Agnosticism: The Philosophical Cop-Out

[Zero Beat]

Sure it's possible that you've been systematically tricked and deceived your entire life, and the sky is actually green. But this is so unlikely, we just call the sky being blue "fact".

edit

Can we establish the following?

Truth/Fact = Anything that is consistent with reality and existing conditions.

I'm expecting objections, but probably not from you. Just what do you say about establishing that?

 

[AltF4]

We tend to abuse these terms a little bit. In normal everyday speech they make perfect sense, but strictly speaking this isn't true.

Like the word "impossible". We use it to refer to lots of things that strictly speaking, aren't impossible. But highly unlikely. Let me use a bit of number theory to demonstrate what I mean...


(This is the basis of how cryptography works, btw)

The principle of large numbers is what makes breaking modern ciphers impossible. "Impossible" of course in the sense "highly unlikely". Just just how "unlikely is it?" Well, in order to break a good cipher (256 bit AES, or the like) you have to guess correctly a 256 bit number. This is impossible. You cannot do it.

The proof? It's a really big number. 2^256 is a VERY big number. Try doing it on a calculator.

It is MORE likely that a million people each correctly (and independently) guess the power ball lottery numbers simultaneously every day for a billion trillion years.

It is safe to call the above "impossible". Therefore it's safe to call guessing a 256 bit number impossible. We use a similar definition for "fact". Something is fact if the probability of it being true is absurdly high.

 

[Reaver197]

I should also like to point out that, for the most part, mankind's deities aren't distinct, completely independent conjectures from one another. Often the deities of one culture or age will spread, change into, and/or inspire the deity of another culture or age.

For example, Christianity is actually built on a lot of religious ideas/myths that came from religions that preceded it (the most obvious of them being Judaism).

Thus, the idea that disproving/showing the illogical nature of one deity could, in fact, have an impact on the probability of other deities existing, at least in this one respect.

 

[Zero Beat]

We tend to abuse these terms a little bit. In normal everyday speech they make perfect sense, but strictly speaking this isn't true.

Like the word "impossible". We use it to refer to lots of things that strictly speaking, aren't impossible. But highly unlikely. Let me use a bit of number theory to demonstrate what I mean...


(This is the basis of how cryptography works, btw)

The principle of large numbers is what makes breaking modern ciphers impossible. "Impossible" of course in the sense "highly unlikely". Just just how "unlikely is it?" Well, in order to break a good cipher (256 bit AES, or the like) you have to guess correctly a 256 bit number. This is impossible. You cannot do it.

The proof? It's a really big number. 2^256 is a VERY big number. Try doing it on a calculator.

It is MORE likely that a million people each correctly (and independently) guess the power ball lottery numbers simultaneously every day for a billion trillion years.

It is safe to call the above "impossible". Therefore it's safe to call guessing a 256 bit number impossible. We use a similar definition for "fact". Something is fact if the probability of it being true is absurdly high.

That was beautifully written:-p. Debates are better when teaching is involved, rather than arguing. <_<

We could use gravity to justify my statement though. Especially since the effects of gravity are very practical in every day life, and therefore absurdly high in identical results.

Can you find a counter-measure to my claim? The main thing that I gathered from your post is that based on the example that was given, it is "safe" to usethe word fact in this debate, and we could simply replace consistency with absurdly high.

I should also like to point out that, for the most part, mankind's deities aren't distinct, completely independent conjectures from one another.

Which is why we generally find the same attributes in every sense of the word deity.

–noun, plural -ties. 1. a god or goddess.
2. divine character or nature, esp. that of the Supreme Being; divinity.
3. the estate or rank of a god: The king attained deity after his death.
4. a person or thing revered as a god or goddess: a society in which money is the only deity.
5. the Deity, God; Supreme Being.

 

[Hive]

Okay, and I apologize if this has already been covered. :D Too many long posts! So I didn't read all of the thread. :/
But I wanted to try to put my insight into the topic. You can ignore this if its irrelevant.

Agnosticism is really to me the heart of most belief systems, I think. I've always defined agnosticism as not being able to prove or disprove god (beyond a reasonable doubt). And I know that's a simple definition, but it isn't necessarily wrong either. In many ways I think its good because of that simplicity, it allows diversity in belief systems to really exist, and that's a good thing!
I imagine if we knew for sure which way the world was, it would probably sorta take the magic out of it. We don't live to have the answers to everything, we live to find the answers to everything. In the book Diaspora for example one of the main characters, after basically taking science as far as it could go, committed suicide, not out of distaste for his life but just because he had been "completed." There wasn't anything else to know. Ok, that's an extreme example. But the point is, having available options about the world is not bad. In all the science I have ever known I have not ever had a reason to like flowers.

Science doesn't give us the answer to whether god exists or doesn't exist. So in a way, you can argue science is "agnostic" (or nihilistic I suppose if you're really pessimistic ^^). Science doesn't give us these kinds of answers, and it definitely doesn't tell us how to act. I can't tell you how many times I've heard people try to use it like this. But in case the little subnotes in like every science textbook didn't reach you, and the fact that a good percentage of physicists believe in god still, I'll try to summarize this point.
Science tells us what in the world we can know it doesn't however tell us everything. We are limited by our position in this world, we are like 2D sketches trying to understand the unvierse by looking at the the paper thin world around us. There are things we just can't know (probably sub plank length characteristics, what happens inside singualarities, some quantum features, outer dimensions, why we are alive, what happens after we die etc..). Even the most basic laws that we have are possibly not indicative of the larger universe, many physicists believe we could even be in a simulation, that, in fact, it may even be more likely that we are in a simulation. When so many possibilities exist for the world, making us inable to even define ourselves, I don't see how we could possibly reach the conclusion about whether or not god exists.

I'm sure many people will say that the laws of physics limit how god can interact with the world as well. I still don't think this is true, the world could be a simulation (Likely) for one. But the main reason I disagree with this is that the idea behind why people believe in god is wrong here. A lot of people believe that people believe in god to "explain the world." I suppose this is why we hear crappy evolution topics way too much, that most people already agree with. ^^ People believe in god to find (meaning in their lives, give meaning to ethics, empathy, and to come to grips with questions like "why are we here", what happens after we die, why am I "me," what's the point of my life, to be happy, to have hope etc...) all of which aren't hindered by the laws of physics at all. God could easily be deistic in this case and still effect the world imo. But that's not the point. I guess what I'm saying is, sometimes we need to believe in things outside of what is seemingly logical to be psychologically healthy. Atomic processes, and neural reactions dictate our behavior. great. But that doesn't mean that's the best thing to believe in. Knowing that pheromone releases dictate how we view beauty is interesting. However it is irrelevant in the face of the fact when we do see something beautiful we see it simply and emotionally, as "beautiful."
What I'm saying is, we NEED agnosticism to be true.
It allows us to be diverse, to change, to transform our beliefs and take on new perspectives. (and no one belief system is better in all situations).
I would hate for the world to be completely theist or atheist.
And by "proving" one way I would hate for the world to lose its capacity to change.
This change, this diversity in ideas and religions and perspectives is one of the things that makes us beautiful.
Embrace chaos.

 

[AltF4]

Firstly, Hive, don't premise your posts with a "ignore this if it's irrelevant". Be confident in yourself. Say what you mean and don't hold back. But then also learn from the responses.


Fundamentally, I understand where you're going with the "human need for the unknown" business. The problem I have with it is that it doesn't have any bearing on the truth. And if all your doing is basing your beliefs on what makes you feel good emotionally, then why don't you add Santa and the Easter Bunny onto your list of things to believe? It is not a mentally or emotionally healthy thing to do, to invent imaginary friends.

Also, I disagree with the quick assumptions of "science cannot answer ____". Lots and lots of things have been said along those lines that were proven emphatically wrong. Don't be so quick to throw around assertions like "we will never know".

 

[Eor]

Firstly, Hive, don't premise your posts with a "ignore this if it's irrelevant". Be confident in yourself. Say what you mean and don't hold back. But then also learn from the responses.


