Belief In God Correlates With Better Mental Health Treatment Outcomes 931
Hatta writes "According to researchers from Harvard Medical School, belief in god is correlated with improved outcomes of treatment for depression. Quoting: 'In the study, published in the current issue of Journal of Affective Disorders, researchers comment that people with a moderate to high level of belief in a higher power do significantly better in short-term psychiatric treatment than those without. "Belief was associated with not only improved psychological well-being, but decreases in depression and intention to self-harm," says David H. Rosmarin, Ph.D., an instructor in the Department of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School.' This raises interesting questions. Does this support the concept of depressive realism? If the association is found to be causal, would it be ethical for a psychiatrist to prescribe religion?"
Does screaming OH GOD during sex (Score:5, Funny)
Correlate to better outcomes during sex?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
If it's Jesus getting it on with his dad, it's perfectly legit. If it's Jesus getting it on with his mother, Jesus might get jealous when she screams, "Oh, God!"
Re:Does screaming OH GOD during sex (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Does screaming OH GOD during sex (Score:4, Insightful)
It was once believed that the female orgasm didn't exist because it served no conceivable (pardon the pun) purpose, but that was wrong on both counts. Positive feedback seems like a perfectly plausible reason for making noise, and it wouldn't necessarily be measurable as a distinct biological process. Besides, the article was in the Daily Mail...their view is that a woman's role is to lie back and think of England.
I'm not sure if the behaviour of bonobos is relevant, since they're a different species. For example, you can grin at a human without having your arms ripped off...
Re: (Score:3)
It was once believed that the female orgasm didn't exist because it served no conceivable (pardon the pun) purpose, but that was wrong on both counts. Positive feedback seems like a perfectly plausible reason for making noise, and it wouldn't necessarily be measurable as a distinct biological process.
I know this is slashdot and all, but my wife tells me that women are a lot more likely to wnat sex when they get something out of it. That's the ultimate positive feedback - the difference between "Oh - it' s Saturday night agan. Okay, let's do it", and meeting you at the door dressed in plastic wrap.
Not religion, but purpose (Score:5, Insightful)
That's what people crave. They can't live with the possibility that life might have no meaning at all, that we're just here and should make the best of it.
Re:Not religion, but purpose (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Not religion, but purpose (Score:4, Insightful)
No Religion is the simplest and laziest method for giving some purpose. Have some mythical all knowing (or partially knowing depending on which religion) be the person responsible for "YOUR" actions.
Humans are lazy. we like the simplest way of doing things. Things like using fear to control mobs, and having some fairy sky being responsible for your actions makes things much easier to understand.
Religions generally use fear to control. If you don't follow us something bad will happen to you. However Fear while simple is actually the worst way to get someone to follow you. One day they will stop being afraid and if your lucky they will let you live while they leave.
Re:Not religion, but purpose (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
No Religion is the simplest and laziest method for giving some purpose.
I agree with you pretty much completely, but you have to admit, it's still an effective package. You can dislike something and still admire its ability to perform some task. It's the kind of respect that an atheist who works for an advertising agency might have.
Re:Not religion, but purpose (Score:5, Interesting)
Supermarkets are the simplest and laziest method for obtaining food. I don't see you hunting, gathering or farming all your calories.
Nonsense. Religions generally are cultural practices, just like how you tend to dress like people in your subculture, you tend to participate in the same festivals as people in your country, and you tend to eat the same food as your ethnic group.
The vast majority of religions are based on cultural identity, not fear. Of course, there are some notable exceptions.
Re:Not religion, but purpose (Score:4, Insightful)
New religions are disruptive countercultures, look at any time and place where a new or foreign religion takes hold in an area with a different long standing belief system (which is to say, everywhere, every time, because we don't have historical accounts of any society that went from a truly areligious state to a religious one). You would do well to study the history of the rise of Christianity, Islam, Buddhism (especially in China), Mormonism, etc. It's all culture clash, violence, distrust etc. It takes generations for things to normalize, and only after the deaths of countless people caught in between.
