Separate Studies Conclude: Atheism = Peace, Religiosity = Higher Sociological Problems

page: 20
48
<< 17  18  19    21 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 06:00 PM
link   
Mammals living in social groups - live within their society laws/structure - they tend to be nurturing and protective of their group and those in their group. They don't read the bible.

Mammals separated from a social group environment and upbringing tend to be anti-social.

Human is a mammal.




posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 12:07 AM
link   
I got caught up in the whole Atheist/Religious debate and that wasn't my intensions, but what fueled my involvement is the simplistic nature of the OP’s post. To me it is a ridiculous statement since there are an uncountable number of factors involved. Atheist as a whole tend to be individuals that do not want or need the group environment and put their strength into their own personal abilities, but is that the best for everyone? Many not only want but thrive in the group environment, and so should we take that away from them when the Atheist feels they do not need that?

I do not go to Church for I really do not desire the environment it provides, but I do know many others do need it and want it. I look at this topic from the social level and religion is really a small factor in how we think and operate, but many of you seem to feel it is some overpowering driving force that you categorizes everything bad with the human race under it, and that is just not the case.

Do not put yourselves on some pedestal in your pure non-religious thought, for that is what I mainly see with these types of posts for humans are extremely complicated, and what works well for you doesn't mean it is good for everyone else too.

Annee, you are right in many mammals have good socialized structures, but humans posses ALL of them at the same time. We are both elephants and sharks and everything in-between. We are also Atheist and Tibetan monks and everything in-between. You can write 100 books in the intricacies of human nature and just touch the surface and to bring all that down to a debate between Atheist and religious people would be like debating with Einstein that 1+1 is the limits of math.

Remove all religion from humans and we would lose other aspects too and not be human, we are what we are..Elephants and sharks and religion and non-religion in the big picture has little to do with that…













[edit on 3-6-2010 by Xtrozero]



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 12:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero
I got caught up in the whole Atheist/Religious debate and that wasn't my intensions, but what fueled my involvement is the simplistic nature of the OP’s post. To me it is a ridicules statement since there are an uncountable number of factors involved. Atheist as a whole tend to be individuals that do not want or need the group environment and put their strength into their own personal abilities, but is that the best for everyone? Many not only want but thrive in the group environment, and so should we take that away from them when the Atheist feels they do not need that?


How did you come to this conclusion?

Do you realize you are saying only religion/god qualifies as a group environment?

How does personal responsibility equate to being an isolationist (for lack of a better word).

This is very narrow thinking.



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 12:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Remove all religion from humans and we would lose other aspects too and not be human, we are what we are..Elephants and sharks and religion and non-religion in the big picture has little to do with that…


Sorry - I don't buy that at all.

Nurturing is the key word. Would you like to imply Atheists don't love an nurture their children?

Why can't I say: "I've done everything I can for my children and mankind - - Goodbye - - I turn it over to you.

Its really quite the Ego to think I am more important then that.













[edit on 3-6-2010 by Xtrozero]



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 12:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Annee


How did you come to this conclusion?

Do you realize you are saying only religion/god qualifies as a group environment?

How does personal responsibility equate to being an isolationist (for lack of a better word).

This is very narrow thinking.


Come on Annee stop being combative. Can we not let people choose the environment that they feel is best for them?

I did not say non-religious people are isolationist, but they tend to not want the support of the group environment that others not only want but thrive in. You are not an Atheist, so are you speaking for them?



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 12:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Nurturing is the key word. Would you like to imply Atheists don't love an nurture their children?

Why can't I say: "I've done everything I can for my children and mankind - - Goodbye - - I turn it over to you.

Its really quite the Ego to think I am more important then that.


So religious people do not nurture their childern? Did I even use the word childern in my post? Why must you read into it as you do.

Can I ask you a question, why has religion/spiritualism been a part of the human race since our self awareness? Hmm maybe it is because of how our brains operate. Hmm maybe it is a byproduct of our ability to think in the abstract…



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 01:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero

So religious people do not nurture their childern? Did I even use the word childern in my post? Why must you read into it as you do.