Fundamentally, I understand where you're going with the "human need for the unknown" business. The problem I have with it is that it doesn't have any bearing on the truth. And if all your doing is basing your beliefs on what makes you feel good emotionally, then why don't you add Santa and the Easter Bunny onto your list of things to believe? It is not a mentally or emotionally healthy thing to do, to invent imaginary friends.

Also, I disagree with the quick assumptions of "science cannot answer ____". Lots and lots of things have been said along those lines that were proven emphatically wrong. Don't be so quick to throw around assertions like "we will never know".

If someone wants to believe that there's an invisible panda that lives in his bathtub that gives him good luck when he showers, and the guy doesn't let that go to an extreme level, then how does hurt him?

 

[Zero Beat]

If a man wants to believe that if he straps himself with explosives and carries on with the mission, he'll appear in heaven next to 70 virgins, how does that not hurt him?

 

[Aesir]

If a man wants to believe that if he straps himself with explosives and carries on with the mission, he'll appear in heaven next to 70 virgins, how does that not hurt him?

If someone wants to believe that there's an invisible panda that lives in his bathtub that gives him good luck when he showers, and the guy doesn't let that go to an extreme level, then how does hurt him?

Read the bolded Zero lol.

*goes back to lurking.*

 

[Eor]

If a man wants to believe that if he straps himself with explosives and carries on with the mission, he'll appear in heaven next to 70 virgins, how does that not hurt him?

Strawman .

 

[RDK]

If someone wants to believe that there's an invisible panda that lives in his bathtub that gives him good luck when he showers, and the guy doesn't let that go to an extreme level, then how does hurt him?

I'd rather not have that man making my antibiotics for me.

If you're a scientist, you look at things with a scientific mindset all the time. To throw that on the coathanger when you come home and believe in something you probably know is absolutely ridiculous is, at the very least, inconsistent, and at the worst, inane.

 

[Hive]

@alt4- first thanx for the response ^^
Look that's true that sometimes believing in stuff for emotions is a bad thing, but I'm not saying to believe in say the easter bunny. What I'm saying is that there are situations where people HAVE to believe illogical things to be psycholocically healthy, and that we all do. Do you believe being happy is meaningful? that there are things after death, that your life probably means something? These are all "illogical" in that respect that they have no basis in science at all, but they are completely necessary imo as well.
I know what you are saying with the truth thing, but, there are things that override our need for truth imo, and especially when the truth has multiple possibilities (like if there is a god or not) sometimes its wiser to pick the less likely course.

edit-"Truth" is a valid pursuit, however, at the end of the day you have to look at the things that make life really worthwile in the end, and there are things imo apart from truth that are relevant as well, and to reach those goals the best you need to sacrifice truth occassionally (to be happy, to have empathy, etc..)
The easter bunny is a good example, however, I'm not saying to sacrifice truth for happiness in all situations. If a person wants to believe that the world has value, and that when he dies (he has cancer) that his life will mean something/he might live on, is that not an ok belief? What I am saying is that there are situations where these beliefs do have value.

Science does look like it will be blackbloxed imo, I really do think that we are reaching the limits of what is testable/explorable. Even in M-theory there is this whole thing about how it might end up proving that infinite forms of the universe are possible (hence making it useless in narrowing down our options).
There are things imo we will never know I believe from science, both scientifically, such as what happens inside singularities, what happens for sure beyond this dimension, what happens below planck length, Did the universe begin somehow and from what, identity, etc... (there are a lot like this) ^^
and morally- why are we here? what's the point of life. Which honestly I don't believe science will ever answer. But are still pointless not to believe anything in (it can only be true when its meaning is true and you are correct in your belief of it, otherwise its irrelevant, if that makes sense!).
There are things in science I really believe we will not find, there are too many questions that go beyond our reach...

 

[Eor]

I'd rather not have that man making my antibiotics for me.

If you're a scientist, you look at things with a scientific mindset all the time. To throw that on the coathanger when you come home and believe in something you probably know is absolutely ridiculous is, at the very least, inconsistent, and at the worst, inane.

It is pretty ridiculous, but can you explain why it is harmful?

To add where I'm coming from: I'm an atheist who thinks the religious right is one of the most dangerous problems facing America. But I think that just because there is an extreme wing of religion that it means all religion is dangerous is, pretty much, a holier then thou ridiculous approach to the subject. I think parts of religion, like Dogma, leads to the main problem with have with religion and I'd be very happy for Dogma to just die already, but beyond that I have little beef with people's religious views. I live in Texas, right north of Dallas, so when I walk to class I'm usually told by someone preaching in the student center I'm going to hell (he shouts this at everyone), but if that dude wants to think everyone is going to hell but him (which I'm starting to think is the case and he's just gloating), then more power to him. Of course that can lead to worst things, but by itself it's pretty much harmless.

 

[Hive]

religion isn't really that dangerous at all.. the people who get blamed for that are usually a really small portion of religious people (about the same portion that exists in atheism too) in diverse countries.
And in third world countries, yea religion causes more crime, however, that isn't bc of the religion, its just bc of the social and economic conditions of the country (the real imo reasons for crime). The same with the Czech Republic, last time I checked its crime rate wasn't to hot either (that could have changed, i'm not dissing on the Czech Rep here ) and it is one of the most atheistic countries in the world.
I really believe religion gets way too unfairly blamed here. Most people in relgions are good people.
Religious tolerance is important. ^^

 

[AltF4]

I live in Texas, right north of Dallas, so when I walk to class I'm usually told by someone preaching in the student center I'm going to hell (he shouts this at everyone), but if that dude wants to think everyone is going to hell but him (which I'm starting to think is the case and he's just gloating), then more power to him. Of course that can lead to worst things, but by itself it's pretty much harmless.

lol! I think every college has those people. At ASU they're at the corners of every block sometimes. They bust out with huge signs and get into verbal yelling wars with passers-by.

Only when the weather's nice, though. It's not worth converting the wicked on an unpleasant day.

If someone wants to believe that there's an invisible panda that lives in his bathtub that gives him good luck when he showers, and the guy doesn't let that go to an extreme level, then how does hurt him?

Along the same lines as Zero Beat (but not as sensationalist), this situation is almost never the case. People are incapable of keeping a belief in god to themselves. What I am against is not just religion, but superstition in all of its forms. Let me use a bit of an example...


Bowling is one of the most superstitious games (I don't want to call it a sport) around. You throw the ball, it knocks down pins. But exactly how the pins fall is highly random. But people always have this tendency to pick up these nasty superstitions with bowling. I know people that bowl who have a STRICT routine of exactly what they do before and during a game. All kinds of absurd things like drinking exactly 3 sips of a beer, then taking 14 steps up to the lane, sitting back down if the ball's holes aren't facing up, throwing the ball only when the second hand of his clock is in the second half of the minute, etc...

Is this harmless? No. It's not. This is patently unscientific. The person actually believes that some mystic force will only give them a strike if they throw the ball when the second hand of his watch is past 30 seconds. How is not a sign of a mental deficiency? How is this any less absurd of a belief than the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

And this very same person does not stop there. And this is the problem. This very same person obeys the same unscientific superstitions at their work, home life, etc... This is a very bad person to be sick around. Because even if you're deathly ill, he'll avoid going to the hospital. Because he believes that hospitals just make you more sick.

And here's the kicker. What if this person were not just some random guy you know, but the president of the country? Or a judge presiding over an important case? Their arbitrary, random, unscientific, and illogical superstitions are a detriment to everyone.

No, I denounce superstition in all forms.


EDIT: This article is a good example of what I'm talking about. It is a collection of remedies that doctors currently use that have been repeatedly shown to not have any effect, or even have an adverse effect. Yet they continue, just because they believe that it will work, while ignoring all evidence. You'll also notice that this is not a religious article. These doctors are not being ignorant because of a belief in god. But just superstition in general.

Would you want a doctor who gives medicine proven to not have any effect?