Your attitude of 'look at religion now' is completely meaningless and obtuse through the lens of history. Look at how religion comes to be, from that you'll actually learn something.
In Memoriam: Hypatia of Alexandria
Re: (Score:3)
Religions generally use fear to control.
Yes, evil men who don't care about or even believe in God do in fact use religion for their own selfish ends. It's a sad fact of life.
Not all religions are like that. Hindus, Bhuddists, and most Christianity isn't. But beware of people like Pat Robertson. Never trust a preacher who wears a suit and tie.
Whether or not you believe in God, what Jesus taught made a lot of sense. If everyone acted like he taught, the world would be a wonderful place. Damned hard to do thou
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Most religions that I know of ascribe the concept of free will to humanity, and humans assume full responsibility and liability for all of their own actions, not God.
All that does is make for a kind and loving God who is a thorough bastard, creating people that he knows will be sent to hell and tortured forever and ever amen.
Re:Not religion, but purpose (Score:4, Insightful)
The point made is that most Religions believe that you choose the road you walk on. If you take the wrong path, you don't end up at your desired location. The Bible, Torah, Koran, etc.. is the map with a road clearly marked. It should be rather obvious that if God didn't want you to get to the right place, there would be no map.
Maybe you should try to learn something about Religions before talking bad about them?
I'm not fond of what many Religions teach, but I've become well educated in numerous theologies so that I can intelligently discuss them.
Re: (Score:3)
Not all religions teach that. Not even all Christian religions teach that.
Re:Not religion, but purpose (Score:4, Informative)
But to have a sense of purpose in a meaningless world, it needs to be packaged properly. Religion is just a very effective and time-tested vessel for purpose.
Umm, try enslavement, not purpose. Religion is a distraction from reality used to get power over people. TFA on the other hand is talking about belief in God, which does not necessarily include organized religious affiliation, i.e., religion. Belief in God gives people a happy, fuzzy feeling that there's a giant spaghetti monster (or whatever you believe) hovering high above them their whole life watching out for them and making sure good things and not bad happen to them. That's crazy!
Re: (Score:3)
But to have a sense of purpose in a meaningless world, it needs to be packaged properly. Religion is just a very effective and time-tested vessel for purpose.
The world may be meaningless for you, but that does not mean objectively that it is. There are plenty of people that get meaning and purpose not only from religion. Some have a selfish purpose, such as making lots of money, no matter who they hurt in the process. There are some who make it their purpose to be helpful and loving to those around them.
Re:Not religion, but purpose (Score:5, Insightful)
Neither. It's just the basis of cognitive therapy. You replace the thoughts that lead to X (X = depression in this case) with other thoughts. Religion is just convenient because it doesn't require any extra work for the therapist - it just requires you read religious texts instead of the therapist figuring out what will work best for the individual.
Re:Not religion, but purpose (Score:5, Informative)
Based on the abstract [jad-journal.com] and the article, that doesn't appear to be what is going on - that is use of religion as cognitive therapy. Belief in God appears to be the independent variable in the study. The subjects in the study that receive treatment and believe in God have better outcomes. Belief in God and religion aren't the treatment but effect the outcome.
Re:Not religion, but purpose (Score:4, Interesting)
Typically, "God" is packaged along with afterlife, another chance, eternal existence, etc. Would belief in God then create an implied belief in those other things?
The biggest religions are the ones that offer these things only so long as you follow the rules of their God. If people are told to believe in God without a reason, would this study come to the same conclusion?
Beliefs (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Makes sense, at least in my point of view. I'm a atheist, and I have got into depressions regarding the meaning of life, the un/fairness behind it, a lot of trascendental questions, also a fear of death, which people that believes in a god, with fervor, may not feel, since they may believe there is a life after death, there is a meaning behind everything, that there is a god that loves you, etc.
I'm an athiest too - but I would find the concept of a God who lets bad things happen to good people just to serve his mysterious higher purpose even more depressing than the idea that nothing happens for a reason.
Re: (Score:3)
Of course it's speculation, but what this suggests to me is part of a general theme: social pressure is more effective than legal prohibition. Prohibiting alcohol almost guarantees drunkenness, but living in a society where getting drunk is considered a sign that there's something wrong with you almost guarantees moderate drinking habits.