Can I ask you a question, why has religion/spiritualism been a part of the human race since our self awareness? Hmm maybe it is because of how our brains operate. Hmm maybe it is a byproduct of our ability to think in the abstract…


Where did I say religious people do not nurture their children? I never said or indicated any such thing.

You are the one reading your own thoughts into what I'm posting. You seem completely obsessed that only Religion can provide the reason for quality of life etc.

I said (in so many words) Nurturing - Love - Social Involvement & Social Responsibility begin with family.

Your question was how can Atheists feel responsibility for life and human beings without a God purpose. I answered that: Nurturing.

Why & How do we exist has been the question since the beginning of early man. Religion/God is a creation to answer Why & How.

Could our brains be wired to believe in a god? Perhaps - since it has been proven areas of the brain develop when used. If we stop believing in a god - - could those brain areas diminish? Yes - perhaps.



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 01:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero

I did not say non-religious people are isolationist, but they tend to not want the support of the group environment that others not only want but thrive in. You are not an Atheist, so are you speaking for them?


Maybe they belong to a Scientific Group. Maybe their swingers.

You are absolutely stating the only group environment that matters is religion.

Enough with hijacking this thread.


[edit on 3-6-2010 by Annee]



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 04:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


Well that is my problem with your logic for you want to broad-brush everything that has led to negative consequences as religion base, but I say that man in general uses many forms of motivators with religion just being one of them.

Of course there are other sources of evil in the world besides religion. People are motivated to do wrong by need, as well as from those famous motivators Christians call the Seven Deadly Sins. But you have wandered far off topic and into irrelevancy.

It is my understanding that in this thread we are discussing scientific research showing that societies in which religious belief is the accepted norm tend to suffer more crime and violence than secular societies in which large numbers of people are atheists; and also research indicating that anti-social individuals tend to be religious rather than atheist, even after the great predominance of religious individuals in a given population is corrected for.

This thread is for discussing why that should be the case, or else for intelligently disputing the research. The question of what motivates people to do wrong is only relevant here to the degree that we can explain why religious people are more susceptible to these motives than atheists are.

To my mind, there are only two ways to explain that. Either people with preexisting anti-social tendencies tend to be more susceptible to the charms of faith, or else religion itself makes people do wicked things. If you accept the research findings, then the question of why religious people do bad things is the only subject up for discussion here. Making excuses for religion or trying to whitewash it is off topic. None of what you have said up to now holds water or even demands consideration. Your excuses on behalf of religion are of interest to nobody.

You are, of course, welcome to dispute the research. Point out where and how you think the researchers have gone wrong in either their methodology or their conclusions; we could debate that, perhaps.


If you want to label nationalism as a religion too then have at, but then we might as well just put every motivator in to the religious bucket and change the definition to something more general.

Faith and nation are interwoven more often than they are separate strands of a society. In my own country, the dominant ethnic majority sees itself as elected by the Buddha himself to defend the land in which his faith would be established for eternity. The inconvenient fact that the Buddha lived and died without ever actually setting foot in this country is denied by a race-myth that insists he visited three times by supernatural means. In this instance, as in myriad others, race and religion are not distinguished from one another.

The classic example of the equivalence of faith and nation is, of course, Israel - not the physical territory, but the people we know as the Jews, who in their supposed wanderings in the wilderness were addressed by their prophet thus: 'Hear, O Israel.'

National myths always have a religious element. For example:


Was Japan driven by religion during WWII?

Indeed it was. Surely you are aware of this elementary, recent historical fact? The Shinto faith is a nation-myth of an overtly religious kind, in which the Emperor was (and by many Japanese, still is) considered divine. It was religious fanaticism that motivated the kamikaze pilots, religious fanaticism that fuelled the unusual viciousness and atrociousness with which the Japanese went to war. Haven't you ever noticed the outcry that erupts among Japan's former enemies whenever a senior Japanese politician visits the Yasukuni Shrine?

