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

philologos

Divine creation makes good sense as far as I can tell. The alternative theories that you've presented don't even demonstrate their self-sufficiency in the absence of a Creator, in fact they provide no reason to think that they could not simply be a part of the mechanism by which God created all things. This is why I've asked you if the views of physicists who are Christian, Jewish, Muslim etc would differ with your POV and if so why would they?

Unless you demonstrate the first and the second then I'm confused as to why you're presenting these theories in a sense as God's Undertaker.

It seems we're going to have to agree to disagree on this.

King Mob

philologos wrote: »

Divine creation makes good sense as far as I can tell. The alternative theories that you've presented don't even demonstrate their self-sufficiency in the absence of a Creator, in fact they provide no reason to think that they could not simply be a part of the mechanism by which God created all things. This is why I've asked you if the views of physicists who are Christian, Jewish, Muslim etc would differ with your POV and if so why would they?

Unless you demonstrate the first and the second then I'm confused as to why you're presenting these theories in a sense as God's Undertaker.

It seems we're going to have to agree to disagree on this.

Again which bits specifically require a God to intervene?
If you can't provide this answer, then your argument is void.

And I've asked you repeatedly the same question.
The only reason we have to argee to disagree is because you are refusing to engage in discussion.
It's annoying and dishonest.

philologos

There are plenty of questions that remain about causation in both cases as far as I can tell. Firstly in the multiverse as to whether or not this itself has a cause. Secondly in respect to what you've presented concerning quantum effects. Where do these arise from?

There is also a question looming over whether or not physicists who believe in God wouldn't interpret what you're talking about differently which brings up questions in relation to spinning the science.

All I can say is that I would have a number of doubts about what you're trying to do.

King Mob

philologos wrote: »

There are plenty of questions that remain about causation in both cases as far as I can tell. Firstly in the multiverse as to whether or not this itself has a cause. Secondly in respect to what you've presented concerning quantum effects. Where do these arise from?

There is also a question looming over whether or not physicists who believe in God wouldn't interpret what you're talking about differently which brings up questions in relation to spinning the science.

All I can say is that I would have a number of doubts about what you're trying to do.

And still you haven't answered my question.

I asked whether you can describe the exact method by which god created the universe.
It's a yes or no question, I see little point in continuing a discussion with you if you can't directly answer it.

Plautus

Look everyone, it's the stupendously watertight 'God of the Gaps' gambit!

*yawn*

All I can say is that I would have a number of doubts about what you're trying to do.

Tu Quoque.

robindch

philologos wrote: »

There are plenty of questions that remain about causation [...]

The biggest one being why you believe it applies to our argument, but not to yours.

Thomas Eshuis

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.

He has. The alternative he presented does not require a supernatural designer.
You've failed to explain why a supernatural designer must exist for the universe to exists.
But above all you have failed to argue why your god does not require a creator and the uni/multi-verse does.

You're being hypocritical in your criticism of explanations.

partyatmygaff

Hasn't this battle been fought on hundreds if not thousands of other battlefields before? Between the same people even?

There's almost no point in reading this thread anymore. I had hopes that it would be interesting but instead it's descended in to the usual "God debate" and mudfight between the opposing sides. Almost par for the course on the Religion & Spirituality forums. Seeing as no conclusion has ever been reached and it's unlikely that a conclusion will ever be reached, it's best to leave it. If not entirely, at least out of threads that have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the "God debate".

Plautus

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Hasn't this battle been fought on hundreds if not thousands of other battlefields before? Between the same people even?

There's almost no point in reading this thread anymore. I had hopes that it would be interesting but instead it's descended in to the usual "God debate" and mudfight between the opposing sides. Almost par for the course on the Religion & Spirituality forums. Seeing as no conclusion has ever been reached and it's unlikely that a conclusion will ever be reached, it's best to leave it. If not entirely, at least out of threads that have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the "God debate".

This thread wasn't going anywhere good to begin with as it was snarky triumphalism along the lines of 'Not so happy are ye, without God in your lives! Nyer!'

This is moderately more interesting and at least it's managing to be polite.

partyatmygaff

Plautus wrote: »

This thread wasn't going anywhere good to begin with as it was snarky triumphalism along the lines of 'Not so happy are ye, without God in your lives! Nyer!'

This is moderately more interesting and at least it's managing to be polite.

It was a badly expressed challenge to the belief of some atheists that Atheists generally live happier lives than Theists without the "Constraints of Religion" as is so often heard.

Perhaps using suicide to back up that point wasn't the most appropriate thing to do but nevertheless the premise that the consequences of being religious safeguards people against suicidal ideation is interesting.

