Why do athiests commit suicide at such a high rate compared to religous people

RichieC

This was a dishonest point scoring post against nontheists by a poster with an agenda and a war axe to grind.

As a result the thread hasnt been productive.

Entirely the OP's fault.

philologos

5uspect wrote: »

So you're trolling then?

You keep saying that you think Christianity is reasonable yet never bother to provide a single reasonable reason. You wouldn't even link to prior times you've apparently done so.

But you're just here for the lulz...

Far from it. I'm up for a good discussion with whoever wants to have one. I've provided several reasons, some in the post you quoted, and many on other threads throughout my posting history on boards.ie.

If people show me that they are willing to listen without simply ignoring what I and others have to say, I'll be happy to discuss it. I'm not convinced that A&A is that place any more.

How is it trolling to say that I post on boards.ie for recreational purposes rather than as an occupation?

5uspect

philologos wrote: »

Far from it. I'm up for a good discussion with whoever wants to have one. I've provided several reasons, some in the post you quoted, and many on other threads throughout my posting history on boards.ie.

If people show me that they are willing to listen without simply ignoring what I and others have to say, I'll be happy to discuss it. I'm not convinced that A&A is that place any more.

How is it trolling to say that I post on boards.ie for recreational purposes rather than as an occupation?

Because you keep saying the same thing over and over again and refuse to discuss it. You've not provided one reasonable argument. All you say is that it's seems reasonable to you and it makes you feel nice. It's reasonable to assume you're trolling.

philologos

Except that couldn't be further from the truth. I've presented arguments here as to why I believe that it is absurd to believe that the universe didn't have an ultimate cause, as to why I believe that relative morality makes zero sense, as to why I believe the Resurrection occurred, as to why I believe that the Bible is reliable as a historical source from historical accounts and from archaeology. I've also presented arguments on the basis of how the New Testament is written clearly as a historical text rather than a fictional one. I've presented time and time again these arguments in this forum. I've presented why I believe that Jesus existed, I've presented why I believe that Jesus was the Messiah who came into the world to redeem it. I've defended my position as to how I can reasonably believe that miracles can happen.

I've presented other arguments in terms of defending the Scriptures - including one clearly differentiating the Biblical concept of slavery from the colonial one.

All these discussions happened, and a few of them were honestly engaged with which I appreciated, many of them weren't however. It's simply false to say that I haven't done this.

We need to come up with a new way to engage with this discussion otherwise it's going to hit a brick wall as far as I see it.

King Mob

philologos wrote: »

Except that couldn't be further from the truth. I've presented arguments here as to why I believe that it is absurd to believe that the universe didn't have an ultimate cause, as to why I believe that relative morality makes zero sense, as to why I believe the Resurrection occurred, as to why I believe that the Bible is reliable as a historical source from historical accounts and from archaeology. I've also presented arguments on the basis of how the New Testament is written clearly as a historical text rather than a fictional one. I've presented time and time again these arguments in this forum. I've presented why I believe that Jesus existed, I've presented why I believe that Jesus was the Messiah who came into the world to redeem it. I've defended my position as to how I can reasonably believe that miracles can happen.

I've presented other arguments in terms of defending the Scriptures - including one clearly differentiating the Biblical concept of slavery from the colonial one.

All these discussions happened, and a few of them were honestly engaged with which I appreciated, many of them weren't however. It's simply false to say that I haven't done this.

We need to come up with a new way to engage with this discussion otherwise it's going to hit a brick wall as far as I see it.

Have you read into any of the topics I put to you last time you declared that
The universe must have a cause?

Cause I believe after that you said you would, yet here you are declaring the exact same thing...

It's almost like you ignored our arguments entirely...

philologos

I looked through your stuff, I still don't believe the concept makes very much sense. There are other logical problems I have with atheism that would keep me from it, particularly in respect to ethical behaviour.

King Mob

philologos wrote: »

I looked through your stuff, I still don't believe the concept makes very much sense.