History teaches the equivalence or race and religion. Why did Horatio keep the bridge in the great days of old? According to the poet,it was for the ashes of his fathers and the temples of his gods. Why was Caesar worshipped as a god? Why did the men of Ancient Egypt's ruling dynasties marry their sisters? Why do the Chinese, who worship their ancestors, return to their ancestral villages every lunar New Year? What does ancestor-worship mean in the first place? I could multiply such examples almost infinitely.


To say that Nazi Germany was motivated by religion that led to WWII is where I really start to lose interest in this discussion.

No-one has said that, so I can't imagine why you mention it. But to speak again, as I was doing earlier, about the Holocaust: if the proposition is 'religion causes antisocial behaviour', that includes violence against the religious by others. Those who are martyred for belonging to a particular religion, as the Jews were, are equally victims of religious violence.

If you have anything substantive to say in reply to the above, I look forward to reading it. I am not, however, interested in reading lame excuses for religious vileness and attempts to show that two wrongs make a right by quoting lists of atrocities performed by the irreligious. Neither are pertinent to the conversation at hand.

[edit on 3/6/10 by Astyanax]



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 04:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero
Atheist as a whole tend to be individuals that do not want or need the group environment and put their strength into their own personal abilities, but is that the best for everyone? Many not only want but thrive in the group environment, and so should we take that away from them when the Atheist feels they do not need that?


Firstly, that is a sweeping generalization of which I doubt the accuracy. Secondly, whoever said that atheists want to take away participation in group environments or that atheists feel people "do not need that"? Humans are social primates who most certainly need that. I'm atheist and thrive in group settings.



I do not go to Church for I really do not desire the environment it provides, but I do know many others do need it and want it. I look at this topic from the social level and religion is really a small factor in how we think and operate, but many of you seem to feel it is some overpowering driving force that you categorizes everything bad with the human race under it, and that is just not the case.


I agree that sociological problems come with more than one contributing factor. For you, maybe religion is a small factor. In some communities it is a major factor and some of those people get elected to positions of power, from anything from school boards to political lobbyists.



Do not put yourselves on some pedestal in your pure non-religious thought, for that is what I mainly see with these types of posts for humans are extremely complicated, and what works well for you doesn't mean it is good for everyone else too.


And there's the nature of the original post. What works well for religious communities does not necessarily work for everyone else. Laws predicated on religious morality and communities dedicated to their religious hegemony still exist, especially in my state (which is one of the few remaining with blue laws on the books) and there are resultant problems for those in the community who do not share this mentality. This is not a microcosmic problem either. The stench of this behavior lingers up to the federal level and affects the entire nation to one degree or another.



Annee, you are right in many mammals have good socialized structures, but humans posses ALL of them at the same time. We are both elephants and sharks and everything in-between. We are also Atheist and Tibetan monks and everything in-between. You can write 100 books in the intricacies of human nature and just touch the surface and to bring all that down to a debate between Atheist and religious people would be like debating with Einstein that 1+1 is the limits of math.


This applies only if one believes religion is the sole force behind human interaction. I don't believe anyone is arguing this nor is that what is implied in the linked report.



Remove all religion from humans and we would lose other aspects too and not be human


This is simply an amazingly shocking statement. Not only is it terribly false but it contradicts everything you've just argued in the prior paragraphs. You say religion is a tiny force in human interaction and society... but remove it and we're "not human"? Well, which is it? It has a minor role or it makes us everything we are? This also implies that anyone who lives their life devoid of religion must also be "not human". This is precisely the mentality that leads to sociological problems.













[edit on 3-6-2010 by Xtrozero]

[edit on 3-6-2010 by traditionaldrummer]



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 04:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Why care? Get what you can while you are alive, who cares about future generations. You and a few others have a spiritual nature and I can see your view points, but many of my Atheist friends are much more about the “I” than the “we”. One of my best friend's son is an Atheistis and is extremely self centered with little empathy for others. I'm not saying all are, but I can see how many can be that way.