 

[Zero Beat]

Sorry Eor, it was very late at night, because I seriously don't remember seeing that line in there.

I understand where you're coming from Alt, as I used to play baseball and had certain(although not that crazy) routines. However, mine were just done to get in some sort of "comfort zone." If you've done something before, chances are you'll feel a sense of comfort and familiarity. Not true for all cases, but these routines deal with that.

........early hours of heart attacks did not save lives, but did cause a definite increase in heart failure.

How are we allowing ideology overwrite evidence? Stupid.

 

[Hive]

Not all superstitions are bad for you :/ there's scientific evidence that some superstitions are good for your health and belief in your health too.
obvious example: A mother telling a child it "will be alright" during a catastrophic event, etc... (or telling someone murder is bad morally)
its not scientifically accurate (or supported by), but hell, there are situations (and not just reserved to children) where this is the best course of action, and rightly so.
My point is not to show that superstition and belief outside of logic should exist in all situations. I feel like many people are taking it that way. What I'm trying to show is that superstition and belief outside of what is obvious or logical is correct in certain situations/sometimes.

What is your guys' ethics? I guarantee 90% of you say something along the lines of happiness. Then what is ethically correct than should be the study of how to obtain happiness, so it is a study of economics and physics rather than just physics imo. The pursuit of happiness can conflict with scientific evidence, and does in basically all of you in some area of your life imo (even the thought that happiness is meaningful is in some way apart from science, yes? There is no scientific evidence to suggest this. But we do still)

 

[adumbrodeus]

I dislike posting in the "quote-reply" format. So, I'll just respond normally with what I think is important, rather than chasing every loose end.

I like it, helps me make sure I touch on everything important.

Lots of text

*Takes a look back*

*realizes that he's ended up defending agnosticism as a truism*

Crap.


Anyway, it's rather easy to split deities into sets, and as long as we make generalizations about the attributes within that set, we'll be fine. One thing you have to remember is that a set of one is still a valid set.

Monotheistic Gods are a set, so you can make generalizations that come directly from monotheism about monotheistic Gods.

By the same token you can make generalizations about previously falsified gods based on that one attribute.

Gods can be grouped into multiple sets if they share some of the same attributes but not others.


So, while a deity itself is near impossible to define, it's very easy to define sets of deities.


Btw. Yay discrete mathmatics!


Ok, now on to weak agnostic. Yes, you're quite right, it is possible to be a theist and a weak agnostic (in fact, many Jews are). Atheism, again yes, it is possible under certain varients of atheism (specifically the "absence of belief" variant which as I understand it, is the most common), but it requires a conscious identifacation as agnostic in that sense (the reason being because the person lacks belief, but specifically accepts the possibility of deities, in that sense a lot of self-identified atheists could also be agnostics). Varients that specifically take the philosophical position that deities do not exist need not apply.

So in essence, weak agnosticism can be a supplimentary position to theism or atheism, but it's still a discrete position.


Strong agnosticism, yes it does make a claim. However, I have no interest in saying strong agnosticism is the right position because I disagree with it, my only intention was to prove that it's not a cop-out, which you seem to have admitted.

That said, I will note that the reason I mentioned them as following each other is that if something is unfalsifiable, then the scientific method cannot comment on it, hence from a scientific standpoint it's also unknowable.


A few issues here.

Firstly, it's statistics, not probability. It's a little difficult to discuss statistic reasoning using probability, so it's rather difficult to parse that section of your post. Yeah, I'm gonna switch the vocabulary over to statistics if you don't mind, because it really doesn't make sense in terms of probability.

Second: no, I understand very well the problem of lack of knowledge, but you're missing a very large problem. The problem is simply that we have an attribute shared by all deities that are falsified, namely that they are falsifiable. That means that if we control for falsifiability, we draw no conclusions about absolutely anything else. We can probably even control for types of falsifiability and draw no conclusions about falsifiability in general that are within the margin of error.

What does this tell us, that either God doesn't exist, or if he/she/it/them/potato does exist, God doesn't have the particular falsifiable attributes that we proved false.

Again, this is a basic understanding of statistics, only if controlling for variables results in similar distributions can we conclude things about the original question beyond "no evidence".

So, control for falsifiability, by definition only falsifiable deities have been proven false, statistically what does that allow us to say about the falsehood of non-falsifiable deities? Absolutely nothing.

Please note that this assumes a finite number of tests.


Thirdly, I just want to show the ludicriousness of what you are saying. Let's say that I wanted to know if there a specific "object" in the room (using the definition that an object is a thing, entity, or being, basically a replacement for anything that exists), specifically a giant purple elephant.

I look around, is it here? No.

How about a turntable? No?! Dang, I wanted to do some scratching, oh well, next test.

Tap dance shoes? No, ok whatever.


*continues on for 200 tests*

Ok, so non of the 200 things I tested for are here, I can reasonably conclude that there is nothing in the room, right?

*trips on Kali sticks which actually are in the room*

You see, if I provide enough easily testable non-existant things I can generalize to say that nothing exists.

I could for example, go contradictory and go down the color list with a million or so invisible [insert color here] [insert animal here]s to prove that nothing exists period.

Which is why we have actual mathamatical induction. All of the cases that I stated would fail under mathamatical induction, and so would yours.


So, no. You can only draw generalizations within sets, when the factor you're testing is the basis for using the set.

 

[Eor]

Along the same lines as Zero Beat (but not as sensationalist), this situation is almost never the case. People are incapable of keeping a belief in god to themselves.

Why do you think that? I know plenty of people who can keep their belief to themselves.

Bowling is one of the most superstitious games (I don't want to call it a sport) around. You throw the ball, it knocks down pins. But exactly how the pins fall is highly random. But people always have this tendency to pick up these nasty superstitions with bowling. I know people that bowl who have a STRICT routine of exactly what they do before and during a game. All kinds of absurd things like drinking exactly 3 sips of a beer, then taking 14 steps up to the lane, sitting back down if the ball's holes aren't facing up, throwing the ball only when the second hand of his clock is in the second half of the minute, etc...

Is this harmless? No. It's not. This is patently unscientific. The person actually believes that some mystic force will only give them a strike if they throw the ball when the second hand of his watch is past 30 seconds. How is not a sign of a mental deficiency? How is this any less absurd of a belief than the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

It's not less absurd in aggregate terms, but honestly why is it so bad for someone to be unscientific about Bowling. If he was a doctor who put his faith in his watch handle instead of actually knowing what to do, then there's a problem. But if someone wants to follow some superstitions for bowling, then why care? Do you get annoyed when people knock on wood?

And this very same person does not stop there. And this is the problem. This very same person obeys the same unscientific superstitions at their work, home life, etc... This is a very bad person to be sick around. Because even if you're deathly ill, he'll avoid going to the hospital. Because he believes that hospitals just make you more sick.

You're right, that person is not capable of making intelligent decisions.

And here's the kicker. What if this person were not just some random guy you know, but the president of the country? Or a judge presiding over an important case? Their arbitrary, random, unscientific, and illogical superstitions are a detriment to everyone.

Can you not tell the difference between someones superstition in bowling and someone not believing in modern medicine? They don't link together, it's not a gateway superstition.


No, I denounce superstition in all forms.

EDIT: This article is a good example of what I'm talking about. It is a collection of remedies that doctors currently use that have been repeatedly shown to not have any effect, or even have an adverse effect. Yet they continue, just because they believe that it will work, while ignoring all evidence. You'll also notice that this is not a religious article. These doctors are not being ignorant because of a belief in god. But just superstition in general.

Would you want a doctor who gives medicine proven to not have any effect?

of course not, that's just stupid.

But again you guys can't seem to tell the difference between a harmless belief and a dangerous one, or just refuse to accept that some it's possible to knock on wood without drowning a baby with the belief it'll come back to life if you touch ivy to it.