Why?
Which topics did you not agree with and on what basis?

Or is it simply because you personally don't understand how they offer an explanation, an argument from in credulity?

philologos

Presenting the idea that lots of uncreated matter (multiverses) are the root cause of the universe presents a lot more questions than answers.

King Mob

philologos wrote: »

Presenting the idea that lots of uncreated matter as the root cause of the universe presents more questions than answers.

1) It doesn't. As that is completely explained by quantum effects.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_Universe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_genesis
Or it could be that the Universe arises from other external sources such as other universes or a multiverse in an infinite cycle, or the other possibilities I mentioned, such as a quantum foam, which does not require matter at all.

2) That actually applies to God cause you simply can't explain by what mechanism he magiced the universe into existence.

But this is an argument from ignorance. You never looked serious at these alternatives because you aren't going to change your mind, thus not really looking for a discussion.

philologos

Another question could be what causes these quantum effects to occur in the first case, and what caused the multiverse to exist in the second.

As for how it applies to God, I'm not sure given that God isn't argued to be material, or contained within the universe.

King Mob

philologos wrote: »

Another question could be what causes these quantum effects to occur in the first case, and what caused the multiverse to exist in the second.

As for how it applies to God, I'm not sure given that God isn't argued to be material, or contained within the universe.

But why can't the quantum effects and law exist eternally? Or what if they are caused by a infinite regress? Why can't this Apply to a multi verse or to an infinite cycle of universes?

And then if it's such a problem, what caused God?
And why doesn't your answer apply to the things I suggested?

And how does God not being material or within the universe answer the question of how he created the universe?
That just seems to raise more questions, which according to you means he's invalid as an explanation.

philologos

I'm skeptical because I don't know if these are actually to be considered to be alternatives to God's existence. If I asked a physicist who was a Christian as to whether or not these concepts threatens God's existence, can you with confidence tell me that they would claim such? - If they wouldn't, how can one argue that it is an argument for atheism? That's a general doubt I have. How much of this is spin on the science - rather than the science itself.

As for the infinite regress argument concerning God we've had this several times throughout the years. Here's one of them. It's been refuted thoroughly in the Philosophy of Religion.

As for whether or not it doesn't apply to quantum effects and laws. One could very much argue that if quantum effects and laws exist externally to the universe that they themselves be considered a Creator or at least a description of such, with many of the same attributes given to the God of classical theism. That's why my question concerning spin on the science is important.

Being immaterial, and external to the universe means that God can't be bound by the limits that are within it. If the Creator created the laws of the universe how could it be restricted by them?

I'm not convinced that these are specifically alternatives to divine creation, or indeed that they even preclude divine creation.

King Mob

philologos wrote: »

I'm skeptical because I don't know if these are actually to be considered to be alternatives to God's existence. If I asked a physicist who was a Christian as to whether or not these concepts threatens God's existence, can you with confidence tell me that they would claim such? - If they wouldn't, how can one argue that it is an argument for atheism? That's a general doubt I have. How much of this is spin on the science - rather than the science itself.

So you don't actually know anything about them, but you're rejecting them out of hand?

And it's an argument for Atheism because since these explanations exist, the argument that "God is the only explanation" is invalid. There are other explanations whether you like them or not or understand them or not.

philologos wrote: »

As for the infinite regress argument concerning God we've had this several times throughout the years. Here's one of them. It's been refuted thoroughly in the Philosophy of Religion.

As for whether or not it doesn't apply to quantum effects and laws. One could very much argue that if quantum effects and laws exist externally to the universe that they themselves be considered a Creator or at least a description of such, with many of the same attributes given to the God of classical theism. That's why my question concerning spin on the science is important.

But I'm not using the infinite regress argument against God. I'm saying that the universe or the laws governing it could be a result of an infinite regress. Why exactly can't they?

