Are atheists mentally ill? The Impact of Religious Practice on Social Stability

reply to post by AfterInfinity

You are what you are.

reply to post by penninja


Your use of "religitard" is quite unbecoming of someone who claims to be intellectually superior to the religious. Please tone it down - even if I am not religious in the same respect as others in the thread, I still prefer respect from myself and all other members in regard to the varying viewpoints demonstrated on this forum. It is actually expected of all participants.

reply to post by Itisnowagain


As eloquently informative and insightful as usual, Itisnowagain. Nothing more or less than I've come to expect from you.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

Dear AfterInfinity,

You know I've kept out of your hair lately, but your recent comment has turned me into a comb. ("Comb," "Hair," get it? Sometimes I crack myself up. )

You know that ignorance is simply the state of not having knowledge. There are many possible reasons for that, lack of study or experience being two such common explanations.

When you find God you will know all there is to know.

You must be a very simple person if you are so easily satisfied. As for myself, I am not intellectually lazy.

That is one of the most profoundly ignorant things I have ever heard you say. Or anyone else, for that matter.

The search for God, and the results of finding Him, are the most intellectually stimulating events that can occur in a person's life. The most brilliant minds the world has ever known have given themselves to understanding God, exploring His vastness, and explaining what they have learned to the world.

No one has ever found the limits of God. While in one sense, we can know Him, in another, we can never know Him completely. It's simple for an Atheist to find the limits of his belief. He only has to explore as far as science will let him see, he's bound by the natural world. But for the believer, he has the entire natural world to explore (It is God's creation after all.), but he also has the vast infinity of God, the Creator of the natural world that the Atheist is limited to.

If you want intellectual stimulation, study Thomas Aquinas or Augustine of Hippo. For centuries, men have been finding new riches in their work, and they were simply two people writing about God, the God an Atheist is forbidden to consider.

You've said some reasonable things in the past, dear AfterInfinity, but this is a huge blot on your copybook.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952

He does not comprehend what I speak so he attacks.

reply to post by charles1952

The most brilliant minds the world has ever known have given themselves to understanding God, exploring His vastness, and explaining what they have learned to the world.

When people are threatened with political, social, or professional retaliation for not claiming a belief in an imaginary friend their works cannot be credited to their faith.

You cannot prove that these people we not just pretending to be religious. Until then your attempt to credit their faith is dishonest, and you know it.

reply to post by Itisnowagain

Dear Itisnowagain,

You may very well be right in your comments concerning AfterInfinity, but it is a fairly common technique here. The ploy is to insult someone just enough to make them go over the edge and start yelling. When they do, the insulter calls the Mods, the offended person gets shut down and the bully walks away whistling.

There are three approaches available:
1) Call the Mods before he does.
2) Walk away from the thread for a while.
3) Switch to "Hyper-polite" and continue from there.

I've used all three at various times.

But, now, back to the thread, because I don't want a bully (whoever that might be) reporting me for off-topic remarks.

If social stability also applies to stability over time, by that I mean a society that lasts over generations, how would non-belief contribute to that? The Atheist might say "I'm willing to sacrifice my desires for the good of the future," but that's hardly believable. I know of no one who considers the life of his great, great, great, great grandchildren, why should the Atheist consider anyone else's? Because it's the "right" thing to do?

Any reason for an Atheist doing the "Right thing" appears to necessarily come from some virtue held by believers. Without an acceptance of God as a First Premise, there is no logical way for an Atheist to answer the question "Why did you do that?" except with "I felt like it." Nothing can be described as "good" without reference to an ultimate, pre-existing good. That good, I would take to be God.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by Stormdancer777

Isn't everyone?

No I don't think so, you know that there are millions upon millions that follow religious scripture to the letter.

But I see were you are coming from. I do find religion and the bible interesting from an objective standpoint, and I do think there are examples of where they describe real historical events that have to do with the origin of the human race and the powers involved, but I feel it has been manipulated and it is not quite like how it is being interpreted now.

I am a spiritual person and maybe even religious in a sense, but I have a theory that the "god" of the Earthly religions was a real material being, who was just like us, a physical being, only more evolved, in a physical universe that is the construct of a higher consciousness.

The source, the pure consciousness that is the only thing that actually exists. Seems we are not supposed to realize this.

At least that's my theory.

You know> I don't make a habit of starting topics like this on the forum, but in light of the fact Christianity is debated so passionately on the forum, and I have read the post for many years sometimes making a few comments, mostly not.