Your best friend's son is a nihilist first and an atheist second. Don't make the mistake of associating the two as others so often do. Atheists tend to operate with humanist morals much more often than as existential nihilists. I believe this is indicated in the studies in the OP.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 12:49 AM
link   
Honestly I see no point in the OP OTHER THAN bashing religion. The problem is that human nature is so complex that such a biased conclusion can only be drawn by someone with a point to make. Imagine if someone did a study that seemed to conclude that African Americans are more violent than all other races combined. Even if there was a tiny misconstrued kernel of truth hidden somewhere in the data, such a conclusion would quite logically inflame the anger of quite a few people, would it not?

I take a lot of studies about a lot of things with a gigantic grain of salt, and I would imagine many people do the same. You can find a whole bunch of research saying coffee is really bad for you (and also wine) and you can also find a slew of research putting forth the exact opposite claim. It is another facet of human nature that very few studies of any kind are completely objective - they are underwritten by various interests interested in proving a point. One must consider sources of such data.

I have an idea of why certain societies tend to be more violent than others, and it has nothing to do with the general faith of the populace. Some of the safest countries to live in tend to be the most homogeneous with regards to ethnicity, culture and historical background. There really is something to the old saying "birds of a feather flock together". You have places where people of various diverse backgrounds (and high immigration into or out of the country or both) are present, and this in and of itself can and does cause discord.

Some people have also mentioned peace (or lack of) in animal societies. That actually might be a good way to rebut the idea of religion (again, organized religion? There seems to be no clear-cut definition of what it means to be religious, on either a societal or personal level, even less so than an acceptable definition of atheism) being the source of all evils in human society. Chimps, our closest relatives amongst all life on earth, can be incredibly violent, ganging up on members of rival clans with all the fury of the Chicago mob, committing "murder" of males, females and infants. Then there are the bonobos (pygmy chimps), orangutans and gorillas. These are for the most part very peaceful animals. Different strokes for different species, it seems, and sadly we are more like the chimps. And all this (our primate relatives) with the benefit (or detriment, as some see it) of either organized or personal faith. I have seen evidence of chimps having cultures, but thus far no evidence has been presented that they have religions.


I have no doubt if you could look back and find fossil evidence (yes I am a Christian who has no problem with evolution, guess that makes me an oddity) of other hominid species, some may have expressed spiritual beliefs (meaning belief in deities) and some not, but I bet anything they ALL would have found plenty of reasons to wage wars and murder each other.

On a side note, I live near a city where over 300 people are murdered each year, and only one victim (that I can recall right now) was murdered in the name of a religion in the last few years. And that was a cult where a mentally ill woman just decided to declare herself a queen and command a few gullible people to do as she said, in the name of her god. The rest of the killings? Almost all drug-related. I posit that if we could come up with something that would make all people immune to the addictive properties of mind-altering substances, that would go a long, long way to achieving peace.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 01:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Schrecken Licht
 


If you are not religious - - you're post is interesting.

If you are religious and defending religion - - don't care.

Oh wait - - surprise surprise - - you declared yourself Christian.

Next . . . . .



[edit on 4-6-2010 by Annee]



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 02:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Schrecken Licht
Honestly I see no point in the OP OTHER THAN bashing religion.

How about an attempt to help restore the sanity of mankind?


The problem is that human nature is so complex that such a biased conclusion can only be drawn by someone with a point to make.

Are you saying that human nature is so complex one cannot draw conclusions about it? In that case, how can religion, whose proponents justify it as a brake or ameliorating influence on the excesses of human nature, have any value at all?


Imagine if someone did a study that seemed to conclude that African Americans are more violent than all other races combined. Even if there was a tiny misconstrued kernel of truth hidden somewhere in the data, such a conclusion would quite logically inflame the anger of quite a few people, would it not?