And why would these laws be considered a creator in the same sense as god when they wouldn't be intelligent?

philologos wrote: »

Being immaterial, and external to the universe means that God can't be bound by the limits that are within it. If the Creator created the laws of the universe how could it be restricted by them?

But that doesn't explain how he does it. It could be an argument that he could do it (though it's a pretty stupid one), but it does not describe the exact method he used to do so.

So unless you can actually explain this, we have an unexplained problem, and if you are being honest, you'll have to reject God as an explaination, by your own standards.

philologos wrote: »

I'm not convinced that these are specifically alternatives to divine creation, or indeed that they even preclude divine creation.

But you haven't looked into them, simply rejected them for you predetermined explanation, which isn't actually one.

And again, since we do have alternative explanation, there's no rational reason to select your silly, nonsensical one.

philologos

My point about other physicists and whether they share your understanding that these concepts bolster atheism is one worth discussing. If a physicist who is a Christian or a Muslim or a Hindu wouldn't agree with your interpretation of quantum physics or the concept of a multiverse doesn't it not make your interpretation of this biased? - My point about potential spin on the science is important, because I feel a lot of this happens on this forum. If you can show me how specifically these concepts contradict the idea of divine creation, or even could be alternatives to divine creation I'd be interested. A multiverse in particular doesn't really convince me as being God's Undertaker if you will, because there are questions hanging over whether the multiverses themselves were caused. The quantum effects do interest me, but I'm not sure if they interest me in the same way that you want me to be interested in them

King Mob

philologos wrote: »

My point about other physicists and whether they share your understanding that these concepts bolster atheism is one worth discussing. If a physicist who is a Christian or a Muslim or a Hindu wouldn't agree with your interpretation of quantum physics or the concept of a multiverse doesn't it not make your interpretation of this biased? - My point about potential spin on the science is important, because I feel a lot of this happens on this forum. If you can show me how specifically these concepts contradict the idea of divine creation, or even could be alternatives to divine creation I'd be interested. A multiverse in particular doesn't really convince me as being God's Undertaker if you will, because there are questions hanging over whether the multiverses themselves were caused. The quantum effects do interest me, but I'm not sure if they interest me in the same way that you want me to be interested in them

So you're avoiding my points again. I'm shocked.

I don't have to show how any of these concepts counter the idea of God any more than I have to show they counter the idea that the universe was sneezed into existence by a magic giant.
The fact they all exist shows that there is alternatives to Gods, contrary to you claim.

Furthermore I've shown that you are simply making arguments from ignorance and double standards.

You say that the Multiverse isn't an explanation because "there are questions hanging over whether the multiverses themselves were caused". But this applies to God as well. But you supply an excuse about why it doesn't yet do not explain how that same does not apply to the idea of multiverses.
Furthermore you are entirely ignoring my point about one of the glaring "unanswered questions" about god.

You are rejecting these possibilities out of hand without investigating any of them in any meaningful and then hold your idea to a much different standard.

And yet you still claim that there's no other explanations besides your preferred one. And you still will, even knowing you can't answer these points.

philologos

That's not avoiding your point, that's making the point you glossed over intentionally last time.

The question over whether or not God was caused, as far as I can tell isn't hanging over Him because it's been pretty much refuted in the Philosophy of Religion as far as I can tell. I linked you to a previous discussion where I walked through James Sadowky's thinking on the infinite regress. You can find this in Brian Davies' Philosophy of Religion: An Anthology if you want to look at it further. I do think there are much good arguments (from a former era when atheists actually made positive arguments for their position prior to the new-atheism) from an atheist perspective in the Philosophy of Religion but the concept of an infinite regress certainly isn't the strongest.

I'm not rejecting them out of hand either. I'm expressing my skepticism-out-loud if you will. I don't believe something is a genuine alternative to divine creation unless it precludes the idea that it could be the means of divine creation. Perhaps that's a little heavy, but I think it is a fair way to handle it.

As for your point about laws not being intelligent, this could lead to another question you won't like.

