Religion DOES Do More Good Than Harm

[tame_deuces]

In psychology, many studies have shown that personality traits explains a good portion of the religion variable in statistical studies attempting to measure happiness. The correlation between religion and happiness also often much less clear in societies that are not overly religious or have no 'majority' belief (from some studies I just checked).

So we could probably venture a guess that the correlation between religion and happiness is at least in part caused by having personality traits that make you 'fit' in the leading belief around you. (Or that happy people fit in for that matter).

Its not a strong conclusion yet, but when I read the studies and thought about it, I found it to be an extremely interesting one. It also fits well with other psychology theories, so its not something I just drag out from some survey studies.

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
I had originally assummed that almost everyone on this forum is one of those minority of people who is better off not believing in something that is a monumental underdog to be true. Which is why I gave arguments for non belief. Perhaps ten percent of theists would be happier if they became atheists. But I thought a much bigger percent of two plus two theists would be happier as atheists. I don't think that anymore. So I see no good reason for me to pursue the subject further.

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't read the thread (pressed for time) so maybe somebody has already said this. But:

Are you overlooking that the people who respond to you and engage you are way more likely to be the type who are resolute in their beliefs? Maybe there are a lot of people who don't post much or even who outright lurk who are the type of theists that you expected to find here. But since they're open to your arguments they do more listening than arguing. The people who are least likely to change their minds will be more likely to speak.

[Xylem]

See i told u atheism was evil!

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I always enjoyed your posts FWIW.


[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks. Unfortunately, atheism could never make me as happy as not posting here.

[/ QUOTE ]

And yet you continue to do so.

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]

George travels in deception and perhaps delusion. This in no way represents the statement that religion causes wars.



If George is deluded by his religion into thinking he needs to make war, then yes, religion can help cause wars.

And I'm pretty sure if you look at the other side, the Islamics outright claim they're waging a holy war.

I think with a little research one can easily find a lot of Evangelical Christians who are interested in war in the Middle East because it will fulfill their religious prophecies.

One can look in the past to see war fueled by religion: The Crusades, The French Wars of Religion, Reconquista, the fights between Catholics & Protestants in Ireland, and of course, Islamic Jihad.


[/ QUOTE ]

You're reading things to suit yourself. The idea that George is "deluded by his religion" is laughable. Men start wars. George Bush is not a passive imbiber of a Jerry Falwell or Billy Graham cabal. that George might be a "naught" influenced by others I've often thought about but it's definitely not religion.

Look to individuals in all the referenced belligerents. This in no way implies that the religions of today or yesterday cannot be taken issue with but I'd prefer to look for the individual involved. If a pope starts a crusade or an inquisition then seeing this as the work of man puts the responsibility right where it belongs.

Also, the original issue was about George Bush and you've spread the field which is logically untenable. Throwing "books" or "wars" at another in hopes to confirm a generalization doesn't register. George Bush and the American landscape are quite different from the papacy and the crusades. Taking each individually and characterizing each within their own milieu IMO is the better approach.

[xxThe_Lebowskixx]

even Christians who don't try and change the beliefs of others give credit to their religion by being apart of it and they will pass it along to their children. that is why it is never OK to shrug your shoulders and say "Bob believes in Jesus and my kids believe in the Easter Bunny, whats the big deal?".

we want the human race to stop sucking, so i say lets not give them a break and lets deny them their self delusions regardless if reality is less rainbowy.

[Splendour]

Does Hopey remind anyone else of Vincent Price? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
You're reading things to suit yourself. The idea that George is "deluded by his religion" is laughable. Men start wars. George Bush is not a passive imbiber of a Jerry Falwell or Billy Graham cabal. that George might be a "naught" influenced by others I've often thought about but it's definitely not religion.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm reading things to suit myself? Since when is taking a man at his word "reading things to suit myself?"

[ QUOTE ]
Look to individuals in all the referenced belligerents. This in no way implies that the religions of today or yesterday cannot be taken issue with but I'd prefer to look for the individual involved. If a pope starts a crusade or an inquisition then seeing this as the work of man puts the responsibility right where it belongs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Choosing to ignore religious influences and blame it simply on man sounds to me like wishful thinking. I'm not sure, in your example for the Crusades, that one can blame things squarely on the Pope while ignoring his beliefs and the beliefs of all his followers.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, the original issue was about George Bush and you've spread the field which is logically untenable. Throwing "books" or "wars" at another in hopes to confirm a generalization doesn't register. George Bush and the American landscape are quite different from the papacy and the crusades.

[/ QUOTE ]

If George Bush believes he is acting in accordance with what God wishes him to, then his religion has a direct effect on policy in the US including war. If you have some way of proving that he's lying everytime he mentions his Faith (and why it helps him guide decisions), then you may be right. At the moment, I'm taking him at his word. And from war to his stance on other matters of public policy, he publicly acknowledges that he is acting based on his religious beliefs.

[Splendour]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

George travels in deception and perhaps delusion. This in no way represents the statement that religion causes wars.



If George is deluded by his religion into thinking he needs to make war, then yes, religion can help cause wars.

And I'm pretty sure if you look at the other side, the Islamics outright claim they're waging a holy war.

I think with a little research one can easily find a lot of Evangelical Christians who are interested in war in the Middle East because it will fulfill their religious prophecies.

One can look in the past to see war fueled by religion: The Crusades, The French Wars of Religion, Reconquista, the fights between Catholics & Protestants in Ireland, and of course, Islamic Jihad.


[/ QUOTE ]

You're reading things to suit yourself. The idea that George is "deluded by his religion" is laughable. Men start wars. George Bush is not a passive imbiber of a Jerry Falwell or Billy Graham cabal. that George might be a "naught" influenced by others I've often thought about but it's definitely not religion.

Look to individuals in all the referenced belligerents. This in no way implies that the religions of today or yesterday cannot be taken issue with but I'd prefer to look for the individual involved. If a pope starts a crusade or an inquisition then seeing this as the work of man puts the responsibility right where it belongs.

Also, the original issue was about George Bush and you've spread the field which is logically untenable. Throwing "books" or "wars" at another in hopes to confirm a generalization doesn't register. George Bush and the American landscape are quite different from the papacy and the crusades. Taking each individually and characterizing each within their own milieu IMO is the better approach.

[/ QUOTE ]

I saw a video just the other day on this very subject.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzxN8X0dUao

[kurto]

Thanks for the link Splendour. Just for the opportunity to read the posts by the Christians to the video. Some of my favorites:

[ QUOTE ]
Why do good Christians make the mistake of thinking the government is on their side? The U.S. government's principles of law are not Christian, but rather based on the deeply flawed Mosaic law system, which Jesus came to free us from!

[/ QUOTE ] This particularly amuses me since, if you goto the political forum, Christians are fond of telling us how its a Christian nation based on Christian law.

We need at least one serious reference to the Antichrist:
[ QUOTE ]
Psalm 19:7a The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: Today's 'Christians' are more like sheeple. and they'll be among the elect that may be deceived by the antichrist

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
These people aren't christian at all, they're masonic devil-worshippers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then there are a few Christians who said that Olberman is stretching and that the Whitehouse never used them... this is despite some in the Whitehouse staff referring to them (the Christians) as "ridiculous", "nuts", and "just plain goofy."