Re:Beliefs (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you also have low opinions of any parents who feel some tinge of sadness when their kid departs to head off to college? Have you never had a friend move away for better opportunity elsewhere, and both rejoiced with them for their gains and sorrowed at your common loss? Had to put a family pet down, knowing its suffering is over, as is its life? Either you have lived an amazingly lucky and perfect life, or you're just a heartless git --- in either case, you lack a fundamental level of human empathy for those who (religious or not) have enough braincells for both joy and sorrow.
Thus proving... (Score:5, Interesting)
That ignorance is bliss.
Re: (Score:3)
Or that christian people are just a bunch of hypercondriacs yearning to suffer clogging up all of our hospitals with fake ailments, or self-induced ailments, because they know they're sinners and they believe they deserve whatever disease their mind/body is conjuring up for them. In other words, religion could just be triggering a reverse-placebo effect which lasts a minimum of 40 days, and then suddenly magically disappears as if it was never even there in the first place.
I want the truth! (Score:3)
You misread the article. Knowing God leads to better mental health outcomes. Ignorance of God leads to prolonged misery. Ignorance is misery.
It is as Jesus said: you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.
It is as Colonel Jessup said: You can't handle the truth.
Headline FAIL. (Score:5, Insightful)
The key thing missing in the headline: "In treatment of depression".
Other things missing: "in one isolated study", "in an article summarizing the study, without any direct link to the research", and of course, "a highly biased interpretation meant to generate views based on obvious controversy."
Keep in mind, this may also be highly cultural, as many nations have much larger percentage non-believing populations, but not worse depression or suicide rates that correlate.
Ryan Fenton
Re:Headline FAIL. (Score:4, Insightful)
Ha! Am I biased, and selective in the messages I put out into the world? Yes - I'm a human being.
Is there anything wrong with that?
I just want appropriate labeling on the biased articles that are using misleading language to disguise the bias they are proffering.
I'm perfectly OK with bias - in fact, I highly encourage proselytizing and debate, and love to learn about religions of all sorts. I just don't appreciate approaches that use lies and distortions to push the proselytizing as if it were something it were not. Like with the Templeton foundation.
Ryan Fenton
It's comforting to have an easy out. (Score:5, Interesting)
It's God's will. God is testing me. It's beyond my control. There's also the "God gives me strength" angle.
I suppose it's easier to overcome mental health problems if one believes that they bear no responsibility for their troubles and that an infinitely powerful being will make everything okay if they just believe. A metaphysical placebo.
It's a bit rougher if you've only got yourself to blame for your shortcomings and believe the strength to overcome must come from within.
Re:God gives cover to any excuse (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
If it's a chemical imbalance, you definitely shouldn't be waiting for God to make it right. That's where you turn to science, chemistry, pharmaceuticals, etc.
Re:It's comforting to have an easy out. (Score:4, Insightful)
You are confusing knowing a symptom with knowing a cause. We are making progress, but you can't really call what we have now knowledge. Look at how people are classified for medication. It's laughable. Most of the medications are not sugar, but their actions and reactions in the body are so wild and varied that you can't really call that knowledge.
There is a whole lot of write ups by scientists on how the current system is horrible. They classify new diseases by common symptoms, all of course treatable with some wonder pill. Your child want's to play? Here is a pill, now you can watch TV in peace. Your child can't pay attention? No need for discipline, here is a pill.
Sure, there are some very real illnesses. We may even have some real medications for a hand full. For the most part though? Our methods of diagnosis and treatment often compare to snake oil, often with the same impact as drinking said snake oil.
If you can belive in a god (Score:3, Funny)
Then you can be tricked into believing you can be helped by the doctor. A weak mind is easily manipulated. Both for good and evil.
Does it also correlate with (Score:5, Interesting)
Does it also correlate with more than usual incidences of requiring help for such maladies?
