All of these benefits to society as suggested by the video. But let's take America as an example. Arguably the largest Christian nation with 85% of the people Christian. Disease and poor health, crime and mental illness rampant. The social structure of this country being very poor compared to many Scandinavian countries with far less believers. This is a poor argument for mindless religion. A drunk is said to be happier when drunk too. What does this tell us? Same argument. Derp!
. . . . . Continued from previous . . . Religion inspires violence. Look at all the wars in the name of religion. Ever hear of Daniel Pearl? He's a rabid Christian Fundamentalist who advocates beating children, even 2 year old infants, with a length of quarter-inch plumbing supply line, just for crying too much. Sorry, but I have to disagree with the whole premise of this video. Religion is the cause of much evil in this world. Hey boys and girls! Can you say, Inquisition?
I don't get it! I've been hearing and reading that the divorce rate is lower among atheists than among the religious denominations. Also, atheists make up the lowest percentage of our prison populations. About 39% percent of prison inmates are Catholic and 35% percent are Protestant, but atheists make up less than 1% percent of prison inmates.During 10 years in Sing-Sing those executed for murder, 65% Catholics, 26% Protestants. Atheists, 37% of total USA population. - To be continued . . .
1) That divorce statistic comes from a single study that has been copied and pasted ad nauseum among atheist sites
2) There are several benefits to identifying with a religion in prison. The better question to ask is why the religious are far less likely to reoffend.
3) Religion was a contributing factor in only a few wars throughout history.
3) To train up a child? Yes, I heard of that.
4) Ah, an atheist who chooses to hate despite the evidence. Typical.
-->When people are free to chose, they indeed make mistakes, but also learn from those mistakes.So, such a freedom might come at the price of a society of worse persons, but at the long term I think it offers greater knowledge of how society and the self actually work.This is a personal opinion, though, so I could be mistaken.I would like to see your opinion on that matter, and to apologise if my choice of words is poor.
I like this video, and I agree that religion offers a more stable environment that helps the person and the society.However, It is the same benefit that a dictatorship may offer in a strong country.Germany was strong and stable with Hitler, after all.So, I think that, like a dictatorship, religion may have benefits but at the price of certain freedoms, offering us directions but no actual choice, thus making people act better as members of a society by blindly obeying, instead of knowing why.-->
I also believe that if this country were not built upon secular ideals we would be totally screwed. I hear people say all the time that America is a "Christian Nation". If that were true gays would be dead, adulterer's would be dead, non virgin brides would be dead, non-believers would be DEAD. Granted that's IF christians actually followed the fundamental proponents of their holy book.
You fail to mention the underlying benefits that all these people received. Which was medical care, a product of science. Science isn't atheism I know. But right now, in the present day, Christians in America are doing their best to STOP the progress of science, specifically medical science. Which has been the case throughout the history of religion. Not to mention all the civil rights people have been denied because of religion. Secularism undeniably helps mankind more than religion.
Most of what you claim is either speculation, propaganda, or unprovable. However, I would prefer a shorter life span firmly rooted in logic and reason.
thanks for the awesome video i have a presentation on how religion benifits socitey and this has started me in the right direction its so hard to find something so good in a positive light of religion and dont worry i am not copying your hard work onto my presentation it has just help
Does religion benefit Society? That's a rhetorical question, that's like saying would it benefit a blind person to have a regular book? No because religion supposedly makes a person "better" but they stay in the same position as a person. If you really wanna better you're self you have to show discipline you don't need religion or no bible or Quran to innovate yourself. Religious people claim they're Godly people, but rarely ever show it.
im a saved christian and im proud of it, to me it seems like the majority of atheist are bitter people who seem to be even more bigots then a lot of religious sects. "oh this person has a belief he's no good"
Yet some how it's not the atheists who are bitterly defensive because their associations have been consistently charged with the sexual abuse of small children (catholicism) or condoning death sentences for apostasy while turning a blind eye to rape and honour killings (ala Pakistan and Saudi Arabia etc). If we sound bitter, it's probably because we cannot believe that people from such backgrounds still manage to find the nerve to tell us all about morals. Can you really blame us?
@sanzar im not catholic, or an islamic extremist, but i wonder if u believe religion is some sort of force that makes people perfect ill let u know right now it isnt. religion isnt perfect but the God i serve is perfect, relgion is just a title. people will forever be imperfect but i still strive to be as Christ just like any other christian and other relgiouns stive for gd. just because theirs the few that r a little sick or crazy doesnt me all of us r.
One last point: what does it mean to be a saved christian? Why were you/need to be saved, and why are you proud of it?
You're in the US, so I imagine that having religion as an identity proves you with support, community and probably even helps grant you acceptance (given how intolerant Americans seem to be of non-believers). I'm an Australian however, so to me it's more curious than anything, as we're far more relaxed about faith here. If you believe, fine. if not, fine ;) .
@sanzar bing saved is excepting Christ as ur saviour to take u to heaven wen u die we all need to be saved bcuz none of us are gd and cant enter heven bcuz it is perfect. so Jesus the son of God came here as man through the virgin birth and cleansed our sins away so we can go 2 heaven. im proud bcuz i will live eternally in heaven with my heavenely father and not hell. America is the land of the free u believe watever u want ur choice, or was dere a stoning of an athiest i missed?;)
America calls itself the land of the free, but most other Western countries would probably beg to differ...
For instance, Australia and New Zealand have had several Prime Ministers that were either Atheist or agnostic, but have also had religious ones. How many US presidents have been elected that were openly Atheist or Agnostic in living memory? This is what I'm talking about. Yes, you're legally free to believe what you want, but atheists are still discriminated against in the US.
@sanzar the US is a young country only 234yrs old, second of all we were founded on christian principle, 3rd we have separation from church and state, 4th the majority of the people in this country have somewhat of a christian backround thus the people tend to elect important officials that share their same view, and please expalin how we r not free i would love to hear ur explaination, and i take it i answered all ur previous questions since now it seems we r arguing about freedom in the US
Yes, you're a young country. So? Second, Thomas Jefferson was one of your founding fathers and was a Deist, not a Christian. Indeed, your early principles owed more to the European enlightenment movement in many ways than Christianity. It's just your right wing shock jocks who lead you to believe you were always this insanely christian.
Next, I didn't say you were not free, simply that by the standards of other Western democracies, you're grossly intolerant toward non-believers.
@sanzar have u seen our money it says in God we trust the pilgrims came here because of relgion persecution so we yes we have a christian foundation, mayb u didnt understad my previous reason y their isnt any atheist presidents atheist in the us is roughly 20% of the population the rest have some sort of belief thus they want 2 c their president share their same beliefs is that so hard 2 understand?
Actually, the "in god we trust" bit was added in the last century... how do I know this and you don't when it's supposed to be your country? Australia also has only about 20% of its people as non-believers FYI, but that doesn't stop people voting for policies over which fairy tales their leaders follow. Just to bring the point home for you...
@sanzar still christians were the 1st to colonize successfully from the east, the majority of our people are believers thus the people in our government represent the majority dont know wat so hard to understand bout that
It's not hard to understand at all: in the US people vote on religious beliefs more than on policy lines. It's simple, but that doesn't mean it's a good thing...
*sigh* how is it that you religious types manage to maintain such a simplistic view of existence? It's like you're all children trapped in a fairytale that you refuse to wake up from. FFS none of the big three have managed to come up with a coherent response to Epicurus despite having 2000 years to think about it.
I can only conclude that you're all too terrified to even contemplate the prospect of oblivion after death.
Hey, believe whatever you want. Some people are very so confident that they'll receive 72 virgins for murderous suicide acts that they blow themselves up. Doesn't mean they're going to get it though ;) .
It doesn't but logic is generally a useful tool in deciphering how the world works and predicting likely outcomes. Heaven and hell and the eternal survival of the ego has no rational basis.
@sanzar yea i forgot to lament the "discrimination" against atheist here in the US all those years of us enslaving, segregating, lynching, and denying u the right to vote...... oh wait that was black people..... now i remenber we make atheist ware symbols on their right arm marking them wait a minute dats not right either.... mayb we exploit u and deny u citizenship no we do dat 2 mexicans....... dont wrry itll come 2 me sooner or later
Yep, you have a sordid history of racial discrimination. How exactly does this change the fact that in the US an atheist who attempts to achieve high office has all the stigma of a leper irrespective of their policies? I remember reading a study showing that in the US Atheists were the least trusted social group. Again, I didn't say that you aren't legally free in you're country, simply that - as an Atheist - I'm glad as heck I live in Australia and not in your country.
