or Jewish people growing up. I knew no atheists. We were all Caucasian Protestants, as far as I knew. The one Swedish girl that transferred to our high school made quite an impact. She was a novelty. She even had a Swedish accent!

This forum is giving me culture shock.

[zooterkin]

The OP is this:


Part of the OP is the concept that a decrease in religion has led to an increase in mental illness. I have suggested that it is the lack of tolerance for other religions and cultures that has led to an increase in mental illness. I haven't seen any tolerance from the atheists here.

I guess you missed the fact that the OP failed to demonstrate that the level of mental illness in Europe was higher than in the USA, for starters, let alone that there was any link to religious belief.

[Justinian2]

I guess you missed the fact that the OP failed to demonstrate that the level of mental illness in Europe was higher than in the USA, for starters, let alone that there was any link to religious belief.

There are no truly scientific tests with controls that can compare mental illness in the USA with that in Europe that I know of. There are some tests, but their validity is debatable.

There are no truly scientific tests with controls that can compare mental illness with religion. There are some tests, but their validity is debatable.

Even then, factors such as age, education, and profession would have to be removed.

Scientologists would use Scientology to prove Scientologists have a higher sanity than Atheists, but that would be circular reasoning. Atheists would use Psychology to prove Atheists have a higher sanity than Scientologists, but that also would be circular reasoning.

[Justinian2]

Both Scientologists and psychologists use the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) which is one of the most frequently used personality tests in mental health. The test is used by trained professionals to assist in identifying personality structure and psychopathology.

Scientologists use the test before and after each auditing intensive and course to determine if their students and PCs are improving. PCs always improve after Scientology unless some major life event intervenes.

The MMPI could be used to make some interesting comparisons.

[joolz]

I don't see any limitation of mores among the religious.

I think there's an expression - there are none so blind as he who will not see. Your reply is to a post that quoted two instances where supposedly religious people have acted in immoral ways because of the limited morals of their religion, Theresa's warped morals meant she chose to leave people in pain when she could easily have alleviated their suffering, I douby many atheists would be restricted by that 'belief'.


Since I know nothing about the mores or charity of atheists, perhaps you could enlighten me.


You must lead an insulated, uninquiring life. Perhaps that explains your posts on this thread having a narrow world view.


How could I know anything about atheists since nobody I ever met in person professed to being an atheist?


You feel you can't know anything about something that you haven't come into physical contact with yourself personally? That statement is just absurd. I wouldn't say I don't know anything about Scientology just because I haven't met any Scientologists in person. Are you saying I should discount every word you've typed about Scientology because we haven't met in person?


Tell me about the good deeds and nature of atheists.

Since you want to be spoon fed the info I have done a basic net search for you.....

Andrew Carnegie, one of the great philanthropists, was an atheist.

As is Fred Hollows who helped set up the first Aboriginal Medical Service in Oz

'Atheist Centre of India' works to end child marriages and caste separation. The also provide aid to women in distress such as single mothers and prostitutes and promote equality of the sexes.

'Earthward Inc', an Atheist group that provides humanitarian aid for victims of religious conflicts

'Fellowship of Freethought' - organizes blood drive, collect food for local food banks, participate in holiday toy drives for needy children, and collects donations for deployed soldiers

'Humanist Action Group' Soup Kitchen - http://youtu.be/o0GtLLv5mY4

'Atheists Helping the Homeless' etc etc etc

I could produce a much longer list of the evils done to people that have been perpetrated in the name of 'religion'.

Hope this crushes the myth that you have to be religious to care about your fellow human beings.

cheerz

joolz

[Justinian2]

I think there's an expression - there are none so blind as he who will not see. Your reply is to a post that quoted two instances where supposedly religious people have acted in immoral ways because of the limited morals of their religion, Theresa's warped morals meant she chose to leave people in pain when she could easily have alleviated their suffering, I douby many atheists would be restricted by that 'belief'.

You must lead an insulated, uninquiring life. Perhaps that explains your posts on this thread having a narrow world view.

I confess that I know nothing about atheists. However, your statement is worded in a manner that does not merit respect even if it is fractionally true.

You feel you can't know anything about something that you haven't come into physical contact with yourself personally? That statement is just absurd. I wouldn't say I don't know anything about Scientology just because I haven't met any Scientologists in person. Are you saying I should discount every word you've typed about Scientology because we haven't met in person?