I knock on wood, because it's fun. It's a collective lie. No one deep down really thinks that knocking on wood will work, but people believe it will because it's a fun thing to have. Same with lucky underwear or rabbit paws, or more likely most bowlers. I admit I know nothing about bowling, but I figure doing the exact same pattern again and again would tend to calm yourself before you throw, which would improve the ability to throw straight?

 

[adumbrodeus]

Planning on editing in, but Eor posted first, so new post.

Bowling is one of the most superstitious games (I don't want to call it a sport) around. You throw the ball, it knocks down pins. But exactly how the pins fall is highly random. But people always have this tendency to pick up these nasty superstitions with bowling. I know people that bowl who have a STRICT routine of exactly what they do before and during a game. All kinds of absurd things like drinking exactly 3 sips of a beer, then taking 14 steps up to the lane, sitting back down if the ball's holes aren't facing up, throwing the ball only when the second hand of his clock is in the second half of the minute, etc...

Is this harmless? No. It's not. This is patently unscientific. The person actually believes that some mystic force will only give them a strike if they throw the ball when the second hand of his watch is past 30 seconds. How is not a sign of a mental deficiency? How is this any less absurd of a belief than the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Well, firstly, that's not actually true, depending on where and how you throw the ball you will get a different effect, a lot of effort goes into replicating that effect. Speaking as somebody who bowls, there are variety of techniques one can use based on pin positioning and momentium mechanics to improve your odds of getting a strike.


Regardless, the fact is, the placebo effect is very powerful. Not so much in bowling because it's ultimately pure physics (aka, putting more effort into it may or may not help) but in a variety of sports, the simple belief that something will improve your game actually improves your game.

Logically, since that is the case, you should work to achieve the placebo effect.

And this very same person does not stop there. And this is the problem. This very same person obeys the same unscientific superstitions at their work, home life, etc... This is a very bad person to be sick around. Because even if you're deathly ill, he'll avoid going to the hospital. Because he believes that hospitals just make you more sick.

And here's the kicker. What if this person were not just some random guy you know, but the president of the country? Or a judge presiding over an important case? Their arbitrary, random, unscientific, and illogical superstitions are a detriment to everyone.

No, I denounce superstition in all forms.

Ah, you ASSUME that just because a person holds a belief that you consider supersticious that they must logically apply the same thing to every facet of their life.

Here's the problem, nobody is like that. The extremes of the atheist who relies only on cold hard logic and the believer that trusts only in divine intervention do not exist.

Everyone falls somewhere between the two extremes with the most common examples of even the hardest atheists not following logic being things like habits and EMOTIONS. On the other hand, most believers believe in a fundamentally logical world with God above it all, and react in kind. They carry out their religious duties but for all other intents and purposes function no differently then the atheist in society.


And then you have the others, the true believers. Not just ultra-religious fundamentalists that believe in constant intervention, but also conspiracy nuts, and other people too blinded by preconception to see the world.

They come in all stripes, and while religious tend a little more towards that edge in general, they are quite simply, not blind.


That entire choice is merely a strawman.

 

[RDK]

Here's the problem, nobody is like that. The extremes of the atheist who relies only on cold hard logic and the believer that trusts only in divine intervention do not exist.

Flicking your wrist and dismissing his whole argument via "Nobody's like that!" is ridiculous and you know it. So I assume you intimately know every person who has ever walked this earth?

Truth be told, I know a lot of people like that. I know people who, in one setting, can be perfectly rational adult human beings, and then in another instance abandon all rationality and readily attribute mind-boggling things to their deity. And you can be ****ed sure there are people like that running our government.

Just look at our last president. Bush was notorious for praying before he made any big decisions. How can that possibly be healthy for an individual, let alone an entire country?

But again you guys can't seem to tell the difference between a harmless belief and a dangerous one, or just refuse to accept that some it's possible to knock on wood without drowning a baby with the belief it'll come back to life if you touch ivy to it.

I think what he's trying to get at is that beliefs that seem small and harmless can turn into big ones that may have adverse effects not only on themselves, but other people. Unless someone is really good at compartmentalizing, I don't see why their superstition wouldn't bleed into other parts of their life where it doesn't belong.

 

[Hive]

edit: ok so I talk a lot here lol, and its not really aimed at anyone directly, but rather is an accumulation of thoughts that have been bugging me that randomly people have been implying and bringing up. Sorry if I repeat myself at all (and a lot) from earlier. ^^ But please do take the time to read it if you're bored lol, its really says a lot I wanted to say. ^^

You guys keep assuming god and superstitions are a perfectly idiotic assumption when its not always like that at all (and worse when you guys try to make them seem "harmful" which is ridiculous given the extremely small amount of people who even are noticeably harmed by it). The SAME arguements can be applied to atheism too. Generalizing the actions of a few to a larger population is the essence of every stereotype. Whenever there are two groups in comparison one is bound to have a slightly higher rate of (whatever), however that doesn't mean that its the CAUSE of the problem, or even that the two factors are correlated. See like this, I can turn the arguement around into something really stupid in reply to relgious people "causing more murder in developed countries." Atheism actually causes more suicide rates in people, and last time I checked suicide rates in the US outnumbered homicide about 6 to 1. Obviously the ideas in atheism only serve to make people appreciate life less, and value themselves as clumps of meaningless atoms, and harms society. wrong. The brain processes that lead to suicide and the ones that lead to homicide have been found to be similar, and these are what causes murder/suicide as well as poor social and economic conditions in a country, regardless of religion as a whole.
(I will gladly bring up these sources if asked).

Yea, there are stupid religious people, no arguements there. There are stupid athestic people too.
There are many situations where a belief in god is a very rational thing, you can't apply a single standard of religious belief to everyone unconditionally!
Especially given the fact that there are two main approaches to understanding (scientific and moral), and that these two contradict each other a lot. We are forced to switch between understandings of the world because each one gives us an incomplete picture of the world. Looking at the world logically gives us an idea of how the world works but also doesn't give us a reason to live in the world, what to like, or even why to like and live. Conversely when we look at things morally we look at what we believe is necessary to achieve in life, and how to achieve that, however, these beliefs give us no idea of how the world is.
We are forced to use BOTH approaches (not just a mix of the two, but actually switching in between mixes of the two). For example in a neuroscience class it makes the most sense to look at humans as mindless atomic processes, however, in social situations we can't use the same criteria. (edit: I got this dualty idea from neuroscientist Steven Pinker lol ok I semi-stole it ^^)
In the superstition examples many of you had to use extreme examples as well to debunk it (well it seems fine but how about if it causes this and that to happen, wouldn't that be bad? yes. But the truth is this is only a small subset, and for the most part it is a good thing! edit: let me just say its a lot more fun to go the graveyard with someone who believes in ghosts lol. ^^)

God is a good thing for people in many ways:
Believing can provide comfort
A sense of intrinsic value in the world and nature
A sense of continuity in your life (you live on after death)
Ethics and reasons to do them
Reasons to live
A sense of justice which the real world doesn't provide for
A sense of accomplishment in life
Emotional release
Social reasons

As well, Strict Atheism can provide:
A scientific view of the world
An objective view of the processes we are living in
A sense of understanding that corresponds to the material world, etc..
A sene of control
Social reasons

These are only generalizations, and depending on the belief can be true or false, obviously. however, the point they serve is that both have attributes (and flaws) in areas. People need to focus on trying to balance these ideas and get used to the fact that different people need different views, rather than trying to abolish one or the other.
I am very up to date on both science and math, but I'm theist, why (and i've switched between it and atheism)? Because it helps me appreciate the world (and yes i recognize its not the same for everyone which is why I'm not for only one understanding). It is not based out of ignorance at all, and believing so doesn't make me more inclined to cause harm. You guys will need to square with the fact that theists can be just as intelligent and just as understanding of the world as atheists, and that neither is inherently bad or ignorant.

edit: this necessary dualty and the lack of supporting evidence of either side is one of the reasons I think agnosticism is important. It provides us with diversity and the ability to be dynamic between beliefs.

