Brain study shows that thinking about God reduces distress -- but only for believers

I know that thinking about the Flying Spaghetti Monster gives me great comfort.

I get the same result thinking about my cats. Does this mean I "believe" in cats? Since you cannot really think about "God" any more than an ant can conceive of a president, the subjects were thinking about the quiet of a church, meditation or prayer - the kind of activity associated with "God" in our culture. I would expect that, if you could get an Islamic Jihadist to participate, you would get entirely different results.

If one system embraced is that man is supreme and leads to a concept that human rights are not inherent, not unalienable, then we return to the more savage state that man has existed in for millennia.

What systems do atheists embrace?

If one system embraced is that man is supreme

and leads to a concept that human rights are not inherent, not unalienable

then we return to the more savage state that man has existed in for millennia.

What I get from this article is that religious people are more numb to failure. "It makes you less distressed when you've made an error." In other words they don't care about being correct. So "ignorance is bliss". Until your errors end up killing people. I think errors should make you stressed.

What systems do atheists embrace?

Believers find comfort in knowing that a loving God is looking after the things that are beyond their control. They are understandable, in the absense of religion, through examination. Thats what science is for. It threatens religion because it would take away the very thing that religions exploit- fear of the unknown.

Non-believers, on the other hand, exist without a sense of purpose and assume that things beyond their control are merely random events.

So the mere mention of God is upsetting to them

Believers find comfort in knowing that a loving God is looking after the things that are beyond their control.

With the articles content in mind, if 85% of the world has a religion does this mean religion is part of human evolution?

Non-believers, on the other hand, exist without a sense of purpose

and assume that things beyond their control are merely random events.

To cope with such an inately distressing belief system

non-believers live in constant denial

The empirical evidence shows that atheists in Western societies have a definite sense of morality.

In fact, atheists are more likely to have strong, consistent moral values than theists.

Not all Muslims are terrorists, but most torrorists are Muslim.

Not all atheists are totalitarian socialists, but all the major totalitarian socialists of the 20th century were atheists.

In fact, atheists are more likely to have strong, consistent moral values than theists.

How have they tried to promote such moral values?

Atheists don't have an organization? A belief system?
"An Atheist loves himself and his fellow man instead of a god. An Atheist accepts that heaven is something for which we should work now - here on earth - for all men together to enjoy. An Atheist accepts that he can get no help through prayer, but that he must find in himself the inner conviction and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue it and to enjoy it. An Atheist accepts that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will help lead to a life of fulfillment.""
"http://www.atheists.org/about

This is yet more evidence that xians LIE to prove their point.

I'll remind you of this famous quote: "Religion is the opium of the people."

Die Religion ist der Seufzer der bedrängten Kreatur, das Gemüt einer herzlosen Welt, wie sie der Geist geistloser Zustände ist. Sie ist das Opium des Volkes.

Der Mensch macht die Religion, die Religion macht nicht den Menschen.

In fact, atheists are more likely to have strong, consistent moral values than theists.

How have they tried to promote such moral values?

The Soviet dictator said, "You know, they are fooling us, there is no God... all this talk about God is sheer nonsense."

"In other words, communism was like a fanatical religion

Another physorg argument about religion...yawn....what is the point?

What systems do atheists embrace? If one system embraced is that man is supreme and leads to a concept that human rights are not inherent, not unalienable, then we return to the more savage state that man has existed in for millennia.

Christians say they will know by our love.

How will anyone know an atheist?

Marjon,

What point do you think you are making by pointing out that some bad people happened to be atheist?

Marjon,

What point do you think you are making by pointing out that some bad people happened to be atheist?

The same point the 'moral' atheists here try to make about people who have faith in God.

The same point the 'moral' atheists here try to make about people who have faith in God.

What systems do atheists embrace? If one system embraced is that man is supreme and leads to a concept that human rights are not inherent, not unalienable, then we return to the more savage state that man has existed in for millennia.

Actually I usually think about the complexity of nature and how each living and non-living thing is so unimaginably beautiful in its function, form, and fit into the greater systems of existence.

And the fact that I get a front row seat and can participate in finding out how it works is what gives me comfort.

Marjon,

What those despots "said" and what they were taught and actually believed were totally different things, just like a pedophile priest doesn't practice what he preaches. Regardless, your pathetic correlations do nothing to prove any point whatsoever. How many popes and bishops encouraged the inquisition?

The same point the 'moral' atheists here try to make about people who have faith in God.

You recognize a flawed argument, so you choose to repeat it?

I'm confused...

But you don't mind ganging up on your neighbor take away his rights?

After all, as rights can't exist without government protection

then the government is effectively the source of rights

and can take them away as the mob sees fit to do.

Marjon,

What those despots "said" and what they were taught and actually believed were totally different things, just like a pedophile priest doesn't practice what he preaches. Regardless, your pathetic correlations do nothing to prove any point whatsoever. How many popes and bishops encouraged the inquisition?

Consensus of the majority of society is the source of rights.

Stalin and theists were/are irrational? That's it? Cool story.

I presume you are equally appalled at the corrupt US government that violates the US Constitution every day and it must be attacked and condemned?

tell you is in the Constitution.

Consensus of the majority of society is the source of rights.

Marjon,
Your comment about "the mob" made no argumentative sense, but I'll respond off topic anyway:

"Democracy substitutes election by the incompetent many for appointment by the corrupt few.
--George Bernard Shaw

Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve.
--George Bernard Shaw

It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.

--Sir Winston Churchill"

Stalin and theists were/are irrational? That's it? Cool story.