Why is there an issue when we take a look at atheism?

Come to think about it, most of the post are off topic, this is a topic on atheism not Christianity.

peace out

reply to post by charles1952

Any reason for an Atheist doing the "Right thing" appears to necessarily come from some virtue held by believers. Without an acceptance of God as a First Premise, there is no logical way for an Atheist to answer the question "Why did you do that?" except with "I felt like it." Nothing can be described as "good" without reference to an ultimate, pre-existing good. That good, I would take to be God.

How come you ignore Sam Harris's foundations for secular morality and instead erect a straw man to play with?

The well being of conscious creatures is a good reason to be good and you don't need anything other than common sense to see that.

You should educate yourself instead of making dishonest arguments.. over and over again. Google "the moral landscape" if you intend to argue honestly.... which I doubt.

reply to post by Stormdancer777

You know> I don't make a habit of starting topics like this on the forum, but in light of the fact Christianity is debated so passionately on the forum, and I have read the post for many years sometimes making a few comments, mostly not.

Why is there an issue when we take a look at atheism?

As an atheist, my only issue is that you haven't really stated an opinion or personal stance on the topic. You say you are interested, and yet you aren't really putting anything up for debate. All you're doing is posting an excerpt from a study and asking our opinion on it. I've given you my opinion...if you want more, you need to reciprocate.

reply to post by NeoParadigm

No I don't think so, you know that there are millions upon millions that follow religious scripture to the letter.

That might have been true at one time, and imagine there are those that are stricter then others, however most Christians have reformed, western Christianity doesn't include many OT teachings such as stoning and the like, I have seen a great transformation in my life time alone, I was raised on the concept, god is love.

And this too is where cultural comes into play, whether it is Christianity, or Islam, or Buddhism, the culture plays a defining role.

However my mother fervently believed in hell, I do not.

But that is the fault of the church misrepresentation, IMHO

I have had a hard time with the hell issue

reply to post by Stormdancer777

I have had a hard time with the hell issue

I can imagine. How can god be love if he's going to make you suffer for eternity if you don't do exactly as he likes.

reply to post by charles1952

If social stability also applies to stability over time, by that I mean a society that lasts over generations, how would non-belief contribute to that? The Atheist might say "I'm willing to sacrifice my desires for the good of the future," but that's hardly believable.

How is that not believable? From my observations, theists are far more willing to kill for their beliefs than they are to die for them. In fact, if given a choice, they prefer killing over dying themselves...because, in their mind, they are purging the world of its impurities. Speaking for myself, I see no such impurities; furthermore, I would hope that the general population of atheists would realize that in "purging" the world, they are no better than the theists they oppose.

In short, everyone makes sacrifices for the good of the future, whether that future constitutes a limited social circle or a global aspect.

I know of no one who considers the life of his great, great, great, great grandchildren, why should the Atheist consider anyone else's? Because it's the "right" thing to do?

How many atheists do you know personally? Of the atheists you know, who acts without consideration of others around them, or of the future? All of them? Some of them? Maybe you should consider choosing a better crowd to associate with.

Any reason for an Atheist doing the "Right thing" appears to necessarily come from some virtue held by believers.

Also from a number of philosophers who themselves held no particular religious affiliation, but were observing the most productive course of social interaction. A diplomatic society will inevitable last longer and prosper more than a medieval society where plague and death are as common as dust and dirt.

Without an acceptance of God as a First Premise, there is no logical way for an Atheist to answer the question "Why did you do that?" except with "I felt like it."

Here's a better answer: "Because if the roles were reverses, I would want the same." Is that not a logical answer?

Nothing can be described as "good" without reference to an ultimate, pre-existing good. That good, I would take to be God.

I believe "good" and "evil" are labels reflecting our emotional disposition in regard to what is being described, rather than an observation of the actual nature itself.

Now that you've heard it from an atheist who, I would like to think, is reasonably rational regarding such issues, what are your thoughts?

reply to post by charles1952

When you find God you will know all there is to know.

You must be a very simple person if you are so easily satisfied. As for myself, I am not intellectually lazy.

That is one of the most profoundly ignorant things I have ever heard you say. Or anyone else, for that matter.

When you find God you will know all there is to know?

Intellectually lazy?

My search for god led me to all corners of the world and through centuries of history, back as far as the record would take me.

It led me though the archeological record,other religious texts, and it motivated me to look for god through science and technology and philosophy.