@sanzar where do u get off using such wrds as "grossly intolerant" go to iraq being a christian,51 worshipers and 2 priests and a subsequent series of bombings and assassinations singling out Christians, if u want "grossly intolerance" their u will find ur place, so dont just throw that phrase around just becuz u cant hold office due 2 the fact only 20% of the country shares ur view
You're acting as if I'm attacking you. Your argument is predicated on the fact that there are much worse things out there, but that's not the point. It's like me telling you that you should smoke because it's bad for you and instead of accepting the fact you get defensive and say "where do you get off telling me smoking is bad? in some places people eat razor blades! Now THAT's bad!"
By the standards of other WESTERN DEMOCRACIES the US has a greater level intolerance toward atheism.
@sanzar wen u say "grossly intoreant" u make it seem as though we spit on atheist on the street, or boycott anything atheist own, even persecute them. none of that happens atheist have the same opportunities as everyone else. ur saying we are intolerant due to no elected officials wrong, Pete Stark in congress,Ernie Chambers senator, we also never elected a female president mayb we are intolerant to women as well according 2 ur reasoning
Maybe you are... In Australia we have a Prime Minister that is both female and an Atheist. But look, I accept that the US is a big place, but I've read articles talking about atheists being ostracised and virtually forced out of towns in the bible belt. Indeed, one story I read talked about how one young girl stopped going to school because the abuse she received was just too much to bare.
Again, by the standards of other western states you are actually very intolerant.
Nope, plenty of discrimination here and issues with the indigenous community. We're definitely far from perfect and I'll happily admit that. Still, as an Atheist I'm still very glad that I grew up here and not in the US. Why is it so hard for you to accept that there are countries a lot of people would rather live than America? Does it some how make you doubt all that crap about the US being "the greatest country on earth" etc? Because if that's the case you're pretty insecure.
@sanzar America is the greatest country on earth imo, but most believe that about their own country the only prob i have is u saing how theirs so much discrimination hear against atheist atheist have to be last on the list of group of ppl most discriminated against in our country. im not saying discrimination is gd cuz its not jesus told us we should love our neighbors and enemies, all im saying is dat is discrimination everywhere some worst than others and here its the lowest level
Actually, in my experience it's mostly Americans who believe their country is the greatest on earth... in other countries it's only the maladjusted nationalistic maniacs who really think that way. Not really sure what that says about you...
I certainly have never thought Australia was the "greatest country on earth" for the simple reason that such a statement is ridiculous. Greatest at what exactly?
@sanzar i dont think dats being arrogant i feel as though every1 should feel that way about their counrty. in ur point of view people who would never leave their country for another and truly love their country are "maladjusted nationalistic maniacs" den my friend im afraid dats most of the world. Greatest meaning u wouldnt go anywere else. if u dont think austrlia is the greastest country y do u sti dere? mayb uv heard it more from Americans since most of us are extremely happy living here.
I guess it's just a matter of how much you respect the language your using. Your use of English is deplorable and I guess that's partly responsible for our failure to see eye to eye here. Saying "greatest in the world" does sound arrogant and I'd suggest your experience of the rest of the world is limited if you think that.
I have actually lived in other countries (Sweden and Japan) and enjoyed my time in both, but I still love Australia for its beaches, relaxed attitude and people.
@sanzar saying that ur own country is the greastest of the world is equilvalent to a parent saying u have the best son or daughter in the world and its ashame u cant understand texting lingo in this day in age
texting lingo is for mobile phones and for people you are familiar with; it's not for discussions about faith and politics.
Furthermore, when parents say they have the best child in the world they generally say it to the child or people very close, they don't go around to strangers houses and tell them your child is the best.
What's a shame is that you don't understand the importance of context and haven't developed the ability to write properly despite being in your 20s.
@sanzar You are correct, my grammar has been atrocious in this discussion, I apologize. I have been following the trend of poor grammar used online but that does not make it right. I apologize once again. Now back to the argument at hand, when someones says anything is "the greatest thing on Earth" that phrase pertains to the individual. Ex I may say pizza is "the greatest food on Earth" while you say no chicken is. Also have you ever heard there is no place like home, many feel that way
@sanzar Also you haven't answered my previous question when I asked why do you still live in Australia if you don't believe it's the greatest country on Earth.
That's a non-sequitur; one doesn't have to believe in the innate superiority of the place one lives simply to live in it. I live in Australia because it is the country that reared me, provided me with my education and is the setting for many dear memories. I care about my friends, my family and my community and they are almost all in Australia, so by extension I have a fondness for the nation itself (though nations are inherently "imagined communities").
I don't feel the need to espouse the greatness of my country over all others to desire to reside in it. This is the same as I don't need to believe my father is the greatest father in the whole world in order to love and respect him. To me he is a great man and one that has provided me with a great deal that has helped me in my life. Why should I feel the need to believe or tell others "he is the greatest". Greatness is subjective; he is great to me and I need not bring others into the equation.
@sanzar I live in the greatest country in the world in my opinion. Other countries are also great but I wouldn't feel as comfortable living their, since like I said before there is no place like home.
Again, I think this is simply an American thing... for whatever reason through your "American exceptionalism" you have - what seems to outsiders - an insecure need to proclaim your greatness above all others. Perhaps this is a response to power and an inherent ignorance of the outside world. For the record, the only other people I have come across that think their country is the greatest are the Chinese (interestingly) and Turks (another country with a serious nationalistic streak).
@sanzar You are failing to understand me, I do not believe or have said other countries are inferior, which I don't believe, all I'm saying is I love my country and I wouldn't live anywhere else thus for me the individual my country is the greatest in the world based on that reason. Now if I said America is the best country because our people are the best educated, intellectual superiors in the world than i can see why you would have a problem with that, but clearly I've never stated that pov
@sanzar "Perhaps this is a response to power and an inherent ignorance of the outside world" Well my good friend did you know that America is the1# country in world that gives foreign aid, thats right our tax dollars goes and helps other countries. Australia isn't event in the top 10, I guess we are giving our money to foreign countries blindly and ignorantly.
This is the problem with your argument. You keep citing volatile 3rd world countries as your comparisons and extreme examples of intolerance, but all I'm saying is that as an Atheist you'd be far happier and less likely to experience social stigmatisation in pretty much any other DEVELOPED WESTERN DEMOCRACY outside the US. Why this is so hard to accept for you is a little hard for me to understand.
@sanzar well if they rally their theyll probably get stoned, and other women their agree in that custom as well. No society is 100% tolerant to all including urs so lets not b hypocrites shall we
@sanzar wait i didnt read that gd obviously no women wants to get sexually assaulted but like i said b4 theyll prob get stoned or punished brutally, here in America atheist just like any1 else is free to rally and protest but their not cuz its not a big issue.
Not a big issue for you. But it's clearly an issue for atheists there given that people apparently get run out of towns in the bible belt for simply not believing.
@sanzar huh allow me 2 repeat myself theirs discrimination EVERYWHERE obviously cases like the one u stated are extremely rare or atheist and Americans alike would have definitely protested or alt least bn on the news "atheist across the country are being thrown out of towns slowly becoming an epidemic" havnt hrd dat head liner yet have u?
Ugh, it really is hard to decipher what you're trying to say with that grammar and spelling some times...
Yes, discrimination is everywhere to varying degrees, so why is it so hard for you to accept that your country is actually one of the least tolerant toward atheists among western democracies? Get over the nationalistic b*llshit. You are not actually your country.
This is a wonderful video. But why only 2,000 views when a video proclaiming atheism as being 'more peaceful" than religion gets 100,000 views? It appears that the "atheist machine" refuses to accept truthful and accurate data. Well done.
This video has a low ranking because of the fanatical atheist mentality - "thumbs down" EVERY video which doesn't support them, often without watching it.
I took a few minutes to google divorce rates by religion and did not find any other large studdies besides the Barna study. If there are so many studies out there that refute this one why are they so hard to find. I actually paused your video for about 20 minutes while checking things out and the closest thing I found was a study which questioned 97 couples none of which were atheist. Please let me know of another large scale study.