99% of homo sapiens' behaviour is driven by unconscious motivations and needs. Breathing, eating/drinking, mating. 1% is controlled by conscience; half of this can be assumed to be somewhat "rational". (Anybody who has more precise numbers please tell me.)
[insert your preferred number here]% of all human beings believe that all human beings are either rational or irrational all life long.

As in science, all that is required to make a profound statements(sic) of truth is one individual.

Why do so many religious orders have rules of self-discipline, poverty, etc.? To control the animal side of human nature.

Science recognizes "truth" through the consensus of the scientific community.

Yes- like malaria or hookworms. A parasite, an infection, a contagion which we are struggling to develop immunity to.

If you like your life today with all its liberties, conveniences, technology, etc., thank the Jews and Christians.

How could a grassroots philosophy like Christianity be usurped by the most powerful empire in the world, Rome?

The evidence I submit is quite apparent as there were other major civilization and empires in the world 2000 years ago. Why did the one from Rome with its Christian philosophy prevail?

The majority men in the Muslim world say that minorities: women, Jews, Christians don't have rights.
Such consensus is acceptable to you?

I have asked this question before and of course all the atheists have some excuse, but how would the world be today if Persia had take Greece?

Why didn't the Chinese and Mongols expand into Europe?

Why didn't the Indians expand or the Africans or the Aztecs, Myans, Incas....

Why is English the world language that originated from a small island with few resources?

How do the atheists deny Christians played a positive role in where we are today?

Consensus of the majority of society is the source of rights.

The majority men in the Muslim world say that minorities: women, Jews, Christians don't have rights.
Such consensus is acceptable to you?

Consensus of the majority of society is the source of rights.

A simplifying statement of proponents of legal positivism. It takes for granted that - in a democracy - the set of lawmakers and judges represents the majority of the society.

There exists another source of rights; it's called natural law.

Why do so many religious orders have rules of self-discipline, poverty, etc.? To control the animal side of human nature.

not too long ago the church was the ruling authority over society and had near complete power, and most of the wealth as well.

They might as well tie you to a plow and have you walk the fields.

Society grants the rights of society, we all grant each other our rights through mutual observation.

If you kept your religion to yourself, and made it a private matter, as it should be, none of these conversations would have ever occured.

The Science that contradicts is more correct than your belief.

Marjon:

The majority men in the Muslim world say that minorities: women, Jews, Christians don't have rights.
Such consensus is acceptable to you?

Uh Marjon - You are aware that Islam is a RELIGION aren't you? It is not a social belief that you are talking about there. It is a religious belief.

How about you deal with that reality?

Ethelred

We don't, we simply recognize that Christianity played a largely negative role as well.

That was pretty mindless Otto. For one thing no species struggles to evolve much less struggles to evolve in any direction.

For another, generally, believers have more children thus they should be increasing their percentage of the population.

So you all want to protect your rights to attack religion, but not my right to defend?

Then society can take them away

as they did to millions in NAZI Germany or the Japanese in the USA during WWII

Rights must be considered inherent and unalienable or else they will be taken.

So you all want to protect your rights to attack religion, but not my right to defend?

If you respect my beliefs I will respect your yours.

I have seen little respect for my beliefs or opinions.

Instead, anything that many disagree with here are ridiculed and I am personally insulted.

I'll be the first one in line for church that sunday because at that time God will be proved to me.

So you all want to protect your rights to attack religion, but not my right to defend?

Correct. Just like we do Nazism, or any other dangerous social meme. What, you think just because it's been around for millennia, it isn't a pathology?

rights are granted by society and can be revoked by society, as you demonstrated.

What's amatter SH, you wouldn't equate the taliban with Nazis? You would deny that the tendency exists in all religions, that it is a part of their structure should the need ever arise?

Not surprising coming from a German.

That is in direct conflict from the fundamental basis of the US Constitution and is very dangerous.

You continue to ignore the point: faith.
There is no need for faith if all is proven.

Even Max Planck

You have faith science will provide all your answers. Science is your god.

As Planck said also, there is reason to expect physical laws to be the same today as they were yesterday. How can you deal with such lack of control or certainty?

I would deny your insinuation that this is an aspect that is solely based within religion. All organizations have the potential for corruption, some are simply structured to permit corruption at an accelerated rate.

Otto is not German. He's a fan of German culture

rights are granted by society and can be revoked by society, as you demonstrated.

That is in direct conflict from the fundamental basis of the US Constitution and is very dangerous.

Believers find comfort in knowing that a loving God is looking after the things that are beyond their control. Non-believers, on the other hand, exist without a sense of purpose and assume that things beyond their control are merely random events. To cope with such an inately distressing belief system non-believers live in constant denial

You have faith science will provide all your answers. Science is your god.

Personally I do not believe in a "God", nor do I believe in "not believing in a God".

There is, however, a genuine sense of wonder and awe of the universe

which includes a sense there is an Intelligence from which all intelligence has arisen.

But I don't really know what that is. There is nothing solid, no object or thing that can be defined and believed in.

So, that leaves a kind of not-knowing

What point do you think you are making by pointing out that some bad people happened to be atheist?

Do you know how many bad people happened to be Christian?

Science is a method of thought. The discoveries made by science are the results of observation and reality. There is no faith involved.

If you want to be picky about it then you can go to the US prison statistics: More people in prisons (as a percentage of prison population) are believers than in the rest of the country.

I don't KNOW whether or not there is a god but I do not believe in one. See the difference?

An honest atheist, refreshing.