It's far more interesting in my opinion than having the regulars on either side repeat the exact same arguments time and time again. It's incredibly tedious to read, that's why I don't bother with "God debate" threads where possible. Having it "infect" every single thread that so much as indirectly mentions the topic is taking it a bit too far imo.

Plautus

It was a badly expressed challenge to the belief of some atheists that Atheists generally live happier lives than Theists without the "Constraints of Religion" as is so often heard.

Fair enough. It is quite plausible that religious people could be happier due to social networks and the reassuring nature of some religious beliefs. As was mentioned earlier, it doesn't speak for the validity of the beliefs. Keeping something a secret or telling a lie can satisfy people, after all.

It's just I know that I am much happier without the particular flavour of religious belief that is Catholic guilt. And that goes for most strains of Christianity that decry the 'homosexual lifestyle choice.'

RichieC

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Hasn't this battle been fought on hundreds if not thousands of other battlefields before? Between the same people even?

There's almost no point in reading this thread anymore. I had hopes that it would be interesting but instead it's descended in to the usual "God debate" and mudfight between the opposing sides. Almost par for the course on the Religion & Spirituality forums. Seeing as no conclusion has ever been reached and it's unlikely that a conclusion will ever be reached, it's best to leave it. If not entirely, at least out of threads that have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the "God debate".

You know where the bloody door is. This thread was **** and now its fairly interesting.

partyatmygaff

RichieC wrote: »

You know where the bloody door is. This thread was **** and now its fairly interesting.

You know where the door is too Richie.

There's nothing that interesting about something we've all seen pan out before, time and time again. A huge debate with equally huge arguments that lasts forever and goes nowhere. On boards atleast, debates about God have become more or less generic.

Just because the thread started off on the wrong foot doesn't mean it should become another generic "God debate" thread.

John_Rambo

Suicide bombers are mostly very very religious. Shame. If they weren't religious they, and their victims would be mostly very very alive.

robindch

Plautus wrote: »

[...] that goes for most strains of Christianity that decry the 'homosexual lifestyle choice.'

Just occurred to me that if christians believe that being gay is a "lifestyle choice", then they must believe that being hetero is a "lifestyle choice" too.

Which suggests that they could be acting out a hetero lifestyle out of fear and that, at heart, they're actually splendidly gay.

Following the consequences of religious arguments is fun!

5uspect

partyatmygaff wrote: »

You know where the door is too Richie.

There's nothing that interesting about something we've all seen pan out before, time and time again. A huge debate with equally huge arguments that lasts forever and goes nowhere. On boards atleast, debates about God have become more or less generic.

Just because the thread started off on the wrong foot doesn't mean it should become another generic "God debate" thread.

Perhaps you should start a new thread about your concerns. Specify in the OP what you want and what you don't want to see discussed.

partyatmygaff

5uspect wrote: »

Perhaps you should start a new thread about your concerns. Specify in the OP what you want and what you don't want to see discussed.

Or perhaps (Hold on to your seats everyone, this is going to be radical) people could try and refrain from trying to convert each and every single thread that so much as indirectly hints at religion in to a "God Debate"?

Galvasean

I'm with Partyatmygaff on this one. Why not start a new thread for the 'infinite regression' debate? This thread is supposed to be on a specific topic (regardless of how crap the OP was), so why not attempt to discuss the actual topic.
I'm actually getting a bit annoyed with this forum in general lately. It seems threads have a 'shelf life' in that after a certain number of pages they fly off topic and down a predictable path, threading ground we've seen countless times before.

opinion guy

philologos wrote: »

Divine creation makes good sense as far as I can tell. The alternative theories that you've presented don't even demonstrate their self-sufficiency in the absence of a Creator, in fact they provide no reason to think that they could not simply be a part of the mechanism by which God created all things. This is why I've asked you if the views of physicists who are Christian, Jewish, Muslim etc would differ with your POV and if so why would they?

Unless you demonstrate the first and the second then I'm confused as to why you're presenting these theories in a sense as God's Undertaker.

It seems we're going to have to agree to disagree on this.

philologos wrote: »

There are plenty of questions that remain about causation in both cases as far as I can tell. Firstly in the multiverse as to whether or not this itself has a cause. Secondly in respect to what you've presented concerning quantum effects. Where do these arise from?

There is also a question looming over whether or not physicists who believe in God wouldn't interpret what you're talking about differently which brings up questions in relation to spinning the science.

All I can say is that I would have a number of doubts about what you're trying to do.

So Phil basically what you are saying is - because we don't understand it therefore God did it ?