The power of friends? (Score:4, Interesting)
Reality IS depressing (Score:5, Insightful)
George Bernard Shaw (Score:2, Insightful)
"That a believer is happier than a sceptic is no more to the point than a drunk man being happier than a sober one."
Ho boy, break out the asbestos underwear (Score:4, Insightful)
It's a same we can't moderate the article as flamebait.
I can "believe" it (Score:2)
There is nothing at all wrong with that. Most people have some sort of belief system, be it religious or another spiritual sense.
The dangerous part is when the church or governing body of that belief system is corrupt and they tell you that you must believe their word and that is it. E
Enjoy each day (Score:5, Interesting)
Hmmm... (Score:2)
Duh (Score:2)
If a depressed person feels that "god" has a purpose for them, they're more likely to power through until things get better. Faith in purpose is really what was just correlated...
Key phrase: "short-term" (Score:2)
Really? (Score:2)
Placebo Effect (Score:3)
The point being, if the patient believes it works, sometimes it does.
There's always two sides to a coin (Score:5, Insightful)
Another way to look at their results is that there needs to be an improvement in the psychological treatment of atheists because there may be some bias in the treatment that tends to push people to appeal to the spiritual. Maybe a bit like AA.
There is a distinct lack of research in the area of atheist vs theist rates of psychological problems. Of the available research, here is one such study that suggests that atheists are less likely to suffer from depression:
http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/buggle_20_4.html [secularhumanism.org]
I haven't done the digging yet but the submitted article smells like the Templeton Foundation may have had an influence.
Re:There's always two sides to a coin (Score:5, Informative)
Well fuck me. I hate replying to myself bit I didn't expect it to be so easy to track down.
See here:
http://www.jpsych.com/pdfs/david.hillel.rosmarin.cv.pdf [jpsych.com]
Prepared: November, 2012
David H. Rosmarin, Ph.D.
GRANT REVIEW ACTIVITIES
2012 John Templeton Foundation
The Templeton Foundation Strikes again.
Have they controlled for which god? (Score:3)
Because I can totally see belief in certain gods being correlated with catastrophically negative outcomes.
Re:Have they controlled for which god? (Score:4, Insightful)
That's actually an awesome question.
If most religions believe only one religion is right and there is only one "real" god, then only only followers of one particular religion should see a benefit. If other religions see the same benefit, then doesn't that sort of disprove any relation to supposed divinity? And if you rationalize it by saying "well, it's not that god is making you better, it's just that simply believing helps", then doesn't that even further invalidate the entire concept?
Looks like he's been grinding this ax for a while. (Score:5, Insightful)
The chief researcher's curriculum vitae: http://www.spiritualityandhealth.duke.edu/resources/pdfs/David%20Rosmarin.pdf [duke.edu] (search the doc for "spiritual")
Not to say that he can't be right, but he has been pursuing this idea of "religious people are happier/mentally healthier" for several years. He has a lot invested and a lot of publications on the matter. It doesn't give the impression of a researcher free of bias.
I'd be interested in knowing what they controlled for when calculating the strength of the effect they found. Did they account for age, family history, income, race, sex and social involvement?
Cut Me Some Slack (Score:3)
I wonder what a belief in J.R. Bob Dobbs does for one's mental health.
Kinda hard to control the dosage though right? (Score:4, Interesting)
Too little, and you are a depressed atheist. Too much and you have sudden uncontrollable violent urges to blow up Olympic events and fly planes into buildings.
And what about the truly mentally ill people who fixate that god is telling them to drown their children? Who else would have the authority in their minds to demand that?
I am not saying the belief in God is pernicious. But it seems like there is a certain toxic baggage that has accumulated along with organized religion that keeps people dying a lot.
Religion is NOT the answer (Score:3)
The real issue is that those who believe in a God that watches over them also tend to feel that their lives are being guided, and they PREFER to feel that someone is guiding/controlling/watching over them. Now, a big part of depression comes from feeling powerless about your situation in life, so from that point of view, feeling like SOMETHING is looking out for you is a positive thing, no matter what or who it may be. The solution to treating depression then, is to provide a system(can be peer based, not government) where people who are depressed have others who may be able to help them, or watch out for them to give support. What has happened with modern society is that there is a notable lack of community in most places, and that lack of community leads to depression, and a feeling of isolation. Picture if you had no friends living near you, and the only thing you do is go to a bar and drink by yourself, where you see others who have connections or are making connections. Do that for years, and depression is sure to set in. Neighbors would help, but if society makes it so people are not interested in being connected to your neighbors, that leads to depression.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Why, it's a science story, of course.