Is it culture shock to you that atheists are largely unknown and unrespected in parts of the world?

Since you want to be spoon fed the info I have done a basic net search for you.....

Andrew Carnegie, one of the great philanthropists, was an atheist.

As is Fred Hollows who helped set up the first Aboriginal Medical Service in Oz

'Atheist Centre of India' works to end child marriages and caste separation. The also provide aid to women in distress such as single mothers and prostitutes and promote equality of the sexes.

'Earthward Inc', an Atheist group that provides humanitarian aid for victims of religious conflicts

'Fellowship of Freethought' - organizes blood drive, collect food for local food banks, participate in holiday toy drives for needy children, and collects donations for deployed soldiers

'Humanist Action Group' Soup Kitchen - http://youtu.be/o0GtLLv5mY4

'Atheists Helping the Homeless' etc etc etc

I could produce a much longer list of the evils done to people that have been perpetrated in the name of 'religion'.

Hope this crushes the myth that you have to be religious to care about your fellow human beings.cheerz

joolz

I appreciate your links. OK, there are some humanitarian atheists in the world. Hardly a crusher. It proves that some atheists are humanitarian. That is unless the person running the charity pays himself an inordinate salary from the contributions, then it proves just the opposite.

OK, there are some atheist organizations and they do good. You proved that atheists aren't all evil.

Masons worship Lucifer and don't believe in God. Are they considered atheists?

Masons do a lot of charitable work too. I think the Shriners Hospitals for Children s largely the result of religious people that don't believe in God, but do believe in Lucifer.

Situated in the heart of Boston, Shriners Hospitals for Children® — Boston is one of the world’s leading centers for pediatric burn care. Our inpatient and outpatient units are designed to allow children to recover in a safe, fun and friendly environment where family comes first.

[tsig]

Independent Scientology is integrating itself into the mainstream. People that say they hate Scientology occasionally get delivered the processes without being told they are getting Scientology. They wind up accepting Scientology as delivered outside the COS.

Scientology is very down to earth. 99% of Scientology has NOTHING to do with ANYTHING mentioned by the critics.

90% of Scientology is Dianetics, study 'tech', Ethics, TRs, the resolution of problems, the resolution of upsets with others, and the resolutions of goals not fulfilled.

Only when the person does all this, all the mundane things, does he say "This is great, let's continue to the OT levels, I demand more Scientology". Scientology starts at the bottom, not the top.

Did you know that somewhere around level 30, the Masons mention Lucifer as their enlightener? Their upper levels are secret too.

Most of us manage to do that without the cans.

[Justinian2]

<snip>

Hope this crushes the myth that you have to be religious to care about your fellow human beings.

cheerz

joolz

Masons and Shriners (http://www.shrinershq.org/)

The Shriners have done more good than atheists. They are religious; they worship Lucifer.

[Agatha]

I don't really know much about Masons, though there is at least one poster here who is a Mason and could explain further, but if it is true that they worship Lucifer then they are not atheists; atheists lack belief in any and all deities (which includes Lucifer).

I think it possible that you don't really understand atheism, and perhaps it would be wise to take this to another thread where people can explain that really, we are just like anyone else but without the god-belief.

I grew up in a town with no colored folk of any type. Our high school had no people of African, Asian, or Indian descent. I also didn't know any Catholics or Jewish people growing up. I knew no atheists. We were all Caucasian Protestants, as far as I knew. The one Swedish girl that transferred to our high school made quite an impact. She was a novelty. She even had a Swedish accent!
Is this actually true, or are you trolling? I ask partly because of your use of "coloured", which I understand is offensive in America, and partly because I can't understand why you would be surprised that a Swedish person would have a Swedish accent.

[Justinian2]

I don't really know much about Masons, though there is at least one poster here who is a Mason and could explain further, but if it is true that they worship Lucifer then they are not atheists; atheists lack belief in any and all deities (which includes Lucifer).

I think it possible that you don't really understand atheism, and perhaps it would be wise to take this to another thread where people can explain that really, we are just like anyone else but without the god-belief.


Sure, I will post on a thread that defines atheists. Start a new thread and link to it.

Is this actually true, or are you trolling? I ask partly because of your use of "coloured", which I understand is offensive in America, and partly because I can't understand why you would be surprised that a Swedish person would have a Swedish accent.