I've heard these arguments before, but as someone who has spent some time in the intensely Christian United States and even more in the almost irreligious Japan I'm not so sure how strong these correlations really are. Japan has a form of ancestor worship through Shinto in place of the communal abramhamic faiths, yet Japan has a better all round standard of living, better health (much higher average life span), and a significantly lower crime rate. What role does religion play in achieving this?
To add to that, Japan struck me as being intensely irreligious; culture, history and family was what people had in place of major religion and while the place isn't perfect, their vastly superior average health and longevity suggests that one doesn't need to be religious to live long (or have a low crime rate).
Yes, but if you know anything about Japan you'd know that that has much to do with the intensely competitive and unforgiving work and education culture. Japanese is one of those rare languages that has a single word that means to work yourself to death (karo-shi). It's a stifling and painful existence for many and its the reason for the current social shift there
In any case, which is worse: 5th highest suicide rate or second highest murder rate in the developed world (US - after SA)?
Interestingly, even in spite of the high suicide rate, Japan still ranks among the best in health and longevity. This would suggest that those people that do escape the military like atmosphere of the corporate system lead quite healthy and happy lives once they retire.
@sanzar i believe is do to their exercise routine at ther lunch breaks like yoga and their healthy diet of seafood, plus have u ever seen an obese japanese dat wasn't sumo, their are very rare
The word is 'than' not 'then'. Christ that annoys me.
Alright, so self delusion has benefits. Great, stay scared straight by hellfire and recover from mental illness using delusion as a crutch. Not for me. I'd rather face the world as it really is.
The claim of replacing church welfare programs with state run ones costing so much is bogus. Surely those good hearted people would be just as helpful without the threat of hell. Wouldn't they? If not then their charity is without merit.
Your statement is a non-sequitor. Even if Christians were charitable purely out of hellfire, and even if this type of charity was without merit, this does nothing to render the claim of cost of replacement as 'bogus'. Replacing church welfare programs with state equivalents would be costly regardless of the motivations that procured the donations within the church programs in the first place.
It would be costly if the state had to pick up the bill. I would hope that those already motivated to help others in a church setting, would do so regardless of faith.
In which case the state would not have much slack to take up.
Dear UNFF According to social capital as a health determinant: having a sense of communal support is correlated with higher reports of general health and well being. Religion offers this sense of community support. Now... the question is, is the myth and superstition necessary? I bet it isn't. This research had it's origins in pondering why the US had such shiddy mortality rates when compared with scrubby broke ass nations.
Religion is mythand superstition? Based on what claism do you make this? Oh yeah, you define religion, even if the definition is wrong, by your standards something is this and that.
You claim religion is a superstition and a myth, off your definition of what religion is. That's called a special pleading fallacy. What else would you like me to enlighten you on? =p
Dear Ogir, I would like to be enlightened on how your God, crucified himself for nine days, with his own spear through his ribs, to the tree of life (as a sacrifice to himself)? Do you sincerely believe that this is possible? It seems a stretch of the imagination to me. Please enlighten me.
I've been an Agnostic for a couple of months now, but I'll gladly explain your misconceptions. Firslty where do you get 9 days? Nothing in the gospels suggest how much time Jesus was crucified for. Furthermore, his own spear? No, the romans passed the spear through his ribs. The tree of life? Where do you get this from?
It's not about believing if it's possible. If we verify the the gospels as a historical document, we will see how valid it is. One should believe Jesus died.
Ogir, Nope, the literature clearly says, he was crucified and pierced through the ribs with his own spear. I'm sure I read it right. Doesn't say anything about the Romans. Should I view this as a historical document too then? If I don't does that mean it is completely untrue? Do you, by your own definition, believe that you should believe in Odin as his story can be viewed as a historical doc? Or perhaps his crucified Celtic counterpart Esus (hm... only one letter off)?
It does, does it? Mind giving me the verses in which it says, and I'll do some research for you. I'll consult some biblical scholars, I';ll ask the hebrew professor at my University about this.
As for Odin, no documents claim he was a historical figure? All the documents that have his name are about him being the God of war, Wisdom, and magic, or things of that nature. he is the chief God of many gods, and he is an anthropomophization of nature. Like Jesus, how?
Odin's story can't be viewed as a historical document. I don't see where you're getting this from. Furthermore, the earliest manuscripts being only 40-50 years after his death. Plato's earliest manuscripts are around 900 years after his death.
As for Odin, there are different depictions of him, and no reliable source. It doesn't even claim he was a human being. He's a god, who symbolizes something. It's an anthropomorphization?
Firstly there is little about Esus I could find, nothing about him being Crucified. Can you send me a document, or the reliable source in which they claim that Esus was crucified?
Also, Esus is one letter off from Jesus? Yeah, that was really ignorant. Jesus' real name was a Yeshua. Jesus is the greek translation of Yeshua. Esus is in anglicized, it's not even greek. You're talking on way different names, and no correllation. I can't find where Esus was crucified?
As for the ressurection. I can never be sure of what happened. Jesus could have undergone an extremely inprobable natural phenomenon. It could have been intentional in his part or freaking good luck. It could be that his followers lied, but it is difficult to accept this. Mainly because of Jewish moral law, form criticism of the earliest manuscripts of the Bible, and many other factors of why someone would lie about seeing Jesus and dying for the belief.
Dear Ogir, Ah, a fellow agnostic eh. Well then allow me to refine my approach. I believe you think I have some pejorative definition for the word myth. There is no need to take offense to this. True things can become myths and vice versa. When I say Mythology I am not meaning an 'untruth' I am saying we are left with only the shadow of the story. Which is exactly what you have described to me. So we are not at odds unless pride gets in the way.
Dear Ogir, I am quite well versed in Christian doctrine and am aware of Jesus' name and its cognates. Let's presume I know a little more than the basics and type at me with a little respect. We are diverging from the point I am trying to make. If you want a list of crucified deities... google it. Now back to special pleading: You condemn my idea based on special pleding based on semantics. Semantics we agree on no less. This is a sign you are spoiling for a argument.
Type at you with a little respect? I have, until you blatantly lied in my face. I'm an agnostic, but I see a liar when I see one. You tried to comapre Esus to Jesus, when their names are nowhere near the same (you pointed out that it's just missing the J). Then you claim Esus was crucified, despite any legitimate source for making the claim.
If I want a list of crucified deities, you want me to google it? Are you honestly still asking for respect?
Dear Ogir, Don't you find it interesting that the names are so close? Apparently modern day wanna be Druids are claiming that there is a connection. It is part of their mythos. I think it is interesting. Is it beneficial to society (the topic we should be discussing)? I think not. Druids could get the same benefits from joining a nudist colony. Or joining an active rec. league, or a biodiesel co-op. Or volunteering. That is my point, not what ever agenda you want to banter on about.
No, I don't find it interesting that they are so close, because they aren't really. Esus is an agnlicized name, Jesus a greek name, and Jesus' real name was Yeshua.
As for benefits, you don't seem to understand something. Christianity is a greater unifying force than an biodiesel co-op (lol). Christianity has a ceirtain ethical messege that inspires people to love and feel loved. You don't understand it, because you're stuck with your special pleadings.
Dear Ogir, I must have missed the one post... you finally stepped on the mine I hastely prepared for you. Now, you say Plato and the Gospels are historical documents (I personally dont care either way). Well by who's authority and by which stick to you measure which is or is not historical or mythological? By your own definition you'll be forced to invoke special pleading. ;) Good thing I didn't do that in my original post. You assumed you knew what I ment by myth and superstition.
I want you to give me a legitimate source. You're probably going to give me a source which Atheists themselves laugh at. Zeitgesit conspiracy theories are irrational, and if you want respect, you have to come up with something respectable. Not some irrational zeitgeist trash, or blatant lies about ceirtain celctic mythologies.
As for your definition of mythology, you placed it side by side with supersition. Superstition is false. So what are you saying?
Well according to religious athorities prior to the enlightenment and right up to the 19th century, headaches and mental illness were the result of demons. Don't sell me that xtianity is the only religion void of superstitions. The only reason you are having a tough time with this is beacuse of special pleading. Which again I didn't do in my original post. Let's stay on topic. The point of my Odin/Esus thing wasn't what you think it was. It was to trap you into special pleading.