Consider two possibilities:
a) God made the Universe. Are we as limited temporary minds within that universe likely to understand it in its entirety ? No most likely not
b) The Universe made itself. Are we as humans likely to understand it ? Are we as limited temporary minds within that universe likely to understand it in its entirety ? No most likely not

There is no way to tell a from b. The fact that the universe is complicated proves nothing more than the fact that the universe is complicated. Yet you choose to cite it as proof of a.

What is your rational for choosing a over b ?

Sarky

He likes it more.

Turtwig

Galvasean wrote: »

I'm with Partyatmygaff on this one. Why not start a new thread for the 'infinite regression' debate? This thread is supposed to be on a specific topic (regardless of how crap the OP was), so why not attempt to discuss the actual topic.
I'm actually getting a bit annoyed with this forum in general lately. It seems threads have a 'shelf life' in that after a certain number of pages they fly off topic and down a predictable path, threading ground we've seen countless times before.

In statistical bastardised jargon we call it correlation. During the thread's beginnings, its conversations may often be broken with numerous posters responding at random intervals,some may not even notice the thread yet and the occasional troll like comment may attempt to derail the flow of conversation. As the thread approaches critical intensity the correlations of coherent conversation and on-topicness approaches infinity and the thread is considered in good health and on topic. However once the critical point is exceeded the thread reverts to its normal phase distribution and the coherent conversations become more and more fragmented.

Grammar check please!

Memnoch

Sorry for jumping in on topic so late in the thread. Apologies also if the following has already been mentioned and discussed/refuted.

Sadly, religion is colloquially considered to be one of many protective factors against suicide.

At least that's what I remember from one of my psych lectures. Though I can't find a specific citation right now, this one from the American Journal of Psychiatry comes close: http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/article.aspx?Volume=157&page=1084&journalID=13

Personal moral objection to suicide (is a religious factor) and this is often a tenet of many mainstream religions.

Also religious belief can provide hope to someone who otherwise feels hopeless, even if that hope is false and arbitrary.

One could also argue that participating in a religious group increases active and available social supports.

Whether we like it or not, there are benefits to the religious of following, otherwise it wouldn't be as ubiquitous as it is currently.

old_aussie

Memnoch wrote: »

Sadly, religion is colloquially considered to be one of many protective factors against suicide.

Maybe muslims haven't heard of this "protective factors".

All I hear about is many muslim suicide bombers all over the world.

nozzferrahhtoo

philologos wrote: »

Divine creation makes good sense as far as I can tell.

Alas thinking something makes sense is nothing to do with evidencing whether it is true or even credible.

Also given the things you have thought made sense in the past I certainly would not suggest that something making sense to you in any way supports it. Often quite the opposite it seems.

In fact in my experience you repeating over and over that god makes sense to you is literally ALL you have to support the existence of said entity. As if this is an argument. Are we ALL allowed literally make things up now and simply support them by saying that it makes sense to us? Great, well you owe me 1 million Euro. Please pay up. I have no evidence, invoices, paper work, receipts or anything to support this.... but it makes sense to me. So transfer the money now please.

Dades

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Just because the thread started off on the wrong foot doesn't mean it should become another generic "God debate" thread.

I think if I'd spotted this thread in time - and who posted it - I would have locked it. It was never going to be any use as a thread.

But it took off in a different direction and a bunch of people invested some time in posts, but sure there you go.

Generally here once a different thread runs it's course, they're allowed drift into the vagaries of religion. This one should have been put down at birth as a baseless random statement. :pac:

opinion guy

Sarky wrote: »

He likes it more.

Oh I agree. The question is can he be honest about that and amid tthere is no objective reason only the subject reason of preferring a to b

RichieC

opinion guy wrote: »

Sarky wrote: »

He likes it more.

Oh I agree. The question is can he be honest about that and amid tthere is no objective reason only the subject reason of preferring a to b

I doubt it. He'll use lofty theological arguments that generally confuse the reader.

Ive always considered theology in league of star trek nerds who have starship enterprise blueprints and know every working of the ship and its systems. Great. Your an expert of complete fiction. But you will have to slightly adjust those rules as science gets closer to building real starships

Undergod

Whether or not atheists commit suicide more frequently than theists is probably pretty irrelevant in the discussion of whether it's true.

opinion guy

RichieC wrote: »

I doubt it. He'll use lofty theological arguments that generally confuse the reader.

Ive always considered theology in league of star trek nerds who have starship enterprise blueprints and know every working of the ship and its systems. Great. Your an expert of complete fiction. But you will have to slightly adjust those rules as science gets closer to building real starships

I guess he chose to ignore it instead. Second time he's ignored my points on this thread