It's true that the town I grew up in was almost entirely WASP (White Anglo Saxon Protestant). It's true also that people with an accent were a novelty.

Shriners/Masons have contributed billions to their Hospitals (Burn treatment centers for children). They worship Lucifer as the enlightener.

[Justinian2]

Most of us manage to do that without the cans.

As I have mentioned before, tests the psychologists use are taken periodically throughout the Scientology levels/processing to verify that the PC/Scientologist is making case gain. If they don't go up, or are not at the top of the test, then their processing is changed. Scientologists always improve. The psychology tests always get better or stay high.

Those of us who go up the 'bridge' don't need tests to prove we are making gains. We feel the gains. We know we are getting better without the tests.

[Foster Zygote]

Masons and Shriners (http://www.shrinershq.org/)

The Shriners have done more good than atheists. They are religious; they worship Lucifer.

The problem with your argument is that you are comparing a specific philanthropic organization with a group that is not an organization. You may as well argue that people who don't listen to Country music are not philanthropic because there are no philanthropic organizations composed entirely of people who don't listen to Country music.

[tsig]

As I have mentioned before, tests the psychologists use are taken periodically throughout the Scientology levels/processing to verify that the PC/Scientologist is making case gain. If they don't go up, or are not at the top of the test, then their processing is changed. Scientologists always improve. The psychology tests always get better or stay high.

Those of us who go up the 'bridge' don't need tests to prove we are making gains. We feel the gains. We know we are getting better without the tests.

Scientologists use psychology to validate their belief?

[Justinian2]

Scientologists use psychology to validate their belief?

Ya! Ain't that a gas!

[Foster Zygote]

Tell me about the good deeds and nature of atheists.

Atheists, just like the members of theistic religions, are human beings who cover the entire spectrum of altruism. Just like there are theists who go out of there way to help others, there are also atheists who go out of their way to help others.

[Justinian2]

The problem with your argument is that you are comparing a specific philanthropic organization with a group that is not an organization. You may as well argue that people who don't listen to Country music are not philanthropic because there are no philanthropic organizations composed entirely of people who don't listen to Country music.

Wasp, WASP [wɒsp]
n (in the US)
acronym for
(Sociology) White Anglo-Saxon Protestant: a person descended from N European, usually Protestant stock, forming a group often considered the most dominant, privileged, and influential in American society
Waspy adj

WASPs aren't a group either. OK, they are protestant by birth, but many don't go to church much.

[Foster Zygote]

Sure, I will post on a thread that defines atheists. Start a new thread and link to it.

As per your request (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=7857002#post7857002).

[AdMan]

I confess that I know nothing about atheists.


That is painfully obvious. And yet you continue to post, in this thread and elsewhere, pretending that you do know about atheists and atheism. Why is that?

[Foster Zygote]

WASPs aren't a group either. OK, they are protestant by birth, but many don't go to church much.

And what are you attempting to demonstrate?

[zooterkin]

The Shriners have done more good than atheists. They are religious; they worship Lucifer.

:sdl:

[Elizabeth I]

Masons worship Lucifer and don't believe in God.

Masons do a lot of charitable work too. I think the Shriners Hospitals for Children s largely the result of religious people that don't believe in God, but do believe in Lucifer.

The Shriners have done more good than atheists. They are religious; they worship Lucifer.

Shriners/Masons have contributed billions to their Hospitals (Burn treatment centers for children). They worship Lucifer as the enlightener.
As the great-niece of a Mason whose Baptist wife would have knocked him in the head with his own monkey wrench if she had suspected him of worshiping Lucifer, I have to ask where you are getting your "information."


It's true that the town I grew up in was almost entirely WASP (White Anglo Saxon Protestant). It's true also that people with an accent were a novelty.
Has anybody ever seen a black Anglo-Saxon of any religious persuasion, Protestant or otherwise?

Did you not say elsewhere in the forum that you are 61? Have you really reached that age without learning that there are many many many people in the world who are vastly different from you and the people you grew up with?

[joolz]

Masons and Shriners (http://www.shrinershq.org/)

The Shriners have done more good than atheists. They are religious; they worship Lucifer.