Christians have been superstitious, that doesn't mean Christianity itself endorses these superstitions. In fact, during the high middle ages, the Scholastics looked down upon the idea that headaches were caused by demons, they established methdological naturalism, and rather look for natural causes.
Furthermore, there were various Christians who opposed the idea that demons caused such, even though mainstream opinion thought it. Ever hear of hasty generalization fallacy?
Superstition is false? How so? Did I say superstition is false? Nope, you did though. Perhaps there is some truth to the superstition that chewing willow bark cures a headache. Perhaps knocking on wood or pitching salt over the shoulder has a placebo effect. I dunno do you? Care to do some more special pleading? Are these things necessary to social capital? I don't believe so. Evidence? Do you need to be superstitious to volunteer? Nope, is it benefitial to the volunteer and society, yep.
I don't care if you believe superstition is false, it is, because it goes agains the methdological naturalistic principle of scientific inquiry. Superstition goes against the principles of science, therefore false and irrational.
By the way, the placebo effect is explained naturally, Science has shown superstition to be false. Superstition is false, and you compared religion to it. I'm not making special pleadings, you're just trying to cover up.
You don't care if I believe superstition is false? Are you even reading anything I am typing at you? We are not in disagreement about the definitions of superstition and myth? You are like a crazy person!?! Please! Read what I am typing and not what you want me to be typing. Also, stop all the special pleading. You accuse me of it then you carry on, and on, and on, and on, doing it yourself? It's madness? Let your ego go and let's have a discussion. Christ sakes man.
Dear Ogir, In sum: We are very alike in opinion. I think you feel like you have something to prove and wish to argue ever little chinsy dipshit point to a T so you can walk away with some satisfaction. You have been shown to be a little hypocritical, I have been shown to have been hasty with my Esus remark, which by the way you read too much into my meaning. So no, I invoked no special pleading unless you want to play at semantics. Why? We agree on the defs. Put your ego to bed, I have.
Those secular societies aren't really that secular. Want to know why? Well, because Christianity has been in those countries far longer than in the USA. The culture of those secular countries are deeply cultivated in Christian morality.
Furthermore, if you look at so called secular societies in which Christianity has not been prevalent in history, like Japan. You will find suicide rates extremely high.
You don't get it do you? Europe may have cut ties with the spiritual part of Christianity, but Christian ethics has only dwelled deper into European culture. So technically, and culturally Europe is nowhere near being a "Christian Continent". By the way, Christianity is still prevalent among Europe, you're acting like small countries like Sweden and Cezch republic make up the majority of Europe. In the larger nations, liek Germany and France, Christianity is still dominant.
Dear Cujo, You should weigh in on Ogir's comment. Seems odd doesn't it that first Ogir makes the claim that Christianity is the basis for good stats, then points out Japan? Japan has far better stats than some European countries yet Christianity is realatively new to her shores. Note that the specific suicide stat is used. Why not morbidity/mortality stats? Probably because it would work against the initial claim. ;) There's your weapon, happy cerebral dueling.
This makes me wonder how much better everything would be if there actually was someone watching us, 24/7. Tangibly. 1984 style. Bet statistics would be even better. Except maybe those for suicide.
religion can benefit society as well as make it worse by causing separation by placing ppl in certain groups. though i think this question is not as important as the question of whether a god as described by whatever religion is infact real or fantasy.
Even the Taliban brought in benefits however a little good does not justify it.
i don't think society will change too much if religion was total or gone as it is culture, your overall environment and yourself personally that effect morality etc
The reason this has a low rating is probably because you can cherry-pick to find some study to support absolutely anything. The question is whether the majority of studies share the same finding, and if the study was done honestly.
Although I can't look up every single statistic cited, some of them are quite jarring when compared to known statistics. For example all mainstream studies I find show that atheists/agnostics have the LOWEST divorce rate, but this says the OPPOSITE.(Just one example)
I find your statement quite ironic. You've said that people can cherry-pick a study to support their position, and that the conclusions are more valid when they are supported collectively by multiple independent studies. Every pro-atheist website and youtube video I've visited uses the exact same one and only source to validate their divorce claim:
If the low atheist divorce rates is as mainstream and commonly known as you claim them to be, why is it that atheists insist on using the same one source (sometimes by copying and pasting from other websites), when I can go on the internet and find 8 other studies that contradict the atheist's conclusion in five minutes, if not for the reason than that there arn't any other sources to back up their own position?
That's the result I get when searching google, shown on seemingly non-biased websites. It's shown in multiple places. The only way to find your source is to specifically search for it. Furthermore, the first source I found seemed to be about "what kind of relationship with God" people had. Red flags there.
When I read the teen pregnancy and STD spread part of your video, a question came to my mind: if the majority of teen pregnancies seem to come from right-wing, mostly religious states and areas, does the LEVEL of religion affect the society as well? Like, is moderate religious belief, like what you have, more of a benefit than fundamentalist belief? It seems that moderate theism is the better choice, but I want you input. Great vid, by the way.
I'm not sure. If I remember correctly, I've seen some conflicting statistics that despute whether fundamentalist belief is better or worse than moderate belief in terms of common social problems. I'll have to look into that one some more.
UNFFwildcard, You should look up the video "Religion and Social Problems" or use the video ID: watch?v=YxTZv8c_GBM.
You can find the study by Googling for "Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies"
as published in the Journal of Religion and Society.
I have a question, Do the statistic in this video refer to people who have a religion in general or people who practice in general? There are alot of people who claim to be part of a religion, but many of them being hypocrites and don't even practice religion or even follow the teachings of their religion. Another video told me that Atheists were least likely to smoke than Christians, but I'm guessing it refers to Christians who don't practice Christianity.
Sorry for answering your question so late. It depends on the statistic. If it said, "People who believe in a higher being...X", then it's based off of belief and not on practice. However, if it said, "People who regularly attend religious services...X" then it's based off of behaviour and practice.
If you want a more detailed explanation you would have to look at the methods described in the publication itself, or look at the surveys they used.
One cannot deny that the psychological effects of religion or the lack of, regardless of the validity of each, is significant. It is easier to feel secure in a religion with an afterlife than with a belief promising no life after death, if one is at imminent risk of death, there will be, psychologically speaking, less fear in a devout theist than an atheist, though this would vary greatly between each and every person. Still, this effect is not as significant as professed in the video.
2:36 lol, why would anyone encourage schizophrenics to feel additional halucinations (god / jesus residing in their soul) in order to stop them from hallucinating?
oh hey, it's you again! r u sure u want someone who understands nothing about science to explain something to such an all knowing genius as yourself?
but ok... when ppl say that they feel the presence of god/jesus it's probably not true because it is way more likely that they are persuading themselves of feeling something that isn't there (aka a halusination) than the fact that their religion is the correct one and god/ jesus are indeed appearing to them.
Oh my God, why did I even reply to you. Please just stop, you're one of the dumbest people I've met, I thought I was awnsering to someone else....
From the begginign I can see how irrational your claim is, you said 'it's probably not true', well it's true by fact that you're making a bare assertion fallacy and you're using circular reasoning. I also want your Ph.D. in Psychology, or any empirical peer-reviewed evidence for your claim, psychology is very unstable anyway though..
I'm familiar with many of those studies. It is a very dangerous and disingenuous use of them to say the least. Several of them have been proven to be completely false because of an ingrained bias in the way the study was conducted. Let alone that some of them are published by religious organizations with a bias for results. Which is why they've been ignored by everyone but Faux News. When a study cannot be relied upon because the methods used were questionable at best.
And therefore any conclusions drawn from a flawed and biased source are tainted by said bias. Your video it therefore tainted and the conclusions unreliable. This is not to say that there are no positives that may result from Religion, but your conclusions as with those studies are flawed, lack standing in actual evidence as well as the fact that there is no investigation to verify from where the benefit derives and if its religion or just the calming effect that can be derived in other ways.
Tom Paine, American founder, influenced Jefferson, Lincoln, Franklin, Washington, etc. said:
All churches, Jewish, Christian, or Turkish [Islam], are human inventions, to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.
Christianity is a parody on the worship of the sun, in which they put a man called Christ in the place of the sun, and pay him the adoration originally paid to the sun.
Show me similar studies conducted in Sweden, comparing the same values in a setting where there is no social stigma for being an atheist, and conducting said studies do not require willingness to openly wear a label that's considered as nothing less than a brand of evil by something like half the population, then I'll take a serious look at the data.