Which means, yeah, it's a blatant example of the editors posting flame-fodder.
Of course, we all know the exact text of every single troll that will be posted here, so perhaps the real sport will be in seeing who's dumb enough to not roll their eyes and abstain.
Re:This is here, because? (Score:4, Interesting)
I happen to believe that there is a God and I will probably be modded into oblivion just for saying so. The fact that the article shows belief in God in a favorable light, will also not sit well with many.
"I believe in God, and I think Slashdot is a group of bigots that will mod me down for my personal beliefs" is flame bait, and should be treated as such. If you left off the taunt on the end, you might have not deserved the negative mods you are expecting, but haven't gotten at the time I post this.
Re:This is here, because? (Score:5, Interesting)
No, atheists are seen as being as bad as evangelical activists, because a great many of them feel the need to go out of their way to interject their own ideology into the discussion as often as they can... Just like evangelicals. At leasts that's been the bulk of my personal experience, with both types of people.
I've had plenty of perfectly civil conversations about religion and related practices with Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddists, and others. But when it comes to atheists, every one of them seems to define their atheism as their own superiority to all others. All such discussions I've ever had have very quickly devolved into one-sided antagonism, where it's insisted that everyone else must try and "prove" their God exists, and be judged. As I said, that's just my experience, but it's been invariable thus far.
I've certainly never seen this persecution of Atheists you claim exists. And I certainly don't see it being more lonely or challenging to be Atheist than, say, being a lone Hindu or Buddhist in the west.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
So you feel inferior when talking to people who are less delusional than you? How is that their fault?
Re: (Score:3)
Then as I age, I get to see a repeat --- cases of, how shall I put it, "miracles" --- where patients that the medical doctors have given up on, made drastic recoveries
I'm going to go out on a limb that you can't put a number on that, and that you also can't put a number on the times a patient was told they'd be fine and then unexpectedly dropped dead.
Perhaps, just perhaps, deep inside our psyche, there is a force that we have not yet touch upon, a force so great that it can fight whatever illness the body has been infected with
A force which is a combination of an immune system honed over millions of years, modern scientific understanding, and pure dumb luck.
Till now, our human scientific knowledge is still very limited, there are still a lot of things that we do not know
That's no reason to start making shit up while grasping at straws for an explanation.
Re:Belief system (Score:5, Insightful)
If you believe in something that is greater than you - whether it be God or Buddha or Yaweh or Allah or Satan what-ever-name-it-is - you have some sort of "psychological protective vest"
When I was younger I did not believe in the so-called "power of prayer" (no matter which religion it is, or which God the prayer supposed to go to). I thought the thing is rubbish
Step 1: Establish credentials by stating that you used to hold an opposing view. Provides a sense of credibility, and a starting point. What matters more is how the speaker transitioned from disbeliever to believer, which is what follows.
Then as I age, I get to see a repeat --- cases of, how shall I put it, "miracles" --- where patients that the medical doctors have given up on, made drastic recoveries
Step 2: Wheel out vague anecdotes and faulty reasoning as post hoc support of a conversion. Rather than indicating existence of supernatural super mind power, what you say here suggests more a need for a decent grounding in statistics.
I can't explain how the thing works, I am only an independent observer on that process
Step 3. Argument from ignorance and claim impartiality. This is a common tactic of conspiracy theorists who try to get out of a need for rigorous evidence by saying that they're not asserting, just asking questions. Of course the questions asked strongly imply an assertion, like asking "so why do you think so few Jews died in 9/11?", to imply a Jewish inside job without coming out and saying it.