You have faith (belief without proof) there is no god because you don't KNOW.[q/] That's not correct. Again, faith is belief despite evidence, not belief without evidence.

Maybe you should review Pascal's wager.

If you understood the true rammifications of pascal's wager, you'd never bring it up again.

So here they are.

Pascal's wager (god/no god) isn't that clear cut. You insist that if there's a god, you're saved through faith, if there's no god, there's no salvation.

The issue is mutually exclusive faiths. There are over 400,000 different religions and subsects, meaning your chance of being correct is less than 0.002%. Not 50%.

If you don't have faith in the process, why do you use it?

You have admitted science can't answer all questions so you have no faith science can answer all questions.

Because Planck was a Christian his discovery of quantum physics must be rejected and his views on science are irrelevant?

What world changing theory has SH published?

If you don't have faith in the process, why do you use it?
You have admitted science can't answer all questions so you have no faith science can answer all questions.
Because Planck was a Christian his discovery of quantum physics must be rejected and his views on science are irrelevant?
What world changing theory has SH published?

Again, no faith required when every trial results in no error.

You've stated your position as a biblical literalist,

If there's a god, you don't know jack about him/her/it/them and neither do I. Atheism simply doesn't make shit up to force the thought of a god where you do.

Atheism simply doesn't make shit up

Science and religion are not mutually exclusive.

Temper, temper. Wow, another honest atheist. Was that so hard?

Error exists in all measurements. The hard part is quantifying the error, and that is where the real good discoveries are made, at the fringe.

Again, no faith required when every trial results in no error.

What experiments do you run? Error exists in all measurements. The hard part is quantifying the error, and that is where the real good discoveries are made, at the fringe.
As quantum theory suggests, observations affect the outcome. How do you account for that?

Temper, temper. Wow, another honest atheist. Was that so hard?

You're jsut a simple little troll marjon. This entire diatribe from you is completely transparent now. Either that or you're unable to read.

Yes you've show yourself as a biblical literalist, but it's probably for attention. I think everything you write here is for attention.

Are you lonely?

Do you really think the uncertainty principle has a significant affect on all knowledge?

I don't KNOW whether or not there is a god but I do not believe in one. See the difference?

An honest atheist, refreshing.
You have faith (belief without proof) there is no god because you don't KNOW.
Maybe you should review Pascal's wager.

Do you really think the uncertainty principle has a significant affect on all knowledge?

Define 'significant', and what is 'all knowledge'?
The answer, yes.

Theory gets disproven --> work towards a new theory.

Theory gets disproven --> work towards a new theory.

Theory: God exists.
How has that been disproven?

We don't, we simply recognize that Christianity played a largely negative role as well.

So have governments, but you defend the state.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say he is doing this in between home-school assignments.

'God exists' is a falsifiable statement

And 'God exists' is not falsifiable, because the concept implies no measurable observation that could possibly be had and shared with the community of other scientific observers.

Marjon, you are the biggest troll I have ever seen on this site. On almost every article that has any controversy in it's subject, there your are, trolling and making retarded arguments, defending belief systems that most people on a SCIENCE NEWS SITE don't care about and don't have any respect for. Why are you here? What is your problem? Do you really think you are going to convince anyone with your drivel? Do you really believe half the bullshit that flows from your keyboard? WE DON'T CARE ABOUT YOUR MAGICAL GOD. Now go away and stop trolling a SCIENCE NEWS SITE.

Marjon lets start with something basic... do you believe in a supreme being or God?

I just want to know why you feel so strongly about arguing this issue with people who clearly aren't going to be swayed by your arguments? Do you want to save all these Physorg reader's souls? Do you do it just for fun? Do you think it might help the odd random person who might be open to your ideas? You post on so many articles it makes me wonder why you spend so much of your life posting this tripe on this website. It's a waste of your and our time. And that's the last thing I have to say on this issue. Good day.

'God exists' is a falsifiable statement, just as 'all crows are white' is a falsifiable statement.

What I find interesting is how all you 'scientists' support socialism when data, aka evidence, demonstrates socialism limits and reverses prosperity.
But then maybe the socialist scientists really are not that rational and objective and harbor some emotion like envy?

Now you qualify 'falsifiability'. The statement 'God exists.' is either true or false. That you don't know how to falsify the statement does not make it un-falsifiable.

I will agree to standard definitions of words as found in the 'peer' reviewed OED.
This is not OED, but here is one for faith:
"belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact."

I like to point out the intolerance and irrationality of people like yourself, using your own words.

fall back on the claim that god is intentionally evading our detection of it, which it can do as it is all powerful, makes it inherently impossible to falsify.

Many atheists here can't seem to wrap their head around the idea that prominent, award winning scientists really believe in God.

I will agree to standard definitions of words as found in the 'peer' reviewed OED.
This is not OED, but here is one for faith:
"belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact."

Quoting obsolete, pedestrian, dictionary definitions is the lowest form of argument... actually the second lowest, after analogy.

Why didn't you quote the actual OED definition though? Because it doesn't support your position?

It doesn't. I checked. You need to stop being deceptive if you want anyone to have any respect for you.

Not true. God revealed himself to believers and non believers.

Could it be you don't really want to know? What kind of 'seeker of truth' is that?

WHY are you mixing politics into this discussion?

The US Declaration of Independence stated rights are inherent and unalienable, endowed by our Creator.

That fundamental concept is required for a government that is based upon the consent of the governed.

The alternative, socialist view

Oh I want to know, I would love it if heaven were real and I would go there when I die, and I would love it if evil people went to hell, maybe not for eternity that is a bit too much, but you know, it would be nice to think evil people will get what is coming to them.

