Are Atheists Happy?

[rockondon]

According to Wiki Lithuania has the highest suicide rate.
Lithuania is 80% Catholic.

Why do all these people who believe in a soul want to kill themselves so badly?
(That`s not really my argument I just wanted to show how silly it sounds)

Suicide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Scroll down just a little there`s a graph with the top 8 suicidal countries.

In fact, the top 4 countries are all 80% Christian or higher.

It reminds me of something else that bothered me about organized religion. It made me look forward to death instead of appreciating life. If eternal paradise in the afterlife is the goal, it makes this life unimportant by comparison - whereas the reality is that this existence is precious beyond measure and the afterlife...probably doesn't even exist.

 

[Cordoba]

if there is a problem i use logic instead of prayer to fix it

Why then do they say you'll never find an atheist on a sinking ship?

 

[fantome profane]

Why then do they say you'll never find an atheist on a sinking ship?

bigotry?

 

[linwood]

Why then do they say you'll never find an atheist on a sinking ship?

Because "they" are idiots.

Pat ******* Tillman.

 

[linwood]

In fact, the top 4 countries are all 80% Christian or higher.

It reminds me of something else that bothered me about organized religion. It made me look forward to death instead of appreciating life. If eternal paradise in the afterlife is the goal, it makes this life unimportant by comparison - whereas the reality is that this existence is precious beyond measure and the afterlife...probably doesn't even exist.

That is one of my biggest problems with Christianity and Abrahamic theology in general.
I believe it is a culture of death.

I was behind a car two days ago that had an abundance of Jesus fish on the back of it and dead center in the rear window was a big red and white sticker that stated...

HEAVEN
DON`T MISS IT FOR THE WORLD

This disgusts me.

It`s unbelievable to me that humans can consider their very lives nothing more than a meaningless dress rehearsal for death.

It`s insanity.

​

​

​

 

[Seven]

Why then do they say you'll never find an atheist on a sinking ship?

People who say that aren't atheists and misunderstand where we're coming from

 

[Willamena]

People who say that aren't atheists and misunderstand where we're coming from

..and vice-versa.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Why then do they say you'll never find an atheist on a sinking ship?

This is only a half-truth. To the extent that it is true, doesn't this show that belief in God is often based on emotions, such as fear of our mortality, rather than on evidence and logic?

To the extent that it is false, it is astonishingly ignorant. The Russian soldiers fought the Nazis with tremendous courage during WWII, as did the international volunteers fighting the fascists in Spain in the 1930's, there have always been atheist soldiers in virtually every military in the world, you don't honestly think every atheist in every country was a coward with zero capacity for duty, honor, or self-sacrifice, do you? Shall we start listing the countless examples?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

By the way, Cordoba, have you heard of Rachel Corrie? I have read through some of her writings and emails, I have seen some interviews with her, and although she was full of passion and thoughts about justice and peace, and self-sacrifice and right vs. wrong, and compassion for the Palestinian people, I cannot find where she talks about her belief in God. I cannot find anything about which church she attended, or how often she prayed. It's quite possible she was an atheist, although of course I could be wrong.

The reason I say it is possible is because I myself have met some of these peace-activist types of students, I met them for example at a candlelight vigil I attended for victims in Gaza, and I know that some of them are atheists.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

yes I say that every book borrows something from the soul of his" human" writer...it's not something material...you can't trap it in a test tube or measure its molecular wieght...You can only feel it...
don't tell me that you didn't cry while reading a certain book , smile while reading another....i believe that what caused those feelings is not the bottle of ink or the stack of paper...but something higher than that...something that doesn't belong to the material world and is not a subject for evolution !

Right... and for me, that's the ideas expressed in the book. But I don't believe that there's some sort of etherial plane or supernatural realm where ideas exist in some real form.

Why then do they say you'll never find an atheist on a sinking ship?

Because they have the sense to get off the ship instead of praying that God will make things all right, maybe?

Seriously, though, quips like that are inaccurate and IMO rather insulting in their implication. And speaking from personal experience, in the few times when I was in an immediately life-threatening situation, my mind was focused on one thing: figuring out how to avoid dying. I didn't have time to stop and re-evaluate my opinions on religion.

 

[maro]

No animal, including humans, is capable of behaving in a way which contradicts the outcome of genetics, neurotransmitters, etc.

It can be meaningful, or not meaningful, depending on usage and context.

They can be, yes.

Well ,my question (which you expected) is that apparently this logic is flawed...IF we are determined to act in a certain way...then calling someone Evil is not supposed to be meaningful...and accordingly penal systems are not required ,because criminals (as we see them) are mere victims..they were manipulated by their genes...why should we add to their suffering if they didn't choose to act this way ?