 

[Reaver197]

edit: ok so I talk a lot here lol, and its not really aimed at anyone directly, but rather is an accumulation of thoughts that have been bugging me that randomly people have been implying and bringing up. Sorry if I repeat myself at all (and a lot) from earlier. ^^

You guys keep assuming god and superstitions are a perfectly idiotic assumption when its not always like that at all (and worse when you guys try to make them seem "harmful" which is ridiculous given the extremely small amount of people who even are noticeably harmed by it).

I'm afraid when I saw this, I simply could not let this pass. The extremely small amount of people harmed? Need I remind you of the Crusades, the Holocaust, the Inquisition, 9/11, the sectarian violence that erupted in the Balkans, Northern Ireland, and the current issues in the Middle East (particularly with Israel)? Religion is a key player in all these events/issues, and, without religion, these would've either been significantly reduced in intensity or would've not even happened at all. This is also not taking into account the amount of people who have been harmed or killed by various cults, the misogyny engendered by some religions, for heresy or apostasy, etc, etc.

I'm sorry, but it's absolutely appalling to me that you can sit there and essentially say that religion (a branch of superstition) has only caused harm to an "extremely small amount of people". I imagine that the seemingly more mundane, less organized, and "harmless" superstitions can still add more harms and deaths to the considerable amount that religions have already inflicted upon this world.

http://whatstheharm.net/

Unfortunately, I'm fairly busy with work, so I am unable to respond properly to the rest of your post (or anyone else's). I just felt that was one statement that needed immediate rectification.

 

[Eor]

I think what he's trying to get at is that beliefs that seem small and harmless can turn into big ones that may have adverse effects not only on themselves, but other people. Unless someone is really good at compartmentalizing, I don't see why their superstition wouldn't bleed into other parts of their life where it doesn't belong.

So instead of gateway drugs we have "gateway" beliefs.

Seriously, you guys seem to be acting like if someone doesn't approach everything scientifically they're backward savages who are terrified of fire and spend all day throwing **** around instead of doing anything productive. What correlation is there between saying "bless you" when someone sneezes (which is a superstition) and someone thinking doctors are tools of satan? It's similar to saying "well atheists don't believe in (this), therefore they'll end up believing in nothing".

Someone prays before making a decision? Oh no, this person must be totally ****ing insane. How dare he. Strap him up men, he can't do anything smart.

Edit: to the dude above: yeah, there's been harm caused by religion. There's been harmed caused by just about everything. How many wars have been fought over land? Almost all of them. So does that mean we should abolish the idea of national boundaries private ownership of land?

 

[Xsyven]

The difference between fighting over land and fighting over religion is that fighting over land actually means something. =/

I don't mean to put it bluntly, but the Bible is by far the deadliest book in existence.

 

[Hive]

It is an extremely small amount of people as a direct result of religion in developed countries.
Like I said before Poor social, education and economic conditions breed crime (it is a far better indication of rises in crime rates than relgion btw, and is more correlated to modern problems).
Blaminng modern day crises on religion (oh noes) is careless given that the people causing the problems are one a very small subset of the relgious population, a very very very small subset of relgious thought as a whole, and doesn't take into account other reasons for the crime to exist. I'm surprised that you have somehow taken the actions of terrorists and such to be indicative of relgious thought as a whole, when almost all members of relgions condemn and do not support what they are doing. And when it is clearly not indicative of religions as a whole. I mean that's sort of careless.
Religion has a proven capacity to be harmless in modern day developed countries. You want proof?
Look at the billions of people in the world and in the US who are relgious and do not committ horrific crimes. You will find that they are far more indicative of religion as a whole than a select few extremists in Arabia and the middle ages. In developed countries atheist and theist crime rates are completely similar.
I could sit here and say that WWII, the KKK, etc.. were all a direct result of atheism as well. But to do so is carelessly generalizing that belief system.
If a group of atheists here in the US banded together and performed 1000s of hate crimes against catholics in the name of atheism, (catholics do have the most hate crimes performed against them btw), would you really attribute this as being indicative of common atheistic thought?
seriously now.
Religion has the proven capacity to be harmless even benificial (and is to many people). And I stand by that. I'm surprised at the lack of tolerance for relgious belief systems nowadays especially when good examples of relgious people are not hard to find. Trying to justify a harmful generalization of relgion as bad is beyond me.
Because I'm theist do you think I am currently declaring a jihad on local americans? no. Just bc I am doesn't mean I am directly harmful to society. You must realize then that people have the capacity to be good and theist? When this is true you can't generalize all religion like that, because to do so and to act upon it will be needlessly applying the punishment to people who are not responsible for it.

Edit: Basically we need to start blaming people based on the actions they directly contribute to rather than making broad generalizations. Such as not trying to attribute the 1000 hardcore terrorists in Iraq to the billions of people who practice relgion for example.
In WWII when people blamed jews as being bad as a whole because of small subsets of the jewish population committing crimes (mainly for food, resources, forced culturization ) it was obviously wrong. Many people will argue, but they have a choice to be relgious though! Even if the jews in wwii had a choice to change as well, can you not see how messed up that is? In all of the examples you gave me it is indicative of something else rather than just relgion being bad imo-> and that is they are all started by stereotypes and misplaced generalizations about people that provoked conflict (the atheist ones I listed share that trait as well! and it is a more common trait of these problems than a single belief system!)
Misplaced hate and generalizations towards social and ethnic groups are much more of a problem than common relgious thought.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Flicking your wrist and dismissing his whole argument via "Nobody's like that!" is ridiculous and you know it. So I assume you intimately know every person who has ever walked this earth?

Truth be told, I know a lot of people like that. I know people who, in one setting, can be perfectly rational adult human beings, and then in another instance abandon all rationality and readily attribute mind-boggling things to their deity. And you can be ****ed sure there are people like that running our government.

Just look at our last president. Bush was notorious for praying before he made any big decisions. How can that possibly be healthy for an individual, let alone an entire country?

... You're not reading.


I wasn't suggesting that the there aren't people do don't fall close to that edge of irrational belief, in fact I mentioned them later in my post.


I'm merely pointing out that the pure forms that are so often stereotyped are functionally non-existent (and by functionally, I mean that with enough tests, you'll eventually get everything, but it has no been observed, though I have yet to be convinced that it's possible with a finite number of tests).


What you're talking about is people who tend too far on the irrational scale in things that cause problems, not pure examples of the "true believer" stereotype.


I also fail to see the problem with praying before making big decisions. The thought process behind the decision is what matters, not what the person does outside the scope of that decision.

That comment seems to be merely an example of anti-religious bias with no rational grounding.

If you want to point out Bush's mistakes, his thought process provides plenty of fodder for that.

I think what he's trying to get at is that beliefs that seem small and harmless can turn into big ones that may have adverse effects not only on themselves, but other people. Unless someone is really good at compartmentalizing, I don't see why their superstition wouldn't bleed into other parts of their life where it doesn't belong.

Once again, this comment is more evident of anti-religious bias within the argument then of any actual deficiency.

The fact is, as I pointed out, there is a sliding scale of rationality vs. irrationallity. Nobody falls completely on one end or another, and most religious people are no more illogical then non-religious in their everyday dealings.

Of course, this doesn't bother to address the underlying assumption that religion in general is irrational in the first place.

 

[Eor]

The difference between fighting over land and fighting over religion is that fighting over land actually means something. =/

And it means what? The concept of ownership is something we made up, just like religion.

I don't mean to put it bluntly, but the Bible is by far the deadliest book in existence.

You have no argument from me that the Bible is not a moral book, and that is has been used to justify tons of terrible things. But it's a book.

 

[RDK]

I also fail to see the problem with praying before making big decisions. The thought process behind the decision is what matters, not what the person does outside the scope of that decision.

That comment seems to be merely an example of anti-religious bias with no rational grounding.

Not at all.

What does a person look for when they pray to God? Signs. And we rational people know that whatever random, arbitrary event that comes along that can be considered a "sign" is just that--random and arbitrary. If that's how they're going to base massive decisions involving the country--on a religious whim--then I'd rather not have them running my government, and I don't think you would either. At least I hope you wouldn't.