Perhaps, just perhaps, deep inside our psyche, there is a force that we have not yet touch upon, a force so great that it can fight whatever illness the body has been infected with --- and perhaps, it's the "belief system" that there is something "more powerful than us", through "prayer", that made up a "conduit" or sort, that tap on that force deep within our own psyche, to fight the disease that has inflicted much pain and suffering on the victim / patient
Step 4: The baloney shotgun is armed. Perhaps in my liver I have an army of undetectable ponies that maintain a balance of power that prevents either kidney from seizing control of my renal system.
The word "perhaps" is bolted on to the front of a whole bunch of crazy speculations that are no more to the point than to postulate the universe being at the centre of a giant donkey's arse.
Till now, our human scientific knowledge is still very limited, there are still a lot of things that we do not know
Maybe one day our human can get our technoogy advance to the point that we can get "in touch" with that force deep inside our own psyche
Step 5: Speculation is at an end - shit just got real. At this point, make it clear that this imaginary bullshit for which there's no evidence is only obscured by our lack of technology/open mindedness/faith. Where earlier it was "perhaps", now it's taken as a given that this force exists. The only perhaps left is the question of whether we will ever advance sufficiently in our technology/open mindedness/faith to be able to understand this magical force.
Scientific knowledge is incomplete. Your knowledge of science is on a par with my knowledge of the Iranian dating scene. Like science, you know it does something because you fly in airplanes, and similarly I know Iranians have some form of dating because they marry and they produce children. I've no idea though how man meets women, and you appear to be viewing science as this big mysterious box, that may as well be a fucking great monkey skull shaped cave on a island that brings the rains when you do your little dance.
Re: (Score:2)
Belief In God Correlates With Better Mental Health Treatment Outcomes
so does marajuana use, so therefore belief in god must correlate with marajuana use :P
Re: (Score:2)
Belief In God Correlates With Better Mental Health Treatment Outcomes
so does marajuana use, so therefore belief in god must correlate with marajuana use :P
Actually, the opposite effect on mental health is probably more likely for marijuana. [psychcentral.com]
Re:This is here, because? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Because both ideas are absurd and no one actually believes that the entire universe is a simulation.
That is, no one sane.
Those that do believe in such a theory could argue that the Christian god/Allah/whoever is immoral and us being an experiment is just research into artificial intelligence, and thus moral.
Damn, I dunno. Go ask the people who claim to believe in a simulated universe. When you find them? Let me know.
Re:This is here, because? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
It's argue, not believe, but anyway.
http://www.simulation-argument.com/matrix2.html [simulation-argument.com]
Re: (Score:2)
If it makes you feel better the article points out that the raging atheists have a disadvantage against people who are upbeat due to a spiritual belief. So take solace in knowing that like a scorpion that stung the frog, raging atheists do it because it is their nature.
(BTW this is tongue-in-cheek)
Re:This is here, because? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This is here, because? (Score:4, Insightful)
Probably the same reason atheists label all people of faith as "worshippers", "fanatics", or whatever. The overwhelming majority of atheists and spiritual individuals are laid back and don't advertise their disposition. However the ones that do make their beliefs (or lack thereof) known usually earn the label 'raging', 'cynic', 'fanatic', 'extremist', etc. and stigmatize the remaining likeminded population.
You really must know a lot of atheists. Because if you don't, how can you make such a blanket statement? Other wise, you would be the same as a person who says All Christians are fundamentalist assholes who want to take us back tot the dark ages.
I do know some fundies like that, who really shouldn't call themselves Christians because the definitely follow a angry old testament God who is just waiting to torture those people who don't worship him. I've still never gotten any answer when I ask why they don't follow Jesus' sermon on the mount.
But they aren't most religious people I know. In fact, they are a loud obnoxious minority. Most Christians I know follow a Jesus based religion, are decent people who aren't assohles.
So enough of the typecasting. There is also something to be said to standing up to the assholes.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, who said that atheists can't have missionary zeal? And feel the urge to win the "delusional" faithful believer over to the side of reason?
Personally, I think god does not exist. I cannot prove it, no. I can't show you evidence that he's not there, no. If you wish, you could say I believe in him not existing, it would be just as right.