BTW before you go touting teen pregnancy studies you might want to look at a comparison of the US and Western Europe's rates.
The problem with these studies is you are automatically selecting for a factor with negative consequences on one side and not the other, given that it's surprising to me that the results are not more lopsided.
All the people surveyed as atheists in these studies are willingly identifying themselves as an otherwise unidentifiable minority that carries a significant social stigma. This is antisocial behavior.
Before you say I'm bashing atheists, know that I AM an atheist, but it's still true.
These studies are almost all fundamentally flawed. If I used the sorts of methods these people used and did analysis to skew my results, I could prove conclusively that Religion is the worst thing that ever happened to man.
Honestly. The methodologies and analyses are terribly flawed.
As an example, "Koenig, H.G." seems to make the same mistake repeatedly. A lot of his studies is a variation of the same, that is showing a connection between health of elderly people and their religious activity/attendance.
Problem is that it is to be expected, that elderly with increased health problems, have decreased activity in pretty much anything. So, showing that elderly who attend church often is of better health than those that don't, is rather pointless.
Good point, a different operational definition such as religiosity measured by interview, survey, knowledge/understanding of their faith etc.. which could be equally completed by both very sick and very healthy individuals would work much better
Although every single study ever conducted is flawed, you have not shown that any of those used have characteristics that would allow one to skew results towards his/her opinion.
(I'm not saying whether they do or don't, I haven't reviewed them either)
I very much like how you provide evidence for your statements, but as you know there is a counter statistic to many of the stats you provided us with, I wish I could give links in this msg... Example, the stat stating those who pray recover faster in illness etc than those who do not, suggesting that prayer makes a difference, there are a number of studies done that refute this state and their methods of testing were more sound. Many of the stat finders here are religious based. (look it up)
yeah and i could make a video 20 billion times longer than this one describing the negative affects of religion on humanity.....im not saying there arent benefits..but the negatives outweigh the positives BY FAR
In fact, If you enjoy debating Christians, great, it keeps them too busy to be smoking dope, getting drunk, making babies out of wedlock and the other things republican vice presidential candidates children like to do. But dont bother to try to enlighten them. Do it because it keeps them off the streets from committing crimes.
As opposed to what? The point of statistics is to validate a claim. I'm making the claim that religion has positive health and social benefits, and I'm substantiating it with evidence.
If you wish, you can be illuminated by the association between religiosity and all of the points listed in the video.
I'm not here to prove God; these statistics are equally valid even if no god exists. I'm just here to answer the question the the title of the video asks.
I didn't directly state that there was a causation, although there very well could be, and in many cases, probably is. Hence though the reason why I put 'X is associated with' and not 'X causes' for the statistics in this video.
So what does imply causation? what conclusions. The only conclusion drawn is that people who practice a religion have generally healthier lives. These stats prove just that.
"That's ridiculous, what are your sources, because they're unreliable. "
Well... all the references I have on ciggarete, alcohol, and drug abuse come from the following venues (yes, all of them). You tell me whether or not my sources are unreliable:
J. of Deviant Behaviour J. of Drug and Alcohol Abuse J. of Comprehensive Psychiatry J. of Religion and Health J. of Addiction J. of substance abuse J. of Early Adolescence J. of Religion and spirituality J. of Studies on Alcohol The Report The Psychological Bulletin The American Psychological Association The National Center on Addiction and Substance abuse
Oh, you also forgot to mention the negatives: -The millions of people killed in religious terrorist bombings. -The constant living in fear of hell. -The holy wars, millions dead. -Corruption in the church. -The slowing down of scientific process (IE: Astronomy was illegal during the Dark Ages because of the church, etc.) -Religious controversy. -Self-dilusion. -The cause of African-American slavery. -The lack of prevention of dieseases. I see religion is a placebo.
All of these benefits to society as suggested by the video. But let's take America as an example. Arguably the largest Christian nation with 85% of the people Christian. Disease and poor health, crime and mental illness rampant. The social structure of this country being very poor compared to many Scandinavian countries with far less believers. This is a poor argument for mindless religion. A drunk is said to be happier when drunk too. What does this tell us? Same argument. Derp!
bigboy45454545 1 month ago
. . . . . Continued from previous . . . Religion inspires violence. Look at all the wars in the name of religion. Ever hear of Daniel Pearl? He's a rabid Christian Fundamentalist who advocates beating children, even 2 year old infants, with a length of quarter-inch plumbing supply line, just for crying too much. Sorry, but I have to disagree with the whole premise of this video. Religion is the cause of much evil in this world. Hey boys and girls! Can you say, Inquisition?
BigFatHeretic 6 months ago
I don't get it! I've been hearing and reading that the divorce rate is lower among atheists than among the religious denominations. Also, atheists make up the lowest percentage of our prison populations. About 39% percent of prison inmates are Catholic and 35% percent are Protestant, but atheists make up less than 1% percent of prison inmates.During 10 years in Sing-Sing those executed for murder, 65% Catholics, 26% Protestants. Atheists, 37% of total USA population. - To be continued . . .
BigFatHeretic 6 months ago
@BigFatHeretic
1) That divorce statistic comes from a single study that has been copied and pasted ad nauseum among atheist sites
2) There are several benefits to identifying with a religion in prison. The better question to ask is why the religious are far less likely to reoffend.
3) Religion was a contributing factor in only a few wars throughout history.
3) To train up a child? Yes, I heard of that.
4) Ah, an atheist who chooses to hate despite the evidence. Typical.
UNFFwildcard 6 months ago
-->When people are free to chose, they indeed make mistakes, but also learn from those mistakes.So, such a freedom might come at the price of a society of worse persons, but at the long term I think it offers greater knowledge of how society and the self actually work.This is a personal opinion, though, so I could be mistaken.I would like to see your opinion on that matter, and to apologise if my choice of words is poor.
kain5056 6 months ago
I like this video, and I agree that religion offers a more stable environment that helps the person and the society.However, It is the same benefit that a dictatorship may offer in a strong country.Germany was strong and stable with Hitler, after all.So, I think that, like a dictatorship, religion may have benefits but at the price of certain freedoms, offering us directions but no actual choice, thus making people act better as members of a society by blindly obeying, instead of knowing why.-->
kain5056 6 months ago
I also believe that if this country were not built upon secular ideals we would be totally screwed. I hear people say all the time that America is a "Christian Nation". If that were true gays would be dead, adulterer's would be dead, non virgin brides would be dead, non-believers would be DEAD. Granted that's IF christians actually followed the fundamental proponents of their holy book.
Clubbingshawn 8 months ago
You fail to mention the underlying benefits that all these people received. Which was medical care, a product of science. Science isn't atheism I know. But right now, in the present day, Christians in America are doing their best to STOP the progress of science, specifically medical science. Which has been the case throughout the history of religion. Not to mention all the civil rights people have been denied because of religion. Secularism undeniably helps mankind more than religion.
Clubbingshawn 8 months ago
Most of what you claim is either speculation, propaganda, or unprovable. However, I would prefer a shorter life span firmly rooted in logic and reason.
BENFICA60 8 months ago
thanks for the awesome video i have a presentation on how religion benifits socitey and this has started me in the right direction its so hard to find something so good in a positive light of religion and dont worry i am not copying your hard work onto my presentation it has just help
keep up the good work
god bless
downright92 10 months ago
Does religion benefit Society? That's a rhetorical question, that's like saying would it benefit a blind person to have a regular book? No because religion supposedly makes a person "better" but they stay in the same position as a person. If you really wanna better you're self you have to show discipline you don't need religion or no bible or Quran to innovate yourself. Religious people claim they're Godly people, but rarely ever show it.
thedeadlyflow 1 year ago
im a saved christian and im proud of it, to me it seems like the majority of atheist are bitter people who seem to be even more bigots then a lot of religious sects. "oh this person has a belief he's no good"
jc1daddy2 1 year ago
@jc1daddy2
Yet some how it's not the atheists who are bitterly defensive because their associations have been consistently charged with the sexual abuse of small children (catholicism) or condoning death sentences for apostasy while turning a blind eye to rape and honour killings (ala Pakistan and Saudi Arabia etc). If we sound bitter, it's probably because we cannot believe that people from such backgrounds still manage to find the nerve to tell us all about morals. Can you really blame us?
sanzar 1 year ago
@sanzar im not catholic, or an islamic extremist, but i wonder if u believe religion is some sort of force that makes people perfect ill let u know right now it isnt. religion isnt perfect but the God i serve is perfect, relgion is just a title. people will forever be imperfect but i still strive to be as Christ just like any other christian and other relgiouns stive for gd. just because theirs the few that r a little sick or crazy doesnt me all of us r.
jc1daddy2 1 year ago
@jc1daddy2
One last point: what does it mean to be a saved christian? Why were you/need to be saved, and why are you proud of it?