If you want to point out Bush's mistakes, his thought process provides plenty of fodder for that.

Hmm, that's weird. Just a minute ago you said...

The thought process behind the decision is what matters, not what the person does outside the scope of that decision.

If we agree that no deity is involved, wouldn't it be 100% the person's thought process? That's what I have a problem with. He's basically playing Russian Roulette with the country when he offers its future to his God.

Of course, this doesn't bother to address the underlying assumption that religion in general is irrational in the first place.

In a wider sense, yes, religion is irrational. I hope you're honestly not going to debate that with me.

Considering individual people's situations, religion (or intelligent design, if the person lives in Louisiana and knows next to nothing about biology) may be the logical choice if there's a sufficient lack of knowledge. But that doesn't change the fact that it's still illogical to the rest of us who know.

Edit: What the ****? Eor, why is Atlas Shrugged on that list? Next to Mein Kampf? Gimme a break. Your hatred of Ayn Rand has gone too far this time.

And besides, Atlas Shrugged sucked. If you're going to read Rand, pick up The Fountainhead.

 

[Eor]

Hey RDK, maybe you should look at the next book on the list then make an intelligent decision about it!

But it has caused harm. It's made hundreds of college kids put Ron Paul stickers on everything they see

 

[AltF4]

Wow! So many replies! You'll have to forgive me if I don't respond to each and every point everyone is making. I don't have all day!

You guys keep assuming god and superstitions are a perfectly idiotic assumption when its not always like that at all (and worse when you guys try to make them seem "harmful" which is ridiculous given the extremely small amount of people who even are noticeably harmed by it).

Is that so? Maybe I should start bringing up all the children ***** by catholic priests? Wars, terrorists, the holocaust, etc... Don't be naive. The list goes on and on about the horrors that religion has brought to the world.

The SAME arguements can be applied to atheism too. Generalizing the actions of a few to a larger population is the essence of every stereotype. Whenever there are two groups in comparison one is bound to have a slightly higher rate of (whatever), however that doesn't mean that its the CAUSE of the problem, or even that the two factors are correlated. See like this, I can turn the arguement around into something really stupid in reply to relgious people "causing more murder in developed countries." Atheism actually causes more suicide rates in people, and last time I checked suicide rates in the US outnumbered homicide about 6 to 1. Obviously the ideas in atheism only serve to make people appreciate life less, and value themselves as clumps of meaningless atoms, and harms society. wrong. The brain processes that lead to suicide and the ones that lead to homicide have been found to be similar, and these are what causes murder/suicide as well as poor social and economic conditions in a country, regardless of religion as a whole.
(I will gladly bring up these sources if asked).

Wow, yea, you're going to have to bring up sources for all of that. Because I'm calling BS on jsut about all of it.

Yea, there are stupid religious people, no arguements there. There are stupid athestic people too.

I don't know of any scientific studies that have been performed to test this hypothesis, but I think anecdotally we can see a clear correlation between intelligence and atheism.

I am an engineer, I live in the world of academia. Of all the (very intelligent) people I've met in the engineering world, I could count on my hands the number of those who were religious. The vast majority are "non-religious" in the sense that I described earlier. Then a large section are atheist. Then a very small minority are religious.

Compare that to... say... the backwaters of Alabama and you see where I'm going.

There are many situations where a belief in god is a very rational thing, you can't apply a single standard of religious belief to everyone unconditionally!

Oh, really? I would certainly like to hear one if you have it! A situation where a belief in god is rational, eh?

Especially given the fact that there are two main approaches to understanding (scientific and moral), and that these two contradict each other a lot. We are forced to switch between understandings of the world because each one gives us an incomplete picture of the world. Looking at the world logically gives us an idea of how the world works but also doesn't give us a reason to live in the world, what to like, or even why to like and live. Conversely when we look at things morally we look at what we believe is necessary to achieve in life, and how to achieve that, however, these beliefs give us no idea of how the world is.

Okay, you seem to be suffering from a misunderstanding of what "logical" is. It is not synonymous with "scientific".

Furthermore, what is with this common claim I hear from theists? That somehow somethings are not within the realm of science. Or that science cannot answer ____. Well, why not? Furthermore, why must your questions HAVE an answer?

Just because you phrased in the form of a grammatically correct English sentence doesn't mean that there is an answer. I could ask you "Why does wood fly purple?" It may look like a question, but in reality is just nonsense. Wood doesn't fly. Nor is it purple.

So you then ask me the question "What is the meaning of life?". Well, why does your question have to have an answer? A meaning TO WHO? My life sure has a meaning to me. Why would I care if some invisible man in the sky has a purpose for me. Why would that suddenly make me feel complete? I would rather be free to enjoy life as I see fit, rather than have someone else choose it for me.

let me just say its a lot more fun to go the graveyard with someone who believes in ghosts lol. ^^)[/quote[

Yes, and it's a lot more fun when you have a doctor who doesn't.

The rest isn't even worth responding to.

 

[RDK]

Hey RDK, maybe you should look at the next book on the list then make an intelligent decision about it!

But it has caused harm. It's made hundreds of college kids put Ron Paul stickers on everything they see

Lol, this is true.

 

[Hive]

A Case Against Males
By Kairi ^^ (aka Hive)

It may have occured to you at some point in your life to look at the crime rates and causes of major world catastrophes. While I was doing this, I started to notice a major trend that dates back to even the middle ages and before! Most every major war and major criminal activity was started, or initiated by males in the world. Think about it: the atomic bomb, WWII (hitler), most terrorist activities, the large majority of murder, Bush and genocide.
This is a direct result of the excess of testosterone in the male system that has been scientifically proven to cause aggression as well as social norms. Is it any surprise than that the vast majority of prison populations, criminals, are males then? And that the life span of a typical male is shorter than a females? What kind of responsible world body could allow such a catastrophic group of people to exist?
Many people have tried to argue this point by pointing out that these events do not represent the larger male population well at all and that males have in fact contributed to many innovations in the world. And furthermore have argued that an unertaking to remove violence associated with males will have huge externalities to males who aren't violent. But I of course kindly reminded them of how much damage males as a whole have contributed to the world, and how its been scientifically and statistically proven that males are more harmful bc of testosterone and brain patterns. Hopefully their ignorant/unscientific understanding of the problem will change in time. Just take a look at world populations: it is a statistical fact that countries where there are larger portions of females in the general population means less crime for everyone. (china and arabia having majorities of men, and france and such having majorities of women). The conclusion is obvious.

So what to do? In ages past there wasn't much we could do. However, with the advent of castration techniques and prescription drugs and hormones, giving males anti-androgens and estrogens will dismiss all of the negative testosterone impacts caused by their bodies. In fact these drugs are readily available, easily distributed (by pharmacies), and easily mass produced. By changing our laws to discourage males and by handing out these drugs I think we can all agree that the world will be better off. After a short while we can change being female to be a new social guideline, and enforceable, to prevent crime. This solution is actually very similar to how we diagnosed religion years ago. Frequent criminal offenders of course being labotomized to prevent their imminent harm to society. Being male afterall, in todays age, is a choice.

The impact of this will even have more benefits because of the switch from sexual intercourse to surgical procedures to usher pregnancy for willing individuals.
Think about how many STDs can be prevented (mainly caused by males), and the slowing down of population growth. This is extremely important given that an estimated 1 out of 6 people in the world is currently malnourished. Population will of course still grow though, as these procedures become more popular and easier to do, so it won't have any lasting harm. Not only these but it will prevent books like the Bible, Mein Kampf and other "dangerous" books from being written that have contributed to world problems (and were exclusively dictating a male view of the world!).
Also, no need to worry about any loss of brain and spatial skills in males, since the drugs do not inflict harm on those areas.