Maybe you could see atheism as a very special kind of religion. We believe that we should not believe.
In return, what can I say to people who believe in a deity, a higher
Re: (Score:3)
Some people believe in the existence of a higher being yet don't participate in an organized religion. It would be inaccurate to call them worshippers.
Re: (Score:3)
Because of all the talk-circut atheists racing around claiming to speak for the rest of us atheists and acting like intolerant assholes.
I might personally find christianity, islam, judaism, etc to be silly and mystical ways of viewing the world, but as long as they aint fucking with my shit, who am I to to get angry at them for believing in space ghosts?
Just like its been observed that conservatives are mo
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This is here, because? (Score:4, Insightful)
Because, while entertaining hypotheses can be interesting, using them to justify war, censorship, or other state policy are two very different things.
Re: (Score:3)
No, no it hasn't. Many religious people are quick to point out that philosophically speaking atheist has very little to offer. Not being compelled to a belief in god is not a motivator. Believers are correct in this regard, weak atheism will not tell you much about the world and it does not really do anything for you. For a start purely descriptive statements cannot alone act as a motivators. As such it cant be the cause of very much.
Communism, capitalism, imperialism are all complex beliefs with implicatio
Re: (Score:3)
I don't understand your example. If it was an attempt to argue by analogy you would be better served to give a clear example where atheism was a motivating factor. Please be careful no to confuse anti-theism (which I'm happy to admit can motivate people to do things) with atheism (which I claim rarely can). Note that it isn't enough for someone to claim they are doing something for a reason, they have to actually be doing it for that reason. The Reign of Terror was done in the name of justice and reason, bu
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
a Slashdot community filled with raging atheists
I tend to think of it as a Slashdot community filled with raging Gods
Re: (Score:3)
Ia, Ia Slashdot fhtagn!! The Black Goat of the Woods with a Thousand Young!
Re:This is here, because? (Score:5, Informative)
I'll field this one. There's a few different Gods we refer to when we start using "God" in thought experiments:
1. A Blind Watchmaker.
2. A Spoiled, Brutal Child
3. A Perfect, Immortal Machine
4. Further interesting ideas
However, people who are talking about God who isn't part of a thought experiment, but who actually worship Him usually are referring to American Jesus, who cries when you:
1 .Look at pictures of naked women
2. Play Dungeons and Dragons
3. Read Harry Potter books
4. Are gay
5. Refuse to believe that dinosaurs and humans coexisted.
A lot of people really don't like that guy.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:This is here, because? (Score:4, Insightful)
You don't have to prove something to believe in it, which is why Atheism is as much a religion as Christianity (etc); Atheists believe in the absence of god without proof, but in any argument they require proof of their opponents (Christians etc) that there is a god.
No, atheists don't believe that there is a god. That is not the same as believing there is no god. A person who say believes in the Christian God will spend time thinking about their God. They will pray to their God. They might go to church on Sunday to pray with others. They will at times have differences of opinion about their God, and split off into different churches that require a different belief about their God
It's really silly to say that a person is religious about nothing. I don't believe in a 6 foot duck that brings me tortillas and butternut squash. That doesn't mean I go to church every Sunday and pray to my belief that the duck doesn't exist. I made that up on the spot, and will never think about the duck again. Your logic would mean that everything we believe in or do not believe in is our religion, even if we don't think about it.
Re:This is here, because? (Score:4, Insightful)
You don't have to prove something to believe in it, which is why Atheism is as much a religion as Christianity (etc); Atheists believe in the absence of god without proof, but in any argument they require proof of their opponents (Christians etc) that there is a god. Atheism is no worse than Christianity though, because Christians believe in the existence of god without proof, but in any argument they require proof from their opponents (Atheists) that there is no god.
Atheism is the lack of belief, not the active belief in a no-god. I reject all your conclusions because your premise is wrong.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
> atheists are religious too; they prescribe to the dogma that there is no god
It's not dogma unless someone is willing to burn you at the stake for it.
Now trying to distort the world to fit your worldview... THAT is dogma. You can't handle the fact that you are out of touch with some or most of the modern world so you find the need to attack or subvert it.