No, you do not.
If you did you would not be an atheist or agnostic.

I am telling you that I would love it if heaven were real.

"The 18th century concept of individual...

However, we simply cannot look past the fact that there is no good reason to believe in any of it.

I do not care what you think of them,

I am telling you that I would love it if heaven were real.

You would love it, but you are not willing to do what it takes, have faith.

Nobody said that because a scientist is christian, they are no longer called a scientist.

You wanting it to be real is not a 'good reason'?

I care because the implications of your incorrect view of inalienable rights

will lead to loss of rights for me AND for you you

Nobody said that because a scientist is christian, they are no longer called a scientist.

Review the comments of the many atheists here and you will find they do minimize the scientific qualification of Christian scientists.

No, you are right, I will not have faith in something for which there is no evidence. But more-so than that, I CANNOT believe in something that I see no reason to believe in, for I would always know that I was lying to myself.

Nobody said that because a scientist is christian, they are no longer called a scientist.

Review the comments of the many atheists here and you will find they do minimize the scientific qualification of Christian scientists.

You claimed to have no reason to believe. I guess you were just lying to yourself.

"You always do what you want to do. This is true with every act. You may say that you had to do something, or that you were forced to, but actually, whatever you do, you do by choice. Only you have the power to choose for yourself.
W. Clement Stone "

Check this out, according to this study only 7% of scientists believe in god, 72% are atheist, and the rest are agnostic (which usually means atheist...)

What a stupid fucking quote.

What a stupid fucking quote.

How eloquent and refined!
Do all you atheists talk like that because that is a frequent response, vulgarity.

What a stupid fucking quote.

How eloquent and refined!
Do all you atheists talk like that because that is a frequent response, vulgarity.
The gist of the article is being proven out here. All these atheists exhibiting distress.

I have been granted through 8 years of university level education

Simply calling it a stupid quote is insufficient to impart how stupid I believe it to be, hence the addition of the word "fucking" for emphasis.

So now you know everything?

The more real education one obtains should make him realize how much more their is to know.

But you did say you had a university indoctrination.

What a stupid fucking quote.

How eloquent and refined!
Do all you atheists talk like that because that is a frequent response, vulgarity.

You've received enough well thought out eloquent responses. Enough time has been wasted on you. I agree, you need to shut up now.

Simply calling it a stupid quote is insufficient to impart how stupid I believe it to be, hence the addition of the word "fucking" for emphasis.

That says more about you than Stone who used such quotes to become a multi-millionaire.
Does that bother you?
I have a suspicion that many who spent 8 years in a university education believe they deserve to be better compensated than those like Stone who was a Christian and became rich working hard and starting his own company. ("That damn free market is just not fair!")
Millions of people have become successful by following Stone and Napoleon Hill and many others who support a positive mental attitude.
With such evidence, why is it so hard to believe?

What a stupid fucking quote.

How eloquent and refined!
Do all you atheists talk like that because that is a frequent response, vulgarity.

You've received enough well thought out eloquent responses. Enough time has been wasted on you. I agree, you need to shut up now.

Shout them down or ban speech you disagree with? So common here.

It is a FACT one can be a scientist AND can believe in God no matter how you try to deny and minimize the fact.

. It has also shown me what is and is not rational to believe.

Shows you how good your reading ability is. I only said this explicitly a whole 20 posts above.

Planck was a Christian because almost everyone was a Christian. Darwin was a Christian, Newton and Gallileo were christians. They were scientists because they could suspend their faith to find objective truth in observation.

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the conditions that surround him... The unreasonable man adapts surrounding conditions to himself... All progress depends on the unreasonable man."
Is this rational?

Shows you how good your reading ability is. I only said this explicitly a whole 20 posts above.

Planck was a Christian because almost everyone was a Christian. Darwin was a Christian, Newton and Gallileo were christians. They were scientists because they could suspend their faith to find objective truth in observation.

And like other atheists, you try to minimize their faith, as I said earlier.

And like other atheists, you try to minimize their faith, as I said earlier.

And like other atheists, you try to minimize their faith, as I said earlier.

If these men knew what any kid can find on the internet about evolution, abiogenesis, cosmology, and other deep science topics, you'd watch them state empirically that the Christian god cannot be.

Just as you are today, those men were ignorant of the topics we're discussing.

Marjon is attempting to argue that turning a blind eye to physical evidence and observation is a virtue..

I forgot one more feature that is demonstrated by those who respond to me, arrogance.

How many were believers before they were sent to prison?

marjon:

How many were believers before they were sent to prison?

Less than 1% of prison population is atheist (with about 14% of the total american public being atheist): Even if you have _some_ converts in prison (which is a hypothesis that lacks any support, BTW) this STILL means that a religious person being criminally minded/immoral/unethical is an order of magnitude more likely than the same for an atheist.

So the argument that "not being religious makes you immoral" is bogus. If you are intellectually honest you must argue the opposite.

(But something tells me that you will not do so...which is just another case in point ;-) )

I forgot one more feature that is demonstrated by those who respond to me, arrogance.

From Merriam-Webster:

arrogance: an attitude of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner or in presumptuous claims or assumptions

Marjon. You are the definition of arrogance.

One of the fundamental rules of proper discourse is that whenever an assertion is erected, no one is obliged to regard it as valid unless proper, critically robust supporting evidence is provided for that assertion

Without this, any blind assertions, particularly those erected from mythology or mythology-based doctrines, can be dismissed in the same casual manner in which they are tossed.

I just ask questions no one wants to answer and point out inconsistencies.