Yet,
Although now I see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

One of my favorites I will leave with you

98. From ‘The Ancient Sage’
By Alfred, Lord Tennyson (1809–1892)

IF thou would’st hear the Nameless, and wilt dive
Into the Temple-cave of thine own self,
There, brooding by the central altar, thou
May’st haply learn the Nameless hath a voice,
By which thou wilt abide, if thou be wise,
As if thou knewest, tho’ thou canst not know;
For Knowledge is the swallow on the lake
That sees and stirs the surface-shadow there
But never yet hath dipt into the abysm,
The Abysm of all Abysms, beneath, within
The blue of sky and sea, the green of earth,
And in the million-millionth of a grain
Which cleft and cleft again for evermore,
And ever vanishing, never vanishes,
To me, my son, more mystic than myself,
Or even than the Nameless is to me.
And when thou sendest thy free soul thro’ heaven,
Nor understandest bound nor boundlessness,
Thou seest the Nameless of the hundred names.
And if the Nameless should withdraw from all
Thy frailty counts most real, all thy world
Might vanish like thy shadow in the dark.

‘And since—from when this earth began—
The Nameless never came
Among us, never spake with man,
And never named the Name’—

Thou canst not prove the Nameless, O my son,
Nor canst thou prove the world thou movest in,
Thou canst not prove that thou art body alone,
Nor canst thou prove that thou art spirit alone,
Nor canst thou prove that thou art both in one:
Thou canst not prove thou art immortal, no
Nor yet that thou art mortal—nay my son,
Thou canst not prove that I, who speak with thee,
Am not thyself in converse with thyself,
For nothing worthy proving can be proven,
Nor yet disproven: wherefore thou be wise,
Cleave ever to the sunnier side of doubt,
And cling to Faith beyond the forms of Faith
She reels not in the storm of warring words,
She brightens at the clash of ‘Yes’ and ‘No’,
She sees the Best that glimmers thro’ the Worst,
She feels the Sun is hid but for a night,
She spies the summer thro’ the winter bud,
She tastes the fruit before the blossom falls,
She hears the lark within the songless egg,


She finds the fountain where they wail’d ‘Mirage’!

reply to post by charles1952

The search for God, and the results of finding Him, are the most intellectually stimulating events that can occur in a person's life. The most brilliant minds the world has ever known have given themselves to understanding God, exploring His vastness, and explaining what they have learned to the world

And yet no one can prove he exists? From the moment I first began to explore religiosity in earnest, I found that the deeper the questions go, the more they go unanswered. That's why they push faith. Faith, faith, and more faith. It's just another way of saying, "Who the hell cares? Go with it. What have you got to lose?"

I have a lot to lose. Dignity, capability, social flexibility, ambition, independence. A lot of these things are seriously curtailed with the induction into religion. Lives have been lost, societies oppressed, knowledge eschewed, understanding warped, and history scarred as a result of conflict between religious parties.

No one has ever found the limits of God. While in one sense, we can know Him, in another, we can never know Him completely. It's simple for an Atheist to find the limits of his belief. He only has to explore as far as science will let him see, he's bound by the natural world.

What's wrong with that? Do we deserve more? I don't think so. I believe if we work for it, we will find it. The question is, why do we want it?

If you want intellectual stimulation, study Thomas Aquinas or Augustine of Hippo. For centuries, men have been finding new riches in their work, and they were simply two people writing about God, the God an Atheist is forbidden to consider.

I'm not sure you know atheism as well as you think you do. In fact, previous exchanges have left me with the distinct impression that your experience with atheism is dangerously limited.

You've said some reasonable things in the past, dear AfterInfinity, but this is a huge blot on your copybook.

Woe is me. However shall I recover from the disappointment.

reply to post by Wertdagf

Dear Wertdagf,

Are you accusing me of being dishonest again? Honestly, may I suggest a different insult? I'm getting bored with it, and you must be tired of being slapped with misbehavior stickers. Here, try these: I'm wordy and stuffy sometimes. Sometimes humorless. I've been known to get just a little flirty with some of the female posters. I strongly dislike unreasonable authority. If I can think of more, I'll let you know.

The most brilliant minds the world has ever known have given themselves to understanding God, exploring His vastness, and explaining what they have learned to the world.

When people are threatened with political, social, or professional retaliation for not claiming a belief in an imaginary friend their works cannot be credited to their faith.