You're in the US, so I imagine that having religion as an identity proves you with support, community and probably even helps grant you acceptance (given how intolerant Americans seem to be of non-believers). I'm an Australian however, so to me it's more curious than anything, as we're far more relaxed about faith here. If you believe, fine. if not, fine ;) .
sanzar 1 year ago
@sanzar bing saved is excepting Christ as ur saviour to take u to heaven wen u die we all need to be saved bcuz none of us are gd and cant enter heven bcuz it is perfect. so Jesus the son of God came here as man through the virgin birth and cleansed our sins away so we can go 2 heaven. im proud bcuz i will live eternally in heaven with my heavenely father and not hell. America is the land of the free u believe watever u want ur choice, or was dere a stoning of an athiest i missed?;)
jc1daddy2 1 year ago
@jc1daddy2
America calls itself the land of the free, but most other Western countries would probably beg to differ...
For instance, Australia and New Zealand have had several Prime Ministers that were either Atheist or agnostic, but have also had religious ones. How many US presidents have been elected that were openly Atheist or Agnostic in living memory? This is what I'm talking about. Yes, you're legally free to believe what you want, but atheists are still discriminated against in the US.
sanzar 1 year ago
@sanzar the US is a young country only 234yrs old, second of all we were founded on christian principle, 3rd we have separation from church and state, 4th the majority of the people in this country have somewhat of a christian backround thus the people tend to elect important officials that share their same view, and please expalin how we r not free i would love to hear ur explaination, and i take it i answered all ur previous questions since now it seems we r arguing about freedom in the US
jc1daddy2 1 year ago
@jc1daddy2
Yes, you're a young country. So? Second, Thomas Jefferson was one of your founding fathers and was a Deist, not a Christian. Indeed, your early principles owed more to the European enlightenment movement in many ways than Christianity. It's just your right wing shock jocks who lead you to believe you were always this insanely christian.
Next, I didn't say you were not free, simply that by the standards of other Western democracies, you're grossly intolerant toward non-believers.
sanzar 1 year ago
@sanzar have u seen our money it says in God we trust the pilgrims came here because of relgion persecution so we yes we have a christian foundation, mayb u didnt understad my previous reason y their isnt any atheist presidents atheist in the us is roughly 20% of the population the rest have some sort of belief thus they want 2 c their president share their same beliefs is that so hard 2 understand?
jc1daddy2 1 year ago
@jc1daddy2
Actually, the "in god we trust" bit was added in the last century... how do I know this and you don't when it's supposed to be your country? Australia also has only about 20% of its people as non-believers FYI, but that doesn't stop people voting for policies over which fairy tales their leaders follow. Just to bring the point home for you...
sanzar 1 year ago
@sanzar still christians were the 1st to colonize successfully from the east, the majority of our people are believers thus the people in our government represent the majority dont know wat so hard to understand bout that
jc1daddy2 1 year ago
@jc1daddy2
It's not hard to understand at all: in the US people vote on religious beliefs more than on policy lines. It's simple, but that doesn't mean it's a good thing...
sanzar 1 year ago
@sanzar dont demean peoples beliefs just bcuz u have none of ur own. we shall see who was right or wrong once we die
jc1daddy2 1 year ago
@jc1daddy2
*sigh* how is it that you religious types manage to maintain such a simplistic view of existence? It's like you're all children trapped in a fairytale that you refuse to wake up from. FFS none of the big three have managed to come up with a coherent response to Epicurus despite having 2000 years to think about it.
I can only conclude that you're all too terrified to even contemplate the prospect of oblivion after death.
sanzar 1 year ago
@sanzar im not im perfecting fine with death im going 2 heaven i have nothing 2 wrry about my friend
jc1daddy2 1 year ago
@jc1daddy2
Hey, believe whatever you want. Some people are very so confident that they'll receive 72 virgins for murderous suicide acts that they blow themselves up. Doesn't mean they're going to get it though ;) .
sanzar 1 year ago
@sanzar yea and others are so confident that they believe their is nothing after death doesn't mean its true ;)
jc1daddy2 1 year ago
@jc1daddy2
It doesn't but logic is generally a useful tool in deciphering how the world works and predicting likely outcomes. Heaven and hell and the eternal survival of the ego has no rational basis.
sanzar 1 year ago
@sanzar 1 like i said b4 we shall c whos right wen we die
jc1daddy2 1 year ago
@sanzar yea i forgot to lament the "discrimination" against atheist here in the US all those years of us enslaving, segregating, lynching, and denying u the right to vote...... oh wait that was black people..... now i remenber we make atheist ware symbols on their right arm marking them wait a minute dats not right either.... mayb we exploit u and deny u citizenship no we do dat 2 mexicans....... dont wrry itll come 2 me sooner or later
jc1daddy2 1 year ago
@jc1daddy2
Yep, you have a sordid history of racial discrimination. How exactly does this change the fact that in the US an atheist who attempts to achieve high office has all the stigma of a leper irrespective of their policies? I remember reading a study showing that in the US Atheists were the least trusted social group. Again, I didn't say that you aren't legally free in you're country, simply that - as an Atheist - I'm glad as heck I live in Australia and not in your country.
sanzar 1 year ago
@sanzar where do u get off using such wrds as "grossly intolerant" go to iraq being a christian,51 worshipers and 2 priests and a subsequent series of bombings and assassinations singling out Christians, if u want "grossly intolerance" their u will find ur place, so dont just throw that phrase around just becuz u cant hold office due 2 the fact only 20% of the country shares ur view
jc1daddy2 1 year ago
@jc1daddy2
You're acting as if I'm attacking you. Your argument is predicated on the fact that there are much worse things out there, but that's not the point. It's like me telling you that you should smoke because it's bad for you and instead of accepting the fact you get defensive and say "where do you get off telling me smoking is bad? in some places people eat razor blades! Now THAT's bad!"
By the standards of other WESTERN DEMOCRACIES the US has a greater level intolerance toward atheism.
sanzar 1 year ago
@sanzar wen u say "grossly intoreant" u make it seem as though we spit on atheist on the street, or boycott anything atheist own, even persecute them. none of that happens atheist have the same opportunities as everyone else. ur saying we are intolerant due to no elected officials wrong, Pete Stark in congress,Ernie Chambers senator, we also never elected a female president mayb we are intolerant to women as well according 2 ur reasoning
jc1daddy2 1 year ago
@jc1daddy2
Maybe you are... In Australia we have a Prime Minister that is both female and an Atheist. But look, I accept that the US is a big place, but I've read articles talking about atheists being ostracised and virtually forced out of towns in the bible belt. Indeed, one story I read talked about how one young girl stopped going to school because the abuse she received was just too much to bare.
Again, by the standards of other western states you are actually very intolerant.
sanzar 1 year ago
@sanzar oh yes im sorry i forgot their r no acts of discrimination in Australia the perfect country.
jc1daddy2 1 year ago
@jc1daddy2
Nope, plenty of discrimination here and issues with the indigenous community. We're definitely far from perfect and I'll happily admit that. Still, as an Atheist I'm still very glad that I grew up here and not in the US. Why is it so hard for you to accept that there are countries a lot of people would rather live than America? Does it some how make you doubt all that crap about the US being "the greatest country on earth" etc? Because if that's the case you're pretty insecure.
sanzar 1 year ago
@sanzar America is the greatest country on earth imo, but most believe that about their own country the only prob i have is u saing how theirs so much discrimination hear against atheist atheist have to be last on the list of group of ppl most discriminated against in our country. im not saying discrimination is gd cuz its not jesus told us we should love our neighbors and enemies, all im saying is dat is discrimination everywhere some worst than others and here its the lowest level
jc1daddy2 1 year ago
@jc1daddy2
Actually, in my experience it's mostly Americans who believe their country is the greatest on earth... in other countries it's only the maladjusted nationalistic maniacs who really think that way. Not really sure what that says about you...