I just ask questions no one wants to answer and point out inconsistencies.

You are currently showing your attitude of superiority through both the presumptuous claim that your questions can be answered and through the assumption that no one wants to answer them.

I am telling you that I would love it if heaven were real.

You would love it, but you are not willing to do what it takes, have faith.

Still did not not answer the question about conversions.

Christians are not perfect but they are forgiven.

I just ask questions no one wants to answer and point out inconsistencies.

Like creating your own word definitions?

I have been told that scientists are willing to state "I don't know". But many questions I ask elicit a torrent of insults instead of answers or discussion or references pointing out errors.

Christians are not perfect but they are forgiven.

By whom? Only by their own wishful thinking. That's not forgiveness - that's self delusion.

As an atheist, thinking about god stresses me out because it reminds me of the frustration I encounter in discussions like the above.

That seems to be a real difficult thing to do for many people, asking for forgiveness even from other people.

By God.
Ask and you shall be forgiven.

That seems to be a real difficult thing to do for many people, asking for forgiveness even from other people.

"The jail cell conversion from "sinner" to true believer may be one of the best examples of a "second chance" in modern life...

You seem to be confusing the value of personal, psychological growth with the value of objective, material, facts.

Marjoe, please take this opportunity to ask for forgiveness from all of the people you have annoyed and frustrated by your selfish trolling.

No, I for one do not forgive you. I suggest that you FOAD.

Atheists don't believe the former relationship exists and you have no proof that it does, yet you demand we prove that it doesn't.

Is this the typical atheist response?
How many other atheists agree with Otto?

Atheists here keep trying to prove it does not exist. Maybe all you atheists should agree on the same story line.

How have they tried to promote such moral values?
Christians say they will know by our love. How will anyone know an atheist?

How have they tried to promote such moral values?
Christians say they will know by our love. How will anyone know an atheist?

By our unwillingness to assign people to hell for not believing just like us. By our unwillingness to strap a bomb to our chest to make a point. By our ability to defend our moral values from first principles, rather than by a laundry list of commands from an imaginary sky fairy who will punish us if we don't toe the line. By our willingness to accept that other people have the same rights as us, even when they have a different lifestyle.

I suspect we have all come to the realization that that is inherently impossible (see: non falsifiable) shortly after we became potty trained.

Face it, atheists must own up to Lenin, Stalin and other atheist statists.

Who is we? 'Max just said all atheists were independent.
And there are atheists who attempt to use science to prove God does not exist. SH and Otto are two.

So far as I am aware, no atheist ever tortured and murdered someone for insisting there was a God.

Now, how many theists have tortured and murdered people who insist there is no god, or who worship a different god than they?

Face it, atheists must own up to Lenin, Stalin and other atheist statists.

That's silly. That's like claiming that all Christians must own up to anyone who's ever murdered in the name of God.

All atheists are independent, as all christians are independent in action.

That is really big of you to admit that.

Alrighty, there's one then. I think he got about what, 1.5 to 2 million people? Now, how many theists have tortured and murdered people who insist there is no god, or who worship a different god than they?

Face it, atheists must own up to Lenin, Stalin and other atheist statists.

That's silly. That's like claiming that all Christians must own up to anyone who's ever murdered in the name of God.

I agree it is silly, but some atheists here blame all the world's evils on religion.

All atheists are independent, as all christians are independent in action.

That is really big of you to admit that.

ANYONE at all who advocates a belief in the unreal must share the responsibility for the suffering and death it causes anywhere in the world, by any religionist whatsoever.

Religionists are all alike in this respect; their beliefs justify and enable those who would carry them to extremes in their defense. All religions harbor this propensity for violence when they are threatened. And all are threatened sooner or later by each other.

Religion serves no legitimate purpose. Time for it to go.

I really don't think my saintly grandmother was responsible for the inquisition or islamic terrorism

ANYONE at all who advocates a belief in the unreal must share the responsibility for the suffering and death it causes anywhere in the world, by any religionist whatsoever.

This certainly brought the God mob out in force.

As an atheist statist, then you accept responsibility for all poverty and death caused by governments?

This certainly brought the God mob out in force.

What mob? I have been the only voice showing how Christianity has improved the world.
It is in the historical record and demonstrable based upon the fact that it was a culture created by Judeo-Christian values that has been the dominant culture around the world for centuries. And that such a culture has liberated billions of people from government tyrannies.
As I have stated many times, all that is required is for one individual to state truth.

ANYONE at all who advocates a belief in the unreal must share the responsibility for the suffering and death it causes anywhere in the world, by any religionist whatsoever.

Actually, Jav, they should own up to that.

God made 'em do it.

ANYONE at all who advocates a belief in the unreal must share the responsibility for the suffering and death it causes anywhere in the world, by any religionist whatsoever.

So kids who believe in Santa need to redress the Ethnic Cleansing in Bosnia?

Too general a statement otto.

Atheists here keep trying to prove it does not exist.

We simply insist that you apply the same standards you apply to anything else to the issue of gods existence.

if you do not show your god then you are inconsistent in your way of interacting with people (demanding one set of values for one set of circumstances while demanding them in others)

That makes you, as a person, untrustworthy.

We simply insist that you apply the same standards you apply to anything else to the issue of gods existence.

How do you prove you love someone? You can go through all motions, the actions, say the right words, but how can you really prove what you feel to anyone?

Why?
All anyone who has faith in God can do is demonstrate their faith. How is that 'unstrusworthy'?