You are not reading properly. At no point did I say that atheists have a monopoly on doing good. I even stated that some people who are religious do good, and I'm equally sure there are plenty of satanists who do good. My point was that being religious does not automatically mean you have more charitable behaviours, but that, in many noted cases, it means you may be less charitable than others. Damning millions of people to eternal hell if they were born into a culture with a different religion is not exactly civilised, or logical.

joolz

[joolz]

I confess that I know nothing about atheists. However, your statement is worded in a manner that does not merit respect even if it is fractionally true.


I have re read my statement and see nothing unmeritable? My statements about the theresa woman have been publicly documented. There is much evidence that your posts have been limited by your confessed lack of knowledge of atheists, what's to criticise?


Is it culture shock to you that atheists are largely unknown and unrespected in parts of the world?


It does when those comments come from a part of the world that purports to be educated, has interent access and from someone who feels free and easy posting their own beliefs to the world. I had the courtesy to learn a bit about religion before criticising it, yet you feel free to make sweeping generalisations about atheists without learning anything about them first?


OK, there are some humanitarian atheists in the world. Hardly a crusher. It proves that some atheists are humanitarian. That is unless the person running the charity pays himself an inordinate salary from the contributions, then it proves just the opposite.


Like the pope you mean? Sitting on all that gold and wealth while a lot of his flock live hand to mouth?


OK, there are some atheist organizations and they do good. You proved that atheists aren't all evil.


Thank you, although I wouldn't have felt that needed to be 'proved', just as I take it as read that all scientologists aren't evil, even if I feel they are miguided.


Masons worship Lucifer and don't believe in God. Are they considered atheists?

Masons do a lot of charitable work too. I think the Shriners Hospitals for Children s largely the result of religious people that don't believe in God, but do believe in Lucifer.

I don't like Masons for reasons I won't go into here, but it doesn't preclude me from acknowledging that they do some good works. A statement that my freethinking choice of atheist morals allows me to believe, unlike some religious people who condemn them just because their own religion says they should hate everything that masons do - and that contorted belief system dichotomy (if I do it it's good, if they do it it's bad) brings me back to the OP and the question of what causes mental illness.

joolz

[zooterkin]

There are no truly scientific tests with controls that can compare mental illness in the USA with that in Europe that I know of. There are some tests, but their validity is debatable.

There are no truly scientific tests with controls that can compare mental illness with religion. There are some tests, but their validity is debatable.

Even then, factors such as age, education, and profession would have to be removed.

Scientologists would use Scientology to prove Scientologists have a higher sanity than Atheists, but that would be circular reasoning. Atheists would use Psychology to prove Atheists have a higher sanity than Scientologists, but that also would be circular reasoning.
You seem to be agreeing with me, then. No evidence had been advanced to support the basis of the OP.

[Mister Agenda]

Since I know nothing about the mores or charity of atheists, perhaps you could enlighten me.

How could I know anything about atheists since nobody I ever met in person professed to being an atheist? Nobody I ever met even hinted that they didn't believe in god except for the Buddhists and I never met any of them in person either.

Tell me about the good deeds and nature of atheists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheists

[Mister Agenda]

The OP is this:

Part of the OP is the concept that a decrease in religion has led to an increase in mental illness. I have suggested that it is the lack of tolerance for other religions and cultures that has led to an increase in mental illness. I haven't seen any tolerance from the atheists here.


There's no evidence that there's been an increase in mental illness in Europe. The OP is a non-starter.

Tolerance does not translate as 'never criticize anything'. You should maybe think of reviewing your posts to remind yourself of what you've said about atheists.

[Mister Agenda]

There are no truly scientific tests with controls that can compare mental illness in the USA with that in Europe that I know of. There are some tests, but their validity is debatable.

So you already know there's no basis for the OP?


There are no truly scientific tests with controls that can compare mental illness with religion. There are some tests, but their validity is debatable.

Even then, factors such as age, education, and profession would have to be removed.

Scientologists would use Scientology to prove Scientologists have a higher sanity than Atheists, but that would be circular reasoning. Atheists would use Psychology to prove Atheists have a higher sanity than Scientologists, but that also would be circular reasoning.

Scientology does not have the same relationship to scientologists that psychology has to atheism. The latter would not be a case of circularity, and I, for one, am willing to follow the findings of psychologists whereever the evidence leads them.

[Mister Agenda]

Masons and Shriners (http://www.shrinershq.org/)

The Shriners have done more good than atheists. They are religious; they worship Lucifer.

You would have to know a lot about atheists to make a comparison like that.