Also, I didn't claim there weren't other explanations. There are plenty both in other religions and in none. What I have said is that I find divine creation the most reasonable.

King Mob

philologos wrote: »

That's not avoiding your point, that's making the point you glossed over intentionally last time.

The question over whether or not God was caused, as far as I can tell isn't hanging over Him because it's been pretty much refuted in the Philosophy of Religion as far as I can tell. I linked you to a previous discussion where I walked through James Sadowky's thinking on the infinite regress. You can find this in Brian Davies' Philosophy of Religion: An Anthology if you want to look at it further. I do think there are much good arguments (from a former era when atheists actually made positive arguments for their position prior to the new-atheism) from an atheist perspective in the Philosophy of Religion but the concept of an infinite regress certainly isn't the strongest.

You still didn't get the point I was making. Really no point restating what you're not going to address.

philologos wrote: »

I'm not rejecting them out of hand either. I'm expressing my skepticism-out-loud if you will. I don't believe something is a genuine alternative to divine creation unless it precludes the idea that it could be the means of divine creation. Perhaps that's a little heavy, but I think it is a fair way to handle it.

That's just plain silly, and not how logic or science work.
You are starting with the assumed position that your explanation is right.
This is probably why you have the double standard.

philologos wrote: »

As for your point about laws not being intelligent, this could lead to another question you won't like.

Go on then.
But if you are reluctant to bring it up, maybe you can answer the point you are countining to avoid about the unanswer question I posed.

philologos wrote: »

Also, I didn't claim there weren't other explanations. There are plenty both in other religions and in none. What I have said is that I find divine creation the most reasonable.

But by your own admission you don't know anything about the other explanations.
Nor have you explained how your explanation is reasonable, let alone most reasonable. You only stated that no other explanations explain it all.
And finally you are refusing to address the fact that by your own standards you would reject God as an explanation as there are unanswered questions.

philologos

How is that silly to suggest that if something is going to be genuinely an alternative that it must preclude divine creation? If it is possible that this is simply the mechanism behind something grander, then this doesn't really preclude it. That's why I asked you about how other physicists who would believe in God would interpret this. It's an interesting point to probe into whether or not a lot of this is spin.

My point concerning the laws would by why are they the way they are.

By my own admission? Where are you getting that much from? - I'd rather not play a game of chucking accusations back and forward, they don't make for a good discussion.

Thomas Eshuis

philologos wrote: »

How is that silly to suggest that if something is going to be genuinely an alternative that it must preclude divine creation?

Because that means you are dismissing alternatives out of hand that do not fit your preconceptions about the universe/creation.
That's neither rationally nor scientifically honest.
You are disregarding things before you've even studied them, just because they conflict with your world-view, not because you studied them and found them to be wrong.

Tell me, why should the alternative preclude divine creation?

robindch

philologos wrote: »

As for the infinite regress argument concerning God we've had this several times throughout the years. Here's one of them. It's been refuted thoroughly in the Philosophy of Religion.

Philosophy of religion has refuted the infinite regress argument? I'm intrigued.

Has it managed to do it by some means other than by baldly declaring that the infinite regress argument doesn't apply to the christian deity?

Sarky

"NO U" is a valid argument now? Crap.

Turtwig

philologos wrote: »

That's why I asked you about how other physicists who would believe in God would interpret this. It's an interesting point to probe into whether or not a lot of this is spin..

Kind of off topic I know, but bragging rights are important on the internet of all places. I recently converted two physicists to atheism, they had initially considered themselves to be Catholics. Going on nothing but personal experience but the majority of physicists who claim religious leanings and beliefs do so in a wishy washy vague manner that just needs the right buttons pushed and questions asked with subtlety. Carry on.

Oh and everytime I see these threads turn to quantum mechanics a part of me dies inside.

5uspect

Jernal wrote: »

Oh and everytime I see these threads turn to quantum mechanics a part of me dies inside.