By the way skultch, I have relatives in the military who have been busy fighting religionists. I had one at ft hood the day all those people were shot by an Islamist. You got any empathy for them?

And, YES, I have empathy for everyone. I can't help it. It's my nature and I also happen to think it's a reasonable thing to do.

How many of you atheists use drugs contributing to those deaths?

How convenient. You consider an innate behavior you can't control reasonable.

How many of you atheists use drugs contributing to those deaths?

"# Freedom ameliorates the problem of mass poverty.

# Free people do not suffer from and never have had famines, and by theory, should not. Freedom is therefore a solution to hunger and famine.

# Free people have the least internal violence, turmoil, and political instability.

# Free people have virtually no government genocide and mass murder, and for good theoretical reasons. Freedom is therefore a solution to genocide and mass murder;

Technology ameliorates the problem of mass poverty.

You really don't know what you're talking about, do you? I suppose you think just saying something makes it true?

marjon opined,
"God doesn't force anyone to have faith in Him or make anyone do anything."

I'd rather get that straight from him, or her. Have him appear sometime next week at a congressional hearing and lets ask him or her directly. As it is, you're just doing the same thing we always hear, you seem to have appointed yourself spokesman for someone who may or may not even exist. In which case it is easy for you to put whatever words into God's mouth that you want at any given moment to bolster whatever claim you are making.

What we have are statements of those to whom God has spoken.
Courts of law accept eyewitness testimony and a jury decides.

What we have are statements of those to whom God has spoken.
Courts of law accept eyewitness testimony and a jury decides.

Islam is a government also.

The Koran is its constitution.

The reality is that majorities do infringe upon minority rights if there is no understanding the rights are inherent.

Mindless? Mindless?

Depends on whether you want to refer to evolution in a poetic way or not

Individuals struggle against the the debilitations of the environment, for the chance to reproduce

Up until very recently, everybody was having too many children

Organized religion gave a culture the ability to maximize this equation and direct an even larger cohesive force against it's enemies.

Specifically, something which is not falsifiable by its very nature cannot be a theory. See Russels Teapot

Yes- like malaria or hookworms. A parasite, an infection, a contagion which we are struggling to develop immunity to.

Yes. And if you repeat it few a more times it will be mindless squared.

Not really. Up until recently most places had plenty of room.

Sometimes. I don't think the Assyrians depended on religion and they seem to have started empire building

"A species will always produce more offspring than can be expected to survive to maturity." As humans became able to overcome the attritive elements which would normally have kept it's numbers in check, the only enemy left became fellow humans. 'Plenty of room' is a hopelessly unscientific... uh, thing.

Do you know why Keynsian economics advocates deficit spending during a recession?

Well isn't that the obvious benefit of believing in supernatural being(s)? Unless you're a fanatic of some kind, belief in God is soothing and usually harmless.

Prior to the Abrahamic faiths the Gods were petty and cruel.

If God was a creation of native tribes in Arabia, why did they make promote social values?

Those Jews were pretty smart if they created such a God.

They didn't create it, they borrowed it from other concepts that predated them. This goes all the way back to tribal shamanism. I know you don't believe in evolution, but even religion evolves. It's part of our evolution.

Again, why were they the only tribe to recognize that all those rules and laws were a positive to promote the prosperity of the tribe?

Seems like the key difference seems that the priests and prophets of God were reluctant and did not seek political power over others.

They weren't. A lot of their ethics and morality came to them from the Nubians and Egyptians, later on the Greeks and to a small extent the Romans.

So why didn't the Nubians or Egyptians or Greeks and Romans create the prosperity and technology we have today?

And, YES, I have empathy for everyone. I can't help it. It's my nature and I also happen to think it's a reasonable thing to do.

How convenient. You consider an innate behavior you can't control reasonable.

We weren't able to recreate that level of prosperity until the Industrial age. They did it by hand!

And, YES, I have empathy for everyone. I can't help it. It's my nature and I also happen to think it's a reasonable thing to do.

How convenient. You consider an innate behavior you can't control reasonable.

No, I absolutely do not. Where did you learn how to read? "...and I also..." - Do you understand how that separates the two? I see now you are not an intentional troll, but merely uneducated. Notice I didn't say miseducated. Know the difference? $100 says Marjon was home schooled by a similar nitwit. Pity is the emotion I feel now.

Why didn't the Greeks or Romans or Chinese launch the industrial age?
They had most of the basic ideas and a good start on the technology.

How convenient. You consider an innate behavior you can't control reasonable.

No, I absolutely do not. Where did you learn how to read? "...and I also..." - Do you understand how that separates the two? I see now you are not an intentional troll, but merely uneducated. Notice I didn't say miseducated. Know the difference? $100 says Marjon was home schooled by a similar nitwit. Pity is the emotion I feel now.

Typical, insults instead of dialog.
Can't defend so denigrate and evade.

Typical, insults instead of dialog. Can't defend so denigrate and evade.

Horse manure. String theory and M-Theory both seem to be non-falsifiable.

Falsifiability is DESIRABLE in a theory but it is not a true requirement.

And many religions ARE falsifiable.

How can a productive dialog be achieved when you simply do not understand what I am communicating?

Faith corrupts reason as faith requires belief despite evidence. Murder is wrong, but only when you don't have faith that you're doing wrong for greater good.

it wasn't until the objective observation of nature came into the spotlight

Eye witness testimony is the lowest form of evidence, especially when that witness is an uneducated goat herder.

There are no inherent rights.

Das gesetzliche Unrecht muss dem uebergesetzlichen Recht weichen.

For legal positivism there are none. For natural law there are.