There is no logical reason, a priori, that any sort of behavior would bring us any feeling. There is no logical reason that eating should make us feel less hungry, or sleeping less tired. However, it is a discoverable fact that this is the case for physiologically normal people (not for everyone!).

Eating and sleeping ensure our survival..so it's very understandable (within the theory of evolution) why our bodies make sure we get them...but how does Acting morally ensure our survival ?
I say it may even be among the obstacles of one's own survival

I amn't asking what does the brain do (releases dopamine or whatever ) , my question is Why ?!!

However, there are other facts to consider. Sometimes, we get satisfaction from cheating, stealing, lying, etc. Sometimes we get satisfaction from killing a hated enemy, etc. This is why there is so much killing, etc. in the world. This is a fact, and questions about how it comes about are type #1 questions.

does that apply for the physiologically normal people (as you call them ) or to some deviants who are in need of some therapy ? Are you making a generalization in the above statments ?

Careful thought, and careful observation of history and societies, will reveal that the real implication is that in order to be happy we need laws, and we need to educate and train our children to embrace their better impulses, and reject the worse impulses.

You say (educate) and (Train)...does that mean that there's a factor superior to our genetics and neurotransmitters by which we can control them ? and thus we are held responsible for our acts ? and thus Penal systems are Fair and logic ?

 

[Imagist]

The atheists on sinking ships argument, or the atheists in foxholes argument, or any other such argument, are dumb for two reasons:

1. There are plenty of examples of atheists in sinking ships, foxholes, and various other situations.

2. Even if #1 weren't true, it wouldn't matter. The beliefs about god of a person under stress say nothing about their identity, their character, or the existence of god.

 

[maro]

There's more to satisfaction than simply satisfying one's bodily needs, and that's true of everybody, whether you believe in a soul or not.

So , we do agree that humans are not their bodies ?! Right ?

 

[Imagist]

So , we do agree that humans are not their bodies ?! Right ?

I disagree. Humans are their bodies. I have no reason to believe they are anything more.

 

[maro]

According to Wiki Lithuania has the highest suicide rate.
Lithuania is 80% Catholic.

Why do all these people who believe in a soul want to kill themselves so badly?
(That`s not really my argument I just wanted to show how silly it sounds)

Suicide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Scroll down just a little there`s a graph with the top 8 suicidal countries.

Fair enough...do we know to which categories do the suiciders belong ?..12% of the citizens have a strict materialistic view of the world (which is not a tiny ratio)
(12% said that "they do not believe there is any sort of spirit, god, or life force)

i'll try to find something more significant about the suicide rates in different countries and its relation with the economical state and possibly with Religion

 

[Imagist]

Fair enough...do we know to which categories do the suiciders belong ?..12% of the citizens have a strict materialistic view of the world (which is not a tiny ratio)
(12% said that "they do not believe there is any sort of spirit, god, or life force)

i'll try to find something more significant about the suicide rates in different countries and its relation with the economical state and possibly with Religion

Two loosely-related statistics don't provide any information that is accurate enough to be relevant. I doubt that religion is the leading factor in suicides. Income, for example, is a clear possible factor which I would guess plays such a role that religion is negligible by comparison.

 

[linwood]

Fair enough...do we know to which categories do the suiciders belong ?..12% of the citizens have a strict materialistic view of the world (which is not a tiny ratio)
(12% said that "they do not believe there is any sort of spirit, god, or life force)

I don`t want to argue Maro but it seems disingenuous of you to be perfectly satisfied with a straight statistic on suicide rates when you thought it supported your argument but when you learn your statistic is actually opposite of the truth all of a sudden you want to break it down into groups by belief.

It`s irrelevant.

You have not a shred of evidence that atheists commit suicide at a greater rate than believers.
In fact I`d wager it`s BECAUSE they`re atheists that they tend not to kill themselves as frequently because atheists know they only have one life.

An atheist is highly unlikely to discard that life as lightly as someone who belives golden palaces await them in the sky.

 

[linwood]

Two loosely-related statistics don't provide any information that is accurate enough to be relevant. I doubt that religion is the leading factor in suicides. Income, for example, is a clear possible factor which I would guess plays such a role that religion is negligible by comparison.

Yes, exactly the point I`m trying to make.
Thank you for being a far better writer than I.

 

[Smoke]

So , we do agree that humans are not their bodies ?! Right ?

I have no reason to believe that our emotional needs and desires extend beyond our bodies.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Well ,my question (which you expected) is that apparently this logic is flawed...IF we are determined to act in a certain way...then calling someone Evil is not supposed to be meaningful...and accordingly penal systems are not required ,because criminals (as we see them) are mere victims..they were manipulated by their genes...why should we add to their suffering if they didn't choose to act this way ?

