Synned,
You have (i) refused to cite your own sources. Instead you wave a vague hand in the direction of 'google'... that's not good enough and you know it.
It's good enough for religion, apparently. But OK. Just one, the rest you
really will have to look up for yourself. I'm not your personal researcher.
Take the study by Gregory Paul. I cite
The Times of September 27, 2005. Hardly a left wing, atheistic bulwark.
RELIGIOUS belief can cause damage to a society, contributing towards high murder rates, abortion, sexual promiscuity and suicide, according to research published today.
According to the study, belief in and worship of God are not only unnecessary for a healthy society but may actually contribute to social problems.
The study counters the view of believers that religion is necessary to provide the moral and ethical foundations of a healthy society.
It compares the social peformance of relatively secular countries, such as Britain, with the US, where the majority believes in a creator rather than the theory of evolution. Many conservative evangelicals in the US consider Darwinism to be a social evil, believing that it inspires atheism and amorality.
Many liberal Christians and believers of other faiths hold that religious belief is socially beneficial, believing that it helps to lower rates of violent crime, murder, suicide, sexual promiscuity and abortion. The benefits of religious belief to a society have been described as its “spiritual capital”. But the study claims that the devotion of many in the US may actually contribute to its ills.
The paper, published in the Journal of Religion and Society, a US academic journal, reports: “Many Americans agree that their churchgoing nation is an exceptional, God-blessed, shining city on the hill that stands as an impressive example for an increasingly sceptical world.
“In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy and abortion in the prosperous democracies.
“The United States is almost always the most dysfunctional of the developing democracies, sometimes spectacularly so.”
Gregory Paul, the author of the study and a social scientist, used data from the International Social Survey Programme, Gallup and other research bodies to reach his conclusions.
He compared social indicators such as murder rates, abortion, suicide and teenage pregnancy.
The study concluded that the US was the world’s only prosperous democracy where murder rates were still high, and that the least devout nations were the least dysfunctional. Mr Paul said that rates of gonorrhoea in adolescents in the US were up to 300 times higher than in less devout democratic countries. The US also suffered from “ uniquely high” adolescent and adult syphilis infection rates, and adolescent abortion rates, the study suggested.
Mr Paul said: “The study shows that England, despite the social ills it has, is actually performing a good deal better than the USA in most indicators, even though it is now a much less religious nation than America.”
He said that the disparity was even greater when the US was compared with other countries, including France, Japan and the Scandinavian countries. These nations had been the most successful in reducing murder rates, early mortality, sexually transmitted diseases and abortion, he added.
Mr Paul delayed releasing the study until now because of Hurricane Katrina. He said that the evidence ac
ulated by a number of different studies suggested that religion might actually contribute to social ills. “I suspect that Europeans are increasingly repelled by the poor societal performance of the Christian states,” he added.
He said that most Western nations would become more religious only if the theory of evolution could be overturned and the existence of God scientifically proven. Likewise, the theory of evolution would not enjoy majority support in the US unless there was a marked decline in religious belief, Mr Paul said.
“The non-religious, proevolution democracies contradict the dictum that a society cannot enjoy good conditions unless most citizens ardently believe in a moral creator.
“The widely held fear that a Godless citizenry must experience societal disaster is therefore refuted.”
Edit 2010-02-24
Actually the reproach of Veritas made some sense. Although his rebuttal was simple: I'm not going to accept.... End of discussion. Yeah, belief. I'm not going to believe...
I didn't provide too many links, because I'm a rather disorganized person. Nevertheless, this could be misconstrued as "they don't exist". So, I'll add them whenever I happen to stumble upon one.
2010-02-24: Religion Linked to Racism
Preview:
“Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it unto the dogs.”
This is how Jesus of Nazareth — of “red and yellow, black and white, they are precious in his sight” fame — is reported to have responded to a Greek woman who begged him to heal her daughter of a demonic possession (Mark 7:25-30). Here, and in many other stories, the Bible indicates that “the chosen people” are superior to, and should come before, “the dogs”.
2010-03-15: More religion means more homicide, mortality, STD, youth pregnancy, marital and related problems
Preview:
Indeed, the data examined in this study demonstrates that only the more secular, pro-evolution democracies have, for the first time in history, come closest to achieving practical “cultures of life” that feature low rates of lethal crime, juvenile-adult mortality, sex related dysfunction, and even abortion. The least theistic secular developed democracies such as Japan, France, and Scandinavia have been most successful in these regards. The non-religious, pro-evolution democracies contradict the dictum that a society cannot enjoy good conditions unless most citizens ardently believe in a moral creator. The widely held fear that a Godless citizenry must experience societal disaster is therefore refuted.
There is evidence that within the U.S. strong disparities in religious belief versus acceptance of evolution are correlated with similarly varying rates of societal dysfunction, the strongly theistic, anti-evolution south and mid-west having markedly worse homicide, mortality, STD, youth pregnancy, marital and related problems than the northeast where societal conditions, secularization, and acceptance of evolution approach European norms (Aral and Holmes; Beeghley, Doyle, 2002).
No scientist or true advocate of science would accept your tactics (ii) responded to my post by purporting to deal, in turn, with selective extracts. For example, you quote me as saying "But these points can make atheists uncomfortable -unsure of their identity" but conveniently ommited and therefore de-emphasised the rest of my opinion, i.e. "I am sure the same points make religious 'types' feel very uncomfortable too!" (iii) you rely on hyperbole by translating precise terms like 'identity' into exaggerated/loaded terms like 'emotionally crippled'.
I am not the religious type. I only responded to what concerned me: you accusing Atheists of being unsure of their identity. It's an accusation that just hangs there, without any rationalization. And again you are
sure that religious types feel very uncomfortable too by the points you make. How? Why? Have you asked? No. You're just
sure. But, OK, it's your opinion. And you have a right to your opinion. So do I. And I'm
sure you are wrong. Hyperbole or not: saying that your points make Atheists 'unsure of their identity' is gratuitous, it's a generalization, it's actually insulting to think that your points can make a whole group doubt their identity, no less, and presumptuous to boot.
I feel that your various tactics do no service whatsoever to bona fida atheist positions.
Your feelings are your own responsibility. But again you can't refrain from paternalistic, insulting language. You imply (feel)
my atheist positions are not bona fide, i.e. not in good faith, ergo deliberately malicious and thus not worth considering seriously. Thank you, kind sir.
Could it be that BOTH theism and atheism are deeply flawed insofar as they are each beliefs held by human beings, who themselves are FAR from perfect?
No, that could not be. You misunderstand Atheism. Atheism is the lack of belief, so by definition it isn't a belief. Atheism simply states that there is up until now no valid, logical or scientific reason to suppose there is a supreme being responsible for the universe, let alone that the existence of such a being could be proven. Religion is flawed in so far that it makes extra ordinary claims, yet cannot prove them. Atheism makes no such claims. It simply points to the absence of evidence (without supposing that this is evidence of absence, by the way).
Further I note that you don't respond to several of my points. I
feel I can consider them conceded. Yep, I'm
sure of it. jk