It seems some posters have "scientism"; the belief in science as a rational religion. This is not the same as atheism. Many atheists don't believe in God and don't replace him with science. Actually atheism and science have very little in common.

Atheist: A person who holds no belief in a god or gods due to a lack of evidence

Prior to the Abrahamic faiths the Gods were petty and cruel.

If God was a creation of native tribes in Arabia, why did they make promote social values?
Most other gods were reflections human frailties and promoted/justified anti-social behaviour.
Those Jews were pretty smart if they created such a God.

even religion evolves. It's part of our evolution. The complexity within our society increases over time

Islam claims any rights comes from a god. The right to divorce for instance. To go to paradise for killing infidels. Not social. Religion. The religion formed the society and not the other way around.

I don't think the Assyrians depended on religion and they seem to have started empire building outside of Egypt.

Muhammad was successful because and only because of the extraordinary social, political, and ideological situation in his region of spacetime.

String theory and M-Theory both seem to be non-falsifiable.

I don't call them theories but that is because they have yet to predict anything different from the Standard Model.

Falsifiability is DESIRABLE in a theory but it is not a true requirement.

It was a plea by one opinionated egomaniac who thought he was in charge of setting definitions.

I know many now agree but I suspect that the agreement is not a matter of reason but emotion.

During his systematic persecution of proto-xians he learned enough about the cult to realize that, with modification, it could be very useful as a backfire against Jewish proselytism which was consuming the peoples of the mittelmeer.

Do you want science to encompass speculations?

Belief in God can be soothing, but only if you're familiar with the neo-western concepts of God.

Prior to and within the Abrahamic faiths the Gods were petty and cruel.

Atheist: A person who holds no belief in a god or gods due to a lack of evidence

That's not precise enough for me. I prefer to make a difference between atheists and agnostics.
Agnostics hold that atheists and believers have something in common: They both cling to non-falsifiable statements.
"There is a (supernatural) god" and "there is no (supernatural) god".

Struggling to survive is not struggling to evolve.

Paul must have been the most clever man in the world to start a religion that would conquer the Roman Empire

But, that has to be the ONLY solution to atheists like Otto as the alternative, Jesus DID talk to Saul and convert him

Paul was a seminal Player, only one of many. Peter hated him you know?

So why didn't the Nubians or Egyptians or Greeks and Romans create the prosperity and technology we have today?

Paul was a seminal Player, only one of many. Peter hated him you know?

Where is your evidence to support your conspiracy theories?

That's why a huge amount of fundamental scientific terms all over the world is Greek until the present day. (Mathematics, geometry, physics, biology, astronomy, cosmology, architecture, technics, psychology, anthropology, palaeontology, history, philosophy, theater, museum, music ..)
This is the biggest cultural influence ever in human development and is more important than material prosperity.

Otto the atheist can use the Bible to support his conspiracy theories but theists can't use the Bible to support their faith in God?

In the case of Greece it was the god fearing Romans who conquered them. In the case of Rome it was the God fearing Christians who conquered them.

Natural law is the absence of rights.

Without Natural Law there would have been neither the tyrannicids of ancient Greece nor the Nuremberg Tribunal.
Without Natural law all people living under a rule of injust laws would be damned.

The absence of Natural Law is the negation of Human Rights.

I prefer to make a difference between atheists and agnostics. Agnostics hold that atheists and believers have something in common: They both cling to non-falsifiable statements. "There is a (supernatural) god" and "there is no (supernatural) god".

Theism has to do with the belief in god.

The prefix a- means without

a-theist means without a belief in god.

Atheism is the position of holding no belief in a godlike entity, it is NOT the position that there is none, because that would pertain to knowledge, and like many others so far in this discussion you are conflating knowledge with belief.

Gnosticism refers to knowledge of god,

theism refers to belief in god, knowledge and belief are completely different things.

Most atheists are ALSO agnostic, holding no belief in god and claiming no knowledge of god.

The Reconquista in Spain gradually pushed the Moors south from the Pyrenees, and among the treasures left behind were Arabic translations of Greek works of science and philosophy.

Yes.

No. It means "without god".

But today it's a _descriptor_ for people who are convinced of their knowledge that there is no god.

None has written "I don't know whether there is a god".

No. "Gnosis" means just knowledge. "Gnosticism" is only a _designator_ for a bundle of ancient religions.

The atheists in this thread claim to know something, namely "there is no god".

I am sorry I have no clue what you are trying to say.

I am sorry I have no clue what you are trying to say.

I see. Maybe I should have written: The so-called "Natural Law". Maybe I should have provided links like http://en.wikiped...ral_law.

But apart of this: Has a citizen the right to kill a tyrant?

"I know there is a god" is knowledge (which may be true or false).
"I know there is no god" is knowledge (which may be true or false).
"I don't know whether there is a god" is agnostic.
"I don't know whether there is a god and I'm an atheist" is religious agnosticism with wrong semantics.

Sure there can be an objective set of rights.

First you have to know what kind of being is acting and for what values it is acting.

The primary value is one's life for which all other values apply.

A being must have certain freedoms of action if it is to survive.

it wasn't until the objective observation of nature came into the spotlight

"The Monk in the Garden
The Lost and Found Genius of Gregor Mendel, the Father of Genetics "http://www.nytime...onk.html
How could this be?

I did not say it must survive, only that "if it is to survive" it must be free to act to obtain those values needed for its survival.

I doubt that lions can think

Only rational beings have the problem of deciding on whether to live or die.

Of course, in you collectivist mob world

rights are not recognized and one is stuck with permissions to act and privileged spoils for survival.