I certainly have never thought Australia was the "greatest country on earth" for the simple reason that such a statement is ridiculous. Greatest at what exactly?
sanzar 1 year ago
@sanzar i dont think dats being arrogant i feel as though every1 should feel that way about their counrty. in ur point of view people who would never leave their country for another and truly love their country are "maladjusted nationalistic maniacs" den my friend im afraid dats most of the world. Greatest meaning u wouldnt go anywere else. if u dont think austrlia is the greastest country y do u sti dere? mayb uv heard it more from Americans since most of us are extremely happy living here.
jc1daddy2 1 year ago
@jc1daddy2
I guess it's just a matter of how much you respect the language your using. Your use of English is deplorable and I guess that's partly responsible for our failure to see eye to eye here. Saying "greatest in the world" does sound arrogant and I'd suggest your experience of the rest of the world is limited if you think that.
I have actually lived in other countries (Sweden and Japan) and enjoyed my time in both, but I still love Australia for its beaches, relaxed attitude and people.
sanzar 1 year ago
@sanzar saying that ur own country is the greastest of the world is equilvalent to a parent saying u have the best son or daughter in the world and its ashame u cant understand texting lingo in this day in age
jc1daddy2 1 year ago
@jc1daddy2
texting lingo is for mobile phones and for people you are familiar with; it's not for discussions about faith and politics.
Furthermore, when parents say they have the best child in the world they generally say it to the child or people very close, they don't go around to strangers houses and tell them your child is the best.
What's a shame is that you don't understand the importance of context and haven't developed the ability to write properly despite being in your 20s.
sanzar 1 year ago
@sanzar You are correct, my grammar has been atrocious in this discussion, I apologize. I have been following the trend of poor grammar used online but that does not make it right. I apologize once again. Now back to the argument at hand, when someones says anything is "the greatest thing on Earth" that phrase pertains to the individual. Ex I may say pizza is "the greatest food on Earth" while you say no chicken is. Also have you ever heard there is no place like home, many feel that way
jc1daddy2 1 year ago
@sanzar Also you haven't answered my previous question when I asked why do you still live in Australia if you don't believe it's the greatest country on Earth.
jc1daddy2 1 year ago
@jc1daddy2
That's a non-sequitur; one doesn't have to believe in the innate superiority of the place one lives simply to live in it. I live in Australia because it is the country that reared me, provided me with my education and is the setting for many dear memories. I care about my friends, my family and my community and they are almost all in Australia, so by extension I have a fondness for the nation itself (though nations are inherently "imagined communities").
sanzar 1 year ago
@sanzari feel the same way about America and thats why i believe its the greatest country on Earth for me
jc1daddy2 1 year ago
I don't feel the need to espouse the greatness of my country over all others to desire to reside in it. This is the same as I don't need to believe my father is the greatest father in the whole world in order to love and respect him. To me he is a great man and one that has provided me with a great deal that has helped me in my life. Why should I feel the need to believe or tell others "he is the greatest". Greatness is subjective; he is great to me and I need not bring others into the equation.
sanzar 1 year ago
@sanzar I live in the greatest country in the world in my opinion. Other countries are also great but I wouldn't feel as comfortable living their, since like I said before there is no place like home.
jc1daddy2 1 year ago
@jc1daddy2
Again, I think this is simply an American thing... for whatever reason through your "American exceptionalism" you have - what seems to outsiders - an insecure need to proclaim your greatness above all others. Perhaps this is a response to power and an inherent ignorance of the outside world. For the record, the only other people I have come across that think their country is the greatest are the Chinese (interestingly) and Turks (another country with a serious nationalistic streak).
sanzar 1 year ago
@sanzar You are failing to understand me, I do not believe or have said other countries are inferior, which I don't believe, all I'm saying is I love my country and I wouldn't live anywhere else thus for me the individual my country is the greatest in the world based on that reason. Now if I said America is the best country because our people are the best educated, intellectual superiors in the world than i can see why you would have a problem with that, but clearly I've never stated that pov
jc1daddy2 1 year ago
@sanzar "Perhaps this is a response to power and an inherent ignorance of the outside world" Well my good friend did you know that America is the1# country in world that gives foreign aid, thats right our tax dollars goes and helps other countries. Australia isn't event in the top 10, I guess we are giving our money to foreign countries blindly and ignorantly.
jc1daddy2 1 year ago
@jc1daddy2
This is the problem with your argument. You keep citing volatile 3rd world countries as your comparisons and extreme examples of intolerance, but all I'm saying is that as an Atheist you'd be far happier and less likely to experience social stigmatisation in pretty much any other DEVELOPED WESTERN DEMOCRACY outside the US. Why this is so hard to accept for you is a little hard for me to understand.
sanzar 1 year ago
theres still plenty of atheists hear no atheist rallies for eqaulity or protests so obviously this discrimantion is not dat big
jc1daddy2 1 year ago
@jc1daddy2
And women don't rally against sex crime in Saudi Arabia, does that mean the Kingdom is a bastion of equal opportunity and tolerance toward women?
In relative terms it's still better to live in the US than say Pakistan, but that doesn't make the US a tolerant society if you catch my drift.
sanzar 1 year ago
@sanzar well if they rally their theyll probably get stoned, and other women their agree in that custom as well. No society is 100% tolerant to all including urs so lets not b hypocrites shall we
jc1daddy2 1 year ago
@sanzar wait i didnt read that gd obviously no women wants to get sexually assaulted but like i said b4 theyll prob get stoned or punished brutally, here in America atheist just like any1 else is free to rally and protest but their not cuz its not a big issue.
jc1daddy2 1 year ago
@jc1daddy2
Not a big issue for you. But it's clearly an issue for atheists there given that people apparently get run out of towns in the bible belt for simply not believing.
sanzar 1 year ago
@sanzar huh allow me 2 repeat myself theirs discrimination EVERYWHERE obviously cases like the one u stated are extremely rare or atheist and Americans alike would have definitely protested or alt least bn on the news "atheist across the country are being thrown out of towns slowly becoming an epidemic" havnt hrd dat head liner yet have u?
jc1daddy2 1 year ago
@jc1daddy2
Ugh, it really is hard to decipher what you're trying to say with that grammar and spelling some times...
Yes, discrimination is everywhere to varying degrees, so why is it so hard for you to accept that your country is actually one of the least tolerant toward atheists among western democracies? Get over the nationalistic b*llshit. You are not actually your country.
sanzar 1 year ago
This is a wonderful video. But why only 2,000 views when a video proclaiming atheism as being 'more peaceful" than religion gets 100,000 views? It appears that the "atheist machine" refuses to accept truthful and accurate data. Well done.
hdregmore 1 year ago
This video has a low ranking because of the fanatical atheist mentality - "thumbs down" EVERY video which doesn't support them, often without watching it.
That was a good video btw!
YodatheJedi12 1 year ago
@YodatheJedi12 I agree.
hdregmore 1 year ago
where thinking ends religion begins.
Ja14111948 1 year ago
it's the placebo effect ......
Ja14111948 1 year ago
I took a few minutes to google divorce rates by religion and did not find any other large studdies besides the Barna study. If there are so many studies out there that refute this one why are they so hard to find. I actually paused your video for about 20 minutes while checking things out and the closest thing I found was a study which questioned 97 couples none of which were atheist. Please let me know of another large scale study.
zodiakranch 1 year ago
Religion causes the most murder
samuriguy909 1 year ago
I've heard these arguments before, but as someone who has spent some time in the intensely Christian United States and even more in the almost irreligious Japan I'm not so sure how strong these correlations really are. Japan has a form of ancestor worship through Shinto in place of the communal abramhamic faiths, yet Japan has a better all round standard of living, better health (much higher average life span), and a significantly lower crime rate. What role does religion play in achieving this?
sanzar 1 year ago
To add to that, Japan struck me as being intensely irreligious; culture, history and family was what people had in place of major religion and while the place isn't perfect, their vastly superior average health and longevity suggests that one doesn't need to be religious to live long (or have a low crime rate).
sanzar 1 year ago
@sanzar japan also is the country with the 5th highest suicide rate in the world
jc1daddy2 1 year ago
@jc1daddy2
Yes, but if you know anything about Japan you'd know that that has much to do with the intensely competitive and unforgiving work and education culture. Japanese is one of those rare languages that has a single word that means to work yourself to death (karo-shi). It's a stifling and painful existence for many and its the reason for the current social shift there
In any case, which is worse: 5th highest suicide rate or second highest murder rate in the developed world (US - after SA)?
sanzar 1 year ago
@jc1daddy2
Interestingly, even in spite of the high suicide rate, Japan still ranks among the best in health and longevity. This would suggest that those people that do escape the military like atmosphere of the corporate system lead quite healthy and happy lives once they retire.
sanzar 1 year ago
@sanzar i believe is do to their exercise routine at ther lunch breaks like yoga and their healthy diet of seafood, plus have u ever seen an obese japanese dat wasn't sumo, their are very rare
jc1daddy2 1 year ago
The word is 'than' not 'then'. Christ that annoys me.