Reminded me of this:

Turtwig

5uspect wrote: »

Reminded me of this:
http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20111228.gif

^^
That's brilliant!!:D

King Mob

philologos wrote: »

How is that silly to suggest that if something is going to be genuinely an alternative that it must preclude divine creation? If it is possible that this is simply the mechanism behind something grander, then this doesn't really preclude it. That's why I asked you about how other physicists who would believe in God would interpret this. It's an interesting point to probe into whether or not a lot of this is spin.

Because then if we are to consider all things equal, we must also show that it is an alternative to fairy creation, or "being sneezed out of a Giant" creation. Divine Creation does not have a special place above other non-supported theories.
But the thing is none of the theories I put forward have anything to do with a God or an intelligence, and to assume that one must be involved and is making it look like they weren't without any evidence to support it would be redundant and silly.

philologos wrote: »

My point concerning the laws would by why are they the way they are.

What are you referring to here?
That because the laws are the way they are, they must be intelligent?

philologos wrote: »

By my own admission? Where are you getting that much from? -

It's clear from you posts and that you said you don't understand how they are alternatives.
Oh and they fact that all of them refute your insistance that "nothing material can exist without a cause". You know, the basis of your argument for divine creation.

philologos wrote: »

I'd rather not play a game of chucking accusations back and forward, they don't make for a good discussion.

And I'd rather not have to chase you down on points you are continuously ignoring, again. It doesn't make for a good discussion and you are always doing it.
For example: I asked you several times about the method God used to create everything. You tried to blather on about how he could have the power to do so, but you didn't answer how he went about doing so.
So can you explain the precise method he used to create the universe, yes or no?
If yes, please do go on, wwith tons of scientific evidence to show as much.
And if No (which is probably more likely) doesn't this become an unanswered question?

King Mob

robindch wrote: »

Philosophy of religion has refuted the infinite regress argument? I'm intrigued.

Has it managed to do it by some means other than by baldly declaring that the infinite regress argument doesn't apply to the christian deity?

I tried to make the point to him that the Universe itself or the laws governing them could have been due to an infinite regress, thus excluding a need for god. But instead of explaining how these things cannot be due to one or why his special pleading for God does not apply, he just repeated arguments counting the God infinite regress problem.
It's almost like he saw the words and went on automatic....

fatmammycat

I asked a question about his evidence of an interventionist deity too and he ignored it. I may end up putting him on the same ignore list as JC at this point.

philologos

Jernal wrote: »

Kind of off topic I know, but bragging rights are important on the internet of all places. I recently converted two physicists to atheism, they had initially considered themselves to be Catholics. Going on nothing but personal experience but the majority of physicists who claim religious leanings and beliefs do so in a wishy washy vague manner that just needs the right buttons pushed and questions asked with subtlety. Carry on.

Oh and everytime I see these threads turn to quantum mechanics a part of me dies inside.

Two physicists aren't representative of Christian physicists as a whole in all fairness. I also balk when I hear the words "I converted", it seems a little arrogant to me, perhaps I'm wrong. If I heard a Christian say that I'd ask them twice about it.

How you can jump from two people to a majority of Christian physicists confuses me.

Again, if I'm being unfair point it out to me.

Thomas: I'm quite happy to consider any alternative explanation. I just don't believe that what King Mob has provided precludes the possibility of divine creation in any meaningful way. If he does that I'll be surprised, until then it seems logical to stick to what makes sense.

Sarky

So a rational explanation must also be airtight against "An all powerful magic man did it and we don't realise because that's just how magical he is".

King Mob

philologos wrote: »

Thomas: I'm quite happy to consider any alternative explanation. I just don't believe that what King Mob has provided precludes the possibility of divine creation in any meaningful way. If he does that I'll be surprised, until then it seems logical to stick to what makes sense.

Except that divine creation makes as much sense as any other other nonsense I can pluck out of my head.

None of the possibilities require divine or intelligent interference. To assume that it is involved anyway is silly and violates occam's razor.