Should the truth be buried simply because some people find it unpalatable? Do you believe, like Martin Luther, that it is glorious to lie for the Lord? Is that not a further example of the moral deficiency of religion?


I take a lot of studies about a lot of things with a gigantic grain of salt, and I would imagine many people do the same.

Many people do, indeed, refuse to believe unpleasant truths, no matter what evidence is shown them. We call such people prejudiced, wilfully ignorant and foolish.


You can find a whole bunch of research saying coffee is really bad for you (and also wine) and you can also find a slew of research putting forth the exact opposite claim. It is another facet of human nature that very few studies of any kind are completely objective - they are underwritten by various interests interested in proving a point.

Exactly how does all this invalidate the research posted in the OP? Or are you saying that all research is untrustworthy because the researchers are not completely objective?


I have an idea of why certain societies tend to be more violent than others, and it has nothing to do with the general faith of the populace. Some of the safest countries to live in tend to be the most homogeneous with regards to ethnicity, culture and historical background. You have places where people of various diverse backgrounds (and high immigration into or out of the country or both) are present, and this in and of itself can and does cause discord.

Right, we've got your number. You're a religious conservative, probably American, who opposes immigration to your country and sees this thread as an opportunity to promote his views. Well, show us some studies that bear out your theory and refute the OP's, then perhaps we shall have something to discuss. No-one's interested in your unsubstantiated opinions. There is real science on the table for discussion. If you dispute it, table some of your own.


I posit that if we could come up with something that would make all people immune to the addictive properties of mind-altering substances, that would go a long, long way to achieving peace.

I agree. And mind-altering, habit-forming, mentally debilitating religion is the world's most popular drug of abuse.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 05:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Schrecken Licht
Even if there was a tiny misconstrued kernel of truth hidden somewhere in the data, such a conclusion would quite logically inflame the anger of quite a few people, would it not?

.............yes I am a Christian


I suppose we could put the study aside for a minute. I think those bolded portions indicate something significant, don't you?


And that was a cult where a mentally ill woman just decided to declare herself a queen and command a few gullible people to do as she said, in the name of her god


Imagine that!

And here I was thinking you were suggesting that religion didn't cause sociological problems



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 02:05 PM
link   
Then if atheists are so peacefull, could you please stop insulting us, hating us, laughing at us or about our believes? Because that's just mean.
If that study is true then prove it by your actions.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by orumlight
Then if atheists are so peacefull, could you please stop insulting us, hating us, laughing at us or about our believes? Because that's just mean.
If that study is true then prove it by your actions.


You first. Stay out of government and citizens equal rights. Denying citizens equal rights is just mean.

Government is for every citizen - god does not belong in government.


[edit on 4-6-2010 by Annee]



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by orumlight
Then if atheists are so peacefull, could you please stop insulting us, hating us, laughing at us or about our believes? Because that's just mean.
If that study is true then prove it by your actions.


Personally I won't insult, hate or laugh at anyone simply because of their beliefs. I will, however, do all of those things if they are done to me and reciprocation is warranted.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 08:20 PM
link   
More people have perished under the name of religion than any other single cause on earth.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 09:15 PM
link   
Gday,


Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Hitler murdered 6-10 million people, meanwhile Atheists have murdered over 110 million people.


The vast majority of murders were done by men with black hair.

So, according to you, men with black are more evil than blonds or females.

What a load of old cobblers.



Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
i am not trying to downplay what Hitler, and other maniacs have done, but the claim that Atheism is peaceful is nothing but a sham when history has shown that atheists are capable of worse things than non-atheists.
[edit on 30-5-2010 by ElectricUniverse]


Complete bollocks.

MANY wars have been fought in the name of God and religion.

NO wars have been fought in the name of ATHEISM.
Not one.

You are completely wrong.

Kap





new topics
top topics
 
48
<< 17  18  19    21 >>

log in

join