We're all interchangable, and we're all individuals with different aspects that make us more or less fit for certain tasks.

I am an atheist, I don't know whether or not a god exists

I am an atheist, I don't know whether or not a god exists

That is an inconsistent statement.

Sounds like you spend way too much time among the 'elite' in Cambridge or is that your Army training?

How can equal weight be given to treating humans as individuals with unalienable natural rights and treating humans as cogs in a wheel that tyrannical masters can remove and replace at a whim?

That is an inconsistent statement.

Are you an alpha, beta or gamma?

Sounds like you spend way too much time among the 'elite' in Cambridge or is that your Army training?

can equal weight be given to treating humans as individuals with unalienable natural rights and treating humans as cogs in a wheel that tyrannical masters can remove and replace at a whim?

That's the truth.

The truth is government IS force.

Does its power derive from those governed?

Do the governed agree to give up some of their inherent rights and power to better protect their rights?

Or is the government the ultimate provider of rights and whoever controls the government controls the rights of all?

200 some years ago a few didn't like that idea and documented their ideas and created a new government with the idea that people had natural, inherent,unalienable rights and that the only function of the state was to protect those rights.

The truth is government IS force. Has been and will always be.

The founding fathers came to a consensus of opinion of what should be considered rights among the people, rights that are worth preserving and protecting, and they then included those rights as a basis for our government.

Did they also test how thinking about reality affects stress levels of the religious?

Why do you keep phrasing things as if they were in black and white?

just as an Atheist KNOWS that god does not exist......

just as an Atheist KNOWS that god does not exist......

No, we simply see no concrete evidence for a god, therefore we have no faith in a god, and further, do not believe in one. There are a great many "religious" atheists, for example the ancestor worshipping faiths, the universal soul faiths, the secular humanist faiths, pantheism etc. The only bonding element is that faith in contrast to natural observation yields poor results.

That was satire... I was misrepresenting his anarchism the same way he is misrepresenting our atheism.

The responses to the article are pure comedy. Most all of you "atheists" reacted just like the research said you would.

The responses to the article are pure comedy. Most all of you "atheists" reacted just like the research said you would. God bless all of you and thank you for a great laugh.

The responses to the article are pure comedy. Most all of you "atheists" reacted just like the research said you would. God bless all of you and thank you for a great laugh.

blatantly erroneous views of the state and economics.

No, we simply see no concrete evidence for a god, therefore we have no faith in a god, and further, do not believe in one.

The responses to the article are pure comedy. Most all of you "atheists" reacted just like the research said you would. God bless all of you and thank you for a great laugh.

Whether you believe in God or not, why is the central theme always about faith?

No atheists here have ever addressed the central theme of the Bible, faith.

Next time look it up. Otto does not like to play fetch.

The value of faith:

I NOT claiming that religion leads to jail.

That is why it is called faith.
No atheists here have ever addressed the central theme of the Bible, faith.

All major stories in the OT are about faith.

Those who follow God are rewarded. When Israel deviates, they are punished.
Whether you believe in God or not, why is the central theme always about faith?

More modern individuals have developed similar concepts with positive thinking principles and medical research supports positive attitudes for wellness.

Why did a bunch of ignorant shepherds wandering around Arabia believe faith is so important?

"Religious faith has an enormous effect on your attitude. It can make you more generous and openhearted toward others and toward yourself, too. It helps to look for what's good and uplifting so that you focus more on the positive."

The value of faith:
"Attitude influences whether you get--and even die from--more serious illnesses. Heart disease is a good example."
"John Barefoot, Ph.D., a research professor at Duke University Medical Center in Durham, North Carolina, did a 25year follow-up study of a group of medical students. "These were students in the 1950s," he says, "and we followed them up through 1980, I believe."
"What he and his colleagues discovered was that the ones who were hostile initially were the ones who were more likely to have died by the time of the follow-up study.

What he calls hostility, he says, is "an attitude of cynical beliefs and lack of trust in other people.... If you believe people are mean-spirited and bad and untrustworthy, that leads to a negative world outlook.

"That was one of the first studies," he adds, "but there have been several other studies, larger studies, that have also confirmed that."

Your answer to the question why do you believe with no evidence, is that there is an earthly benefit. How does that make any sense? How is that even consistent with your worldview?

Of course you are

How many of those in prison have their lives turned around by faith in God?

What makes Christianity really great is its theme of another chance at life, an opportunity to change.

How many are in prison due to the atheist/socialist government policies that do not promote the nuclear family?

Brain study shows that thinking about God reduces distress -- but only for believers

@marjon: You asked "How many are in prison due to the atheist/socialist government policies that do not promote the nuclear family?"

Why on Earth would you want the government promoting any sort of family? Isn't that what, oh, I don't know, FAMILIES are for?

I would welcome neutral government policies. That would be much preferred over current policies that work to pry children from their families and disincentivize families from staying together.

I would welcome neutral government policies. That would be much preferred over current policies that work to pry children from their families and disincentivize families from staying together.

Name one policy that pries children from their families and disincentivizes families from staying together.

I'm waiting.

Take a ten and look at your post. It doesn't say anything worth writing and most of us actually understand that it was INHERENT in the article that it would get posts that would look ironic in the light of the article.

YET we posted anyway because we have guts. You are merely mealy mouthed. Probably a Bleeding Heart Liberal or Nazi NeoCon. Of course you could be a Running Dog Capitalist. Or a Commie Pinko Banker.

Most likely of all is that you don't have the courage to say anything that might be refuted. Too late for that one.

Ethelred