[DOC]

At no point did I say that atheists have a monopoly on doing good. I even stated that some people who are religious do good, and I'm equally sure there are plenty of satanists who do good... Why are you so sure about Satanists?

[zooterkin]

Why are you so sure about Satanists?

He said, "equally sure". What do you think distinguishes satanism from other religions?

ETA: Oh, and way to miss the point of the post, as usual.

[Lamuella]

I'm still in the dark about this idea that masons are satanists.

[Craig B]

I'm still in the dark about this idea that masons are satanists. I'm even more in the dark about how Satan inspires them to do good works.

[zooterkin]

I'm even more in the dark about how Satan inspires them to do good works.

That's rather the point. Non-existent entities are not responsible for people doing good works; people are.

[Akhenaten]

Satenists are just Southern Atenists. From Kush. Kinda like Southern Baptists.

Oh, wait . . . SatAnists.

Soz, my mistake. Carry on.

[Paulhoff]

Masons and Shriners (http://www.shrinershq.org/)

The Shriners have done more good than atheists. They are religious; they worship Lucifer.

So, George Washington, a Mason, worship Lucifer.

Paul

:) :) :)

Good to know.

[Mudcat]

Why are you so sure about Satanists?

Instead of focusing on unimportant details, how about answering the main point of the OP?

[dafydd]

Instead of focusing on unimportant details, how about answering the main point of the OP?

That is beyond his capabilities.

[Mudcat]

That is far beyond his capabilities.

Highlight mine, fixed that for you.

[Justinian2]

I'm still in the dark about this idea that masons are satanists.

Masons refer to the light-bearer. Other religions labeled other deities as Satan and kind of lumped them all together.

Traditionally, Lucifer ( /ˈluːsɪfər/ or /ljuːsɪfər/) is a name that in English generally refers to the Devil or Satan before being cast from Heaven, although this is not the original meaning of the term. In Latin, from which the English word is derived, Lucifer (as a noun) means "light-bearer" (from the words lucem ferre). It was the name given to the dawn appearance of the planet Venus, which heralds daylight. For this meaning, English generally uses the names "Morning Star" or "Day Star", and rarely "Lucifer".

Use of the name "Lucifer" for the Devil stems from applying to the Devil what Isaiah 14:3–20 says of a king of Babylon whom it calls Helel (הֵילֵל, Shining One), a Hebrew word that refers to the Day Star or Morning Star (the Latin term[2] for which is lucifer)[3] In 2 Peter 1:19 and elsewhere, the same Latin word lucifer is used to refer to the Morning Star, with no relation to the Devil. In Revelation 22:16, Jesus himself is called the Morning Star, but not "Lucifer", even in Latin.

It is uncertain when precisely the Isaiah passage, which in its Latin translation contains the name "Lucifer", began to be applied to Satan, but it was certainly used in this way by 3rd-century Origen,[4] and some scholars claim that the identification of "Lucifer" with the Devil was first made by Origen, Tertullian and Augustine of Hippo.[5]

This link is probably a more accurate description of the Masonic deity than that given by Wikipedia (http://www.menorah.org/masonry.html).

[Justinian2]

Highlight mine, fixed that for you.

She has severe CD or 'cognitive disorders' with all the associated emotional symptoms. MCI is the first stage of Alzheimers.

[Mudcat]

Masons refer to the light-bearer.That's a fairly reoccurring symbol through out human history. So what makes you so sure this 'light-bearer' is 'Satan' and not 'Jesus'?
Other religions labeled other deities as Satan and kind of lumped them all together.Evidence for that assertion?

She has severe CD or 'cognitive disorders' with all the associated emotional symptoms. MCI is the first stage of Alzheimers.
Who is 'she'?

[dafydd]

Why are you so sure about Satanists?

http://www.dpjs.co.uk/good_and_evil.html

[tsig]

So, George Washington, a Mason, worship Lucifer.

Paul

:) :) :)

Good to know.

J2 might want to tell that to the Christians who are always on about the US being a Christian nation.

[joolz]

http://www.dpjs.co.uk/good_and_evil.html

I found your link very interesting and thought-provoking, thanks.

joolz

[dafydd]

I found your link very interesting and thought-provoking, thanks.

joolz

I play the Devil's music on the fiddle. Much more fun than boring christian rock. Satan's ok by me.