Re:This is here, because? (Score:5, Informative)
Ascribing any particular "meaning" to life would necessitate having a belief in some sort of purpose or specific design for life in the first place. People who do not believe in God do not typically subscribe to such philosophies.
Re:This is here, because? (Score:5, Insightful)
The guiding moral principle of evolution is "survival of the fittest"
Nope, the mechanism for evolution involves differential reproductive success ("survival of the fittest"), but there is absolutely no "moral principle." The Theory of Evolution doesn't say whether it's good or bad or whocares to survive and reproduce.
People have built all sorts of flaky philosophies off of evolution (e.g. "Social Darwinism") that ascribe moral values to certain outcomes, but these are no part of the scientific theory of evolution.
Re: (Score:3)
You are mostly correct. The mechanism for evolution also involves the subsequent survival of the species whereas the offspring needs to live long enough to reproduce. While there is no such thing as "moral principle of evolution" the mechanics involved probably
Re:This is here, because? (Score:4, Insightful)
Survival of the fittest means that the animal with the biggest teeth or claws will survive over those with lesser equipment.
Nope --- otherwise every critter would be nothing but giant mounds of fangs and claws. In lots of environments, a bacterium, earthworm, or gerbil is quite well suited for survival, while saber-toothed kitties have all gone extinct. Your understanding of "reproductive fitness" is seriously flawed. However, that's not the worst mistake in your post.
Anyone who subscribes to the theory of evolution therefore cannot logically say that it is wrong to shoot as many "competitors for survival" as possible until someone with a bigger gun comes along.
No, they're logically allowed to say such a thing; they just won't base their claims (either way) on "evolution." "Evolution" neither says it is "right" nor "wrong" for the most fangly murderator to survive --- or even that it is right or wrong to survive at all. There's nothing "wrong" for a person who considers "evolution" an accurate theory to opt to be on the non-surviving side. Note that, despite your serious misunderstanding of reproductive fitness, a person who wants to be on the "reproductively successful" side would probably not strive to be the murderiest monster, since there are often huge survival advantages to friendly cooperation.
Re:This is here, because? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
on nation, under god, indivisible (because you're on board with that god thing, right citizen?), etc
Re: (Score:3)
as do those who seek to persecute those who don't collect stamps, put stamp collecting into the pledge of allegiance, and integrate stamp collecting into their biology textbooks.
Re: (Score:3)
Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.
The absence of belief in god is not the same as an active belief in the no-god.
I think your cite proves you wrong, not support your stated conclusion.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
A masked heroine? Like Batgirl?
Re: (Score:2)
If they were passing out heroines instead of collection plates at churches, they might get more folks to think about going there.
Churches also need to provide more education on the sin side of things. You, know, like you need to experience it, so you will know how to avoid it sometime in the future, when you have experienced enough of it. Kinda sorta like:
"Keep your good friends close, but your enemies closer."
"And bed down with sin."
Re:No. (Score:4, Insightful)
p.s. Law only applies to headlines, but still funny.
Re: (Score:3)
Western religions aren't exactly subtle -- if you've reached adulthood and don't follow any, then you're probably not the kind of person who ever would.
I don't think demographics support this. While there is a small but growing fraction of the population who label themselves as "atheist" on religious surveys, there is a much larger chunk of "non-religious but spiritual" and "don't know or care." Folks who never went to church, or stopped going to church as soon as they left home, but never had a "burn-out" experience or otherwise developed hostility against religion. At least in the US, the majority of adults who "don't follow any religion" are not opposed
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, in fact, that's exactly what's going on. Many studies have shown the placebo effect is real - but only if you think it will work...
Re: (Score:3)
Some would argue that religion (blind faith in an untestable hypothesis) is in itself a mental health issue...
But that too is my big question with this study. Without correcting for the likelihood of a religious vs non-religious person experiencing these issues in the first place, it's hard to say if being religious is actually a net benefit or detractor in this case.
There are however relevant studies that equate higher levels of religion with lower levels of education, and with lower income levels, not to