Alright, so self delusion has benefits. Great, stay scared straight by hellfire and recover from mental illness using delusion as a crutch. Not for me. I'd rather face the world as it really is.
The claim of replacing church welfare programs with state run ones costing so much is bogus. Surely those good hearted people would be just as helpful without the threat of hell. Wouldn't they? If not then their charity is without merit.
Rated zero.
entwood 2 years ago 2
Your statement is a non-sequitor. Even if Christians were charitable purely out of hellfire, and even if this type of charity was without merit, this does nothing to render the claim of cost of replacement as 'bogus'. Replacing church welfare programs with state equivalents would be costly regardless of the motivations that procured the donations within the church programs in the first place.
I love atheists like you. You earn an up-thumb!
UNFFwildcard 2 years ago
It would be costly if the state had to pick up the bill. I would hope that those already motivated to help others in a church setting, would do so regardless of faith.
In which case the state would not have much slack to take up.
Cheers for the thumbs up.
entwood 2 years ago
@entwood if those religious people need a god to stay ‘good’. If that is really the case, then people like that disgust me.
paul12277 1 year ago
@entwood couldnt aree more. if they need a god to stay ‘good’. If that is really the case, then people like that disgust me.
paul12277 1 year ago
I've got some juicy tidbits of statistical video goodness, myself:
watch?v=goQajNcG39s
&
watch?v=mbef07aQtB8
Myxril 2 years ago
Dear UNFF According to social capital as a health determinant: having a sense of communal support is correlated with higher reports of general health and well being. Religion offers this sense of community support. Now... the question is, is the myth and superstition necessary? I bet it isn't. This research had it's origins in pondering why the US had such shiddy mortality rates when compared with scrubby broke ass nations.
Biter
elbowbiter1 2 years ago
@elbowbiter:
Myth and superstition? Yeah, ever hear of special pleading fallacy?
ogirv101 2 years ago
Special pleading fallacy? No... I have never heard of this. Enlighten me.
elbowbiter1 2 years ago
@elbowbiter1:
Religion is mythand superstition? Based on what claism do you make this? Oh yeah, you define religion, even if the definition is wrong, by your standards something is this and that.
You claim religion is a superstition and a myth, off your definition of what religion is. That's called a special pleading fallacy. What else would you like me to enlighten you on? =p
ogirv101 2 years ago
Dear Ogir, I would like to be enlightened on how your God, crucified himself for nine days, with his own spear through his ribs, to the tree of life (as a sacrifice to himself)? Do you sincerely believe that this is possible? It seems a stretch of the imagination to me. Please enlighten me.
Peace,
Biter.
elbowbiter1 2 years ago
@elbowbiter1:
I've been an Agnostic for a couple of months now, but I'll gladly explain your misconceptions. Firslty where do you get 9 days? Nothing in the gospels suggest how much time Jesus was crucified for. Furthermore, his own spear? No, the romans passed the spear through his ribs. The tree of life? Where do you get this from?
It's not about believing if it's possible. If we verify the the gospels as a historical document, we will see how valid it is. One should believe Jesus died.
ogirv101 2 years ago
Ogir, Nope, the literature clearly says, he was crucified and pierced through the ribs with his own spear. I'm sure I read it right. Doesn't say anything about the Romans. Should I view this as a historical document too then? If I don't does that mean it is completely untrue? Do you, by your own definition, believe that you should believe in Odin as his story can be viewed as a historical doc? Or perhaps his crucified Celtic counterpart Esus (hm... only one letter off)?
Peace,
Biter.
elbowbiter1 2 years ago
@elbowbiter1:
It does, does it? Mind giving me the verses in which it says, and I'll do some research for you. I'll consult some biblical scholars, I';ll ask the hebrew professor at my University about this.
As for Odin, no documents claim he was a historical figure? All the documents that have his name are about him being the God of war, Wisdom, and magic, or things of that nature. he is the chief God of many gods, and he is an anthropomophization of nature. Like Jesus, how?
ogirv101 2 years ago
@elbowbiter1:
Odin's story can't be viewed as a historical document. I don't see where you're getting this from. Furthermore, the earliest manuscripts being only 40-50 years after his death. Plato's earliest manuscripts are around 900 years after his death.
As for Odin, there are different depictions of him, and no reliable source. It doesn't even claim he was a human being. He's a god, who symbolizes something. It's an anthropomorphization?
ogirv101 2 years ago
@elbowbiter1:
Firstly there is little about Esus I could find, nothing about him being Crucified. Can you send me a document, or the reliable source in which they claim that Esus was crucified?
Also, Esus is one letter off from Jesus? Yeah, that was really ignorant. Jesus' real name was a Yeshua. Jesus is the greek translation of Yeshua. Esus is in anglicized, it's not even greek. You're talking on way different names, and no correllation. I can't find where Esus was crucified?
ogirv101 2 years ago
@elbowbiter1:
As for the ressurection. I can never be sure of what happened. Jesus could have undergone an extremely inprobable natural phenomenon. It could have been intentional in his part or freaking good luck. It could be that his followers lied, but it is difficult to accept this. Mainly because of Jewish moral law, form criticism of the earliest manuscripts of the Bible, and many other factors of why someone would lie about seeing Jesus and dying for the belief.
ogirv101 2 years ago
Dear Ogir, Ah, a fellow agnostic eh. Well then allow me to refine my approach. I believe you think I have some pejorative definition for the word myth. There is no need to take offense to this. True things can become myths and vice versa. When I say Mythology I am not meaning an 'untruth' I am saying we are left with only the shadow of the story. Which is exactly what you have described to me. So we are not at odds unless pride gets in the way.
Peace,
Biter.
elbowbiter1 2 years ago
Dear Ogir, I am quite well versed in Christian doctrine and am aware of Jesus' name and its cognates. Let's presume I know a little more than the basics and type at me with a little respect. We are diverging from the point I am trying to make. If you want a list of crucified deities... google it. Now back to special pleading: You condemn my idea based on special pleding based on semantics. Semantics we agree on no less. This is a sign you are spoiling for a argument.
Peace,
Biter.
elbowbiter1 2 years ago
@elbowbiter1:
Type at you with a little respect? I have, until you blatantly lied in my face. I'm an agnostic, but I see a liar when I see one. You tried to comapre Esus to Jesus, when their names are nowhere near the same (you pointed out that it's just missing the J). Then you claim Esus was crucified, despite any legitimate source for making the claim.
If I want a list of crucified deities, you want me to google it? Are you honestly still asking for respect?
ogirv101 2 years ago
Dear Ogir, Don't you find it interesting that the names are so close? Apparently modern day wanna be Druids are claiming that there is a connection. It is part of their mythos. I think it is interesting. Is it beneficial to society (the topic we should be discussing)? I think not. Druids could get the same benefits from joining a nudist colony. Or joining an active rec. league, or a biodiesel co-op. Or volunteering. That is my point, not what ever agenda you want to banter on about.
EB.
elbowbiter1 2 years ago
@elbowbiter1:
No, I don't find it interesting that they are so close, because they aren't really. Esus is an agnlicized name, Jesus a greek name, and Jesus' real name was Yeshua.
As for benefits, you don't seem to understand something. Christianity is a greater unifying force than an biodiesel co-op (lol). Christianity has a ceirtain ethical messege that inspires people to love and feel loved. You don't understand it, because you're stuck with your special pleadings.
ogirv101 2 years ago
Dear Ogir, I must have missed the