My reasoning is basically this: it is a fact that we are natural organisms, and thus our behavior is ultimately determined by the laws of nature. But this is like saying that all of physics is ultimately determined by the quantum mechanics of quarks and leptons. While it is a true statement, it may not have much practical use to us. Calling someone "evil" can be meaningful if we define the word evil to mean behavior that we regard as extremely harmful or undesirable. (The problem with the word "evil" as it is traditionally used is that it implies evil is always intended; but in reality, far greater evil is perpetrated under the mistaken impression of "defense" or doing good, clouded by self-righteousness and misplaced certainty. This is why a judicial approach to ethics, which establishes principles but leaves room for potentially testing them against experience, is the best option, in my opinion.)

Now for a very different sort of question: should we punish criminals? In order to answer such a question we must have a goal in mind. If our goal is to live in a peaceful, happy society, then a penal system is a necessity, as the facts of history show.

By the way, on a side note: In my opinion this also leads to a modest improvement (but not a radical change) on what has sometimes been considered the aims of law. Clearly (by my reasoning), we do not need a penal system that seeks "revenge" as its aim. Revenge will not undo a crime that has already taken place, and revenge rewards a sadistic and wicked impulse in people which may make our society less secure and happy, in the long-run. Instead, we want a penal system which helps us reach our goal: that is, one which protects people from crime, encourages good behavior and discourages bad behavior. If someone is in fact an abnormal human, if they are insane or mentally disabled in some way, it is pointless and sadistic to get "revenge" on them for any crimes they commit, which they cannot be held responsible for because they are insane or mentally disabled, beyond what is required to accomplish our goals (protect people from their actions, and prevent such crimes in the future).

Eating and sleeping ensure our survival..so it's very understandable (within the theory of evolution) why our bodies make sure we get them...but how does Acting morally ensure our survival ?
I say it may even be among the obstacles of one's own survival

I amn't asking what does the brain do (releases dopamine or whatever ) , my question is Why ?!!

Of course you are correct to point out that acting morally doesn't necessarily ensure one's own survival. But it is genetic survival, not necessarily individual survival, that explains the biological facts. That is why honeybees are so careless with their individual lives in defending the queen, it's why animals bother raising any young in the first place (why waste immense resources on children, rather than just caring for yourself?), and it's probably why so many animals are genetically programmed to decay, weaken, and die after the age of reproduction (perhaps to "get out of the way" of the new generation). I can't give you a detailed account of all the biological observations and experiments of the past 150 years here, and I don't want or expect you to take my word for it. If you're interested, you'll find tons of information in any standard biology text. If you're specifically interested in morality, get a book on ethology.

I don't want to give you the wrong impression....I am not saying we have a fully satisfactory, scientific understanding of human morality, or the evolutionary origins of it (or other origins). Not even close. However, we don't have a fully satisfactory understanding of sunspots. We don't have a satisfactory understanding of black holes, how proteins fold, why the Earth's temperature changes, or how tortoises find their nesting grounds. The point is that we DO know some things, we have never observed a violation of Nature's laws and we have no reason to expect to find such a violation.

And I must emphasize that the question you are asking here can only be answered by looking at the facts scientifically; we can't change the facts about this question, even if they seem to have disagreeable implications for different questions.

does that apply for the physiologically normal people (as you call them ) or to some deviants who are in need of some therapy ? Are you making a generalization in the above statments ?

I am saying that even normal people are capable of evil. It seems to me that this is a sad fact of history and psychology (based on my limited knowledge).

You say (educate) and (Train)...does that mean that there's a factor superior to our genetics and neurotransmitters by which we can control them ?

You could say it that way, just as you could say there's a factor superior to gravity in rising air currents. The point is that rising air currents do not violate any laws of nature (like gravity), and neither do we.

I think the problem is that you are imagining a single gene, and a single neurotransmitter, and then you are imagining billions of them stirred randomly together in a big pot. The behavior of such a thing would not be like any real brain, human or animal.

Most REAL physical systems, whether organic or inorganic, are very, very complicated and their behavior is rich. The overall behavior depends on lots of wierd interactions among subsystems, and those subsystems sometimes compete with each other in their effects, sometimes they cancel each other out or sometimes one of them "wins". Engineers say of complicated machines that "the machine does not equal the sum of its parts".

For example, physicists cannot understand the strange behavior of magnets simply by imagining a million individual atoms, without considering how those atoms are arranged, how they interact with each other and with their environment. There is a difference between a magnet and just any old piece of matter you might find lying around, just as there is a difference between a brain and just any old pot of genes and neurotransmitters you might find lying around. There ARE very surprising and wonderful differences between these things, but none of those differences are due to a violation of the laws of nature.