Ok, I've looked at this three times, and I'm going to need your help. You're saying that Atheists, who could have been left entirely alone just by lying a few times, decided to dedicate decades of their life towards producing some of the deepest and clearest Christian thought ever seen? That Atheists declared themselves Christian to stay alive? Then why didn't they say they were Atheists when that was all that was needed to save their lives? People were killed for being Catholics or Protestants. St. Thomas More was dropped from the King's favor and finally executed because he was Catholic.

What about St.Thomas Aquinas, the Church's greatest theologian? Was he an Atheist, too? The man who died in this fashion?

The monks nursed him for several days, and as he received his last rites he prayed: "I receive Thee, ransom of my soul. For love of Thee have I studied and kept vigil, toiled, preached and taught...." He died on 7 March 1274 while giving commentary on the Song of Songs.

Yes, I believe that's proof that he was not pretending to be religious.

Give me any evidence to show that either of these men were Atheists. There is all the evidence in the world that they were sincere Christians, and not a whisper that they were Atheists. Neither of these men were threatened with any kind of loss for not claiming a belief in God. Your case is supported by neither argument nor evidence.

I could just as easily make the following claim.
"Most Atheists are actually believing Christians. First, Atheists are consider "cooler" on campuses and in book stores, it's a kind of automatic "rebellion against authority." And as they are childish people, this has a great appeal for them. The other Atheists are sent out by the Vatican. Their arguments are so weak, and they lose so often, that they serve to draw people back to religion. There may be one or two exceptions, but those are also put out by the Vatican to fool people." Now, prove me wrong.

That hypothetical case and yours are equally probable, not probable at all.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


I noticed how quickly you changed the claim from "The worlds greatest minds" to "the Church's greatest theologians"

Strange how that switch dramatically alters the group of people your trying to claim for your religion.

Im sure you didn't do that as some sort of tactic.

reply to post by Wertdagf

Dear Wertdagf,

Will you ever tire of accusing me of dishonesty? Although I have to admit that I'm getting used to it.

How come you ignore Sam Harris's foundations for secular morality and instead erect a straw man to play with?

I ignore them in this thread, because he has been unable to defend his theory against criticism. He tried in an article he wrote for The Huffington Post, but it was very unpersuasive. Here's the link:
www.huffingtonpost.com...

The well being of conscious creatures is a good reason to be good and you don't need anything other than common sense to see that.

That, of course, is Mr. Harris' position, but have you examined it? Have you got a good definition for "well-being?" The only thing that Mr. Harris provides is some kind of healthy - sick dichotomy. He uses his mind and research to tell us that it is better to have enough to eat than to starve to death. I can understand why that kind of stunning revelation would be attractive, but it doesn't prove his point.

For me, the definition of "well-being" is important. Does it include spiritual enlightment, or religious faith? No, Mr. Harris believes that all religion is divisive and should not be allowed in conversation. (See his interview with Hugh Hewitt). Further he is unable to solve the "is - ought" problem which philosophers have wrestled with for thousands of years.

Here's one relatively easy criticism of Harris' position with some associated links.
blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk...

And here's another, with a lengthy question and answer session in the comments:
blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk...
From that second link we can find the following:

Hi Richard, I’ll just clarify one thing: My objection to Harris in the post is not that he can’t provide an objective, precise, scientific defintion of “well-being”. It is that *if* he provides one, then science can measure it but can’t possibly tell us that it is right to maximize it. The same goes for a vague scientific defintion of well-being, although a vague definition would make measurement of well-being rather more difficult. We need to do a good deal of moral reasoning to discover the link between well-being, defined in such a way, and what it is right to do/maximize (that’s where Nozick’s Experience Machine, among other things, comes in). So it’s not true that “science can determine human values”, as Harris claims.

You claim it's just "common sense" that people want well being. First problem, is morality then based on common sense? Then why use science? Does everybody have the same "common sense?"

Second problem, why join the military? You are certainly going to have a very small amount of "well-being," and are not likely to be used to defend your family or country. In short, what is the role of self-sacrifice?

Third problem, since everyone has different common sense, everyone will have a slightly different idea of morality. But Harris claims that's not true, that science will provide all of us with what is moral in each case, presumbably regardless of culture and situation.

So returning to the question of Atheism, the only way an Atheist can logically argue for Harris' idea of well-being, is to accept the premise that well-being should be the goal. But that belief is taken from the ethical philosophy from which Christianity and other religions have sprung.

There is no new ethical system, there can't be. There can only be a distortion of the one that already exists. I would argue that a person with no ethical system is insane.

Even if you think I'm wrong, I'd really like to know why you think I'm dishonest.