So as you can plainly see, the only real choice here is to limit the male role in global policies, to prevent crime, and help prevent some of the major catastrophes that have been exclusively male driven. "Don't be naive" I hope you can all see how this is scientifically necessary for a lasting society...
-Kairi ^^
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

yes, it is a satire. and yes, it is stupid as hell. i'm trying to show you how lame these genralizations can be. While it is lame though i did try to use many of the exact same arguements people are using against religion though to show a point.
And furthermore I try to show that even if you do decide something you have absolutely no reasonable way of implementing such a rule.

*yes alt4, I will get those and the previous statistics to you today or tomorrow at most. ^^ promise.

edit: also i've basically said everything i can say about this subject, so I'm probably going to step down/stop in this thread (don't get too excited guys ^^) besides for a couple more posts on analysis and statistics. I really hope people are more tolerant and less bigoted towards religion after this, however, I also realize that nothing I say will probably change that mindset (i'm not that persuasive lol)
I know i'm a little aggressive here (and even slightly rude imo), but i feel like i'm forced to be defensive with so many preemptively negative sights towards my belief in god (well i'm theistic about 2/3 of the time i'd say), and the assumptions that I am somehow less intelligent, or more violent as a result, and many other things i feel do not potray me fairly at all. If you actually get to know me. i'm not like that at all

 

[Deleted member]

Here's why Randian philosophy is complete garbage:

All of her characters are simply mouthpieces for the shiat she spouted. OF COURSE Howard Rourk will be successful - Rand had complete control over the plot!

It's hilarious to see people critique people who follow the Bible as moral stories because they're all "fictional". Following Rourk's stubbornness is just as silly - His success is purely fiction.

 

[RDK]

It's hilarious to see people critique people who follow the Bible as moral stories because they're all "fictional". Following Rourk's stubbornness is just as silly - His success is purely fiction.

And here I was, silly me, thinking all along that her books couldn't possibly be considered fiction given their realistic aura.

So you're telling me Roark isn't a real person?Jesus, do I look like a fool. :embarrass

OF COURSE Howard Rourk will be successful - Rand had complete control over the plot!

I could say this about any other book in existence. What's your point?

 

[Deleted member]

I could say this about any other book in existence. What's your point?

The difference is that 99.99% of other books in existence don't have a cult following. They look at Rand's characters as inspiration and influence.

 

[RDK]

The difference is that 99.99% of other books in existence don't have a cult following. They look at Rand's characters as inspiration and influence.

And Twilight doesn't have a cult following? Those books are the only thing keeping the loser kids that read them from cutting themselves one too many times.

But even that's beside the point. People read books for inspiration. It's natural for people to emulate their fictional heroes and try to act like them. Whether or not it's healthy is up to the individual, but picking out one book of a million others like it and calling it the cornerstone of evil is ludicrous.

 

[Hive]

Ok, before you guys flame this, know that I spent a lot of time trying to find the information on this and conduct analysis.
I looked at major statistics, statistics on religion and homicide, and religion and suicide. Truthfully I looked at A LOT of statistics (many not shown) and analysis, on both sides of the issue. For the most part though I would say smaller statistics seem to show that homicide ups with religion, and that suicide goes down with religion. If sheer numbers means anything. However, there are debates (very relevant imo) about both, statistically mainly. One key note- major organizations generally don't look into these sorts of things, however, other analysis takes a lot of what major organizations say to make conclusions.
There were a one thing that i was wrong on before that I would like to admit right now ^^
suicide rates to murder rates are about (2.16-10.8)-1, not 6-1.


Most of the studies on suicide rates in the us and and globally are very accurate being that they are Mainly from the US Census, WHO, and Center for Disease Control.The amount varies but in the us is about 10.8-12ish per 100,000 people (and the number of murder per 100,000 people is 1-4) (census).
The number of suicides in the US also has a trend with appearing more often in states with lower rates of religiosity.
Statistics on the relationship between suicide are more obscure though. This is also true with the relationship between murder and religion in countries and especially in developed countries. Why? Because large organizations have done less study on the relationship between religion and suicide and homicide and have focused more on promoting tolerance.
The key "evidence" cited for religion being harmful is done throught the analysis of the appearance of murder in relation to countries and their respective population of religious people. Trends seem to indicate that murder is associated with countries with larger religious populations. These same trends also indicate that countries with larger unreligious populations have higher suicide rates.
Both of these statistics though disregard a lot of important factors though, such as how developed are the countries, the relationship between social conditions and the desire for religion, social pressures,etc...
This can be seen here->
in the following data
(gallup)

most statistics concerning both homicide and religion and suicide and religion though are based off of lesser sources. Its easy to blame say terrorism on religion (even though social conditions, the threat of westernization, economic conditions, revenge from the us military involvement, and the us forced military presence are more probable reason for these).
In countries like vietnam, china, czech republic with large atheist populations their high crime rates seem to go fairly unnoticed though.
However many statisticians in the sources say that economic conditions, education, unemployment, and diversity is A MUCH BETTER AND CONSISTENT INDICATION of crime levels than religion. And also that political religious movements that cause murder are also decreasing dramatically over time.

let's look at the highest countries with GDP per capita:
Luxembourg $ 68,800
2 Equatorial Guinea $ 50,200
3 United Arab Emirates $ 49,700
4 Norway $ 47,800
5 Ireland $ 43,600
6 United States $ 43,500
7 Andorra $ 38,800
8 Iceland $ 38,100
9 Denmark $ 37,000
10 Austria $ 35,500
11 Canada $ 35,200
12 San Marino $ 34,100
13 Switzerland $ 33,600
14 Japan $ 33,100
15 Australia $ 32,900
16 Finland $ 32,800
17 Belgium $ 31,800
18 Netherlands $ 31,700
19 Sweden $ 31,600
20 Germany $ 31,400
21 United Kingdom $ 31,400
22 Singapore $ 30,900
23 France $ 30,100
24 Monaco $ 30,000
25 Italy
http://www.aneki.com/countries_gdp_per_capita.html

I believe it is much more insynch with rates of murder than the tie between it and religion.

The statistics that show a link between religion and homocide that try to avoid falsely implying that the trends between religiosity and homicide (for which suicide has an inverse rate) are usually smaller based survey groups.
My point is that if you want to believe the crappy statistics out there for religion causing murder, you must also believe the statistics using the same form to show that suicide is prevented in religious areas since they apply many of the same points.
(and not just by country, but also by us state, and over time as well, suicide has been shown to be less in times/places with more religion usually.)
Why is this? Because while you may argue that religion is lax about preventing murder, religions also are very tight on suicide (most relgions have specific rules against it), and most all religions are very against it in their texts, and social groups.
Also, when people are depressed they can seek additional counsel with their religious groups as well to work out the problem (which is less likely with unreligious people). psychologically these social interactions help curb it.

So really, I think what I got out of all of this is that->
both results are basically incomplete, and that if i did believe either I would have to believe both.

As far as the scientist and religion thing goes there are WIDELY differing results and none that are nearly conclusive. the two main ones you'll hear:
BELIEF IN PERSONAL GOD 1914 1933 1998
Personal belief 27.7 15 7.0
Personal disbelief 52.7 68 72.2
Doubt or agnosticism 20.9 17 20.8
BELIEF IN IMMORTALITY 1914 1933 1998
Personal belief 35.2 18 7.9
Personal disbelief 25.4 53 76.7
Doubt or agnosticism 43.7 29 23.3
http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Percentage_of_atheists
this one (which is quoted often) has a survey sample of a little over half of 517 physicists this questionnaire was mailed to. this survey was done by the national association of scientists to its members.

a larger survey with 1646 members on the other hand led by ice University sociologist Elaine Howard Ecklund found that about 2/3 scientists believe in god by questioning lead research university faculty.
http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/050811_scientists_god.html
the most atheist group being biologists and the least atheist group being doctors. physicists and chemists usually fall at around 38% not believing in god. obviously this indicates significant (and unignorable) populations of both thoughts.

result: people have to stop quoting these as fool proof results. seriously :/







Sources: (there are more too...)
these are the main ones imo,
-Census Bureau
http://www.census.gov/
-Census Bureau of Justice
http://www.census.gov/govs/www/cj.html
-World Health Organization
http://www.who.int/en/
-Gallup
http://www.gallup.com/Home.aspx

and then these are smaller citations:

Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.8 (2001)
http://www.suicide.org/suicide-statistics.html
1.3% of all deaths are from suicide
total suicide deaths in the us
32,439 (2004)

"Each year, more than 1million people take their own lives - more than the combined annual deaths from homicides and wars."
http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1071203.html

"According to the latest WHO data (from 2003), the leader of this grim statistic among former Soviet republics is Lithuania, with 75 male and 11 female suicides per 100,000 people. Russia is second (70/12), followed by Belarus (63/10)."
http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1071203.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Suicides_by_race_hispanic_gender_and_age_1999-2005.png

"An estimated 520,000 people were murdered in 2000 around the globe"
(about two times less globablly)

"Murder rates vary greatly among countries and societies around the world. In the Western world, murder rates in most countries have declined significantly during the 20th century and are now between 1-4 cases per 100,000 people per year."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur-crime-murders
-> the us total murders is 16,204 about two times less.
It is up to even 6 or more times less in other developed countries.

"Religiosity seems to have a protective effect against suicide." "research suggests that in the United States, areas with higher percentages of individuals without religious affiliation have correspondingly higher suicide rates. Involvement with a religion may provide a social support system, a direct way to cope with stressors, a sense of purpose and/or hope, and may lead to a stronger belief that suicide is wrong. Religiosity also seems to be related to other demographic factors; religious North Americans are much less likely than nonreligious people to abuse drugs/alcohol and to divorce (which are both associated with increased suicide risk)."
http://www.mentalhelp.net/poc/view_doc.php?type=doc&id=13737&cn=9

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Gallup Polls from 2005 and 2006 show that countries that are more religious tend to have lower suicide rates.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/108625/More-Religious-Countries-Lower-Suicide-Rates.aspx
http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/080703religiositysuiciderates1_uejdnc83jn.gif

According to a recent study published in The American Journal of Psychiatry religious affiliation is associated with significantly lower levels of suicide compared to religiously unaffiliated people, atheists and agnostics. Source: Kanita Dervic, Maria A. Oquendo, Michael F. Grunebaum, Steve Ellis, Ainsley K. Burke, and J. John Mann. "Religious Affiliation and Suicide Attempt" (161:2303-2308, December 2004).


largest atheist populations:
http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html
(sweden and vietnam lead in percentage) (zuckerman 2005)
(east germany, slovenia, russia, and israel lead in percentage) (Greeley/Jagodzinski 1991)
as you can see in these statistics the largest atheist populations are considered to be
Sweden 8,986,000 46 - 85% 4,133,560 - 7,638,100
Vietnam 82,690,000 81% 66,978,900
Denmark 5,413,000 43 - 80% 2,327,590 - 4,330,400
Norway 4,575,000 31 - 72% 1,418,250 - 3,294,000
Japan 127,333,000 64 - 65% 81,493,120 - 82,766,450
Czech Republic 10,246,100 54 - 61% 5,328,940 - 6,250,121
according to the Zuckerman 2005 survey
and
China 1,298,848,000 8 - 14%* 103,907,840 - 181,838,720
Japan 127,333,000 64 - 65% 81,493,120 - 82,766,450
Russia 143,782,000 24 - 48% 34,507,680 - 69,015,360
Vietnam 82,690,000 81% 66,978,900
Germany 82,425,000 41 - 49% 33,794,250 - 40,388,250
according to the Greeley/Jagodzinski 1991 survey.

"Religion and suicide:

Persons who attend religious services, on average, are generally believed to exhibit much lower rates of suicide. "Those who attend church frequently are four times less likely to commit suicide than those who never attend." 3,7 This affect is seen in various studies which compare church attendance and suicide rates:
Over time: "...fluctuations in church attendance rates in the 1970s paralleled the suicide rates for different subgroups: whites, blacks, men, and women." 4
Among states in the U.S.: with varying attendance at religious services. 5
Among countries worldwide. 6

"In fact, the rate of church attendance predicts the suicide rate better than any other factor (including unemployment, traditionally regarded as the most powerful variable)." 3"
http://www.religioustolerance.org/sui_reli.htm
sources:
William T. Martin, "Religiosity and United States Suicide Rates, 1972-1978," Journal of Clinical Psychology, Vol. 40 (1984), pp. 1166-1169. (Cited in Ref. 3)
Williams, Larson, Buckler, Heckman, and Pyle, "Religion and Psychological Distress in a Community Sample," pp. 1257-1262. (Cited in Ref. 3)
Steven Stack: "The Effects of Religious Commitment on Suicide: A Cross-National Analysis," Journal of Health and Social Behavior, Vol. 24 (1983), pp. 362-374. (Cited in Ref. 3)
Steven Stack, "The Effect of Domestic-Religious Individualism on Suicide, 1954-1978," Journal of Marriage and the Family, Vol. 47 (1985), pp. 431-447. (Cited in Ref. 3)

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/155/5/413

WHO report
top ten countries with the most homicide
(1) Colombia 63
(2) South Africa 51
(3) Jamaica 32
(4) Venezuela 32
(5) Russia 19
(6) Mexico 13
(7) Lithuania 10
(8) Estonia 10
(9) Latvia 10
(10) Belarus 9
the top ten safest (for homicide) countries
COUNTRY

PER MILLION

(1) Slovenia 0.7
(2) Austria 0.9
(3) Sweden 1.8
(4) Switzerland 2.3
(5) Israel 2.3
(6) Hong Kong 2.4
(7) Norway 2.5
(8) Ireland 2.8
(9) Finland 3.7
(10) Singapore 4.3
http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/murder.html

some sites on murder and religion
http://library.thinkquest.org/C0111261/pages/inform_society_religion.php?interlang=englisch

http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2006/2006-7.html

http://dailyatheist.blogspot.com/2008/02/homicide-and-religion-linked.html

also this statistic btw on scientist and religion-> one of the most quoted to show that scientists support atheism

BELIEF IN PERSONAL GOD 1914 1933 1998
Personal belief 27.7 15 7.0
Personal disbelief 52.7 68 72.2
Doubt or agnosticism 20.9 17 20.8
BELIEF IN IMMORTALITY 1914 1933 1998
Personal belief 35.2 18 7.9
Personal disbelief 25.4 53 76.7
Doubt or agnosticism 43.7 29 23.3
http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Percentage_of_atheists
only has a survey sample of a little over half of 517 physicists this questionnaire was mailed to.

a larger survey with 1646 on the other hand led by ice University sociologist Elaine Howard Ecklund on the other hand found that about 2/3 scientists believe in god.
http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/050811_scientists_god.html

http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Percentage_of_atheists
is a very good site though as well.

"What I have done is to show that it is possible for the way the universe began to be determined by the laws of science. In that case, it would not be necessary to appeal to God to decide how the universe began. This doesn't prove that there is no God, only that God is not necessary. [Stephen W. Hawking, Der Spiegel, 1989]"


"I was barked at by numerous dogs who are earning their food guarding ignorance and superstition for the benefit of those who profit from it. Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is of the same kind as the intolerance of the religious fanatics and comes from the same source. They are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against the traditional "opium of the people"—cannot bear the music of the spheres. The Wonder of nature does not become smaller because one cannot measure it by the standards of human moral and human aims.

— Einstein to an unidentified adressee, Aug.7, 1941. Einstein Archive, reel 54-927, quoted in Jammer, p. 97"

 

[AltF4]

Wow, first off, you've got to format all of that better. All of that is really hard to read.


Secondly, you already seemed to pre-refute most of those statistics. There are some numbers per-country which attempt to correlate suicide and homicide to religion... but like you said, that's going to be more of a function of how developed the country is.


So what was the point?

 

[DtJ Jungle]

Hive can we get like....a tl;dr version of that?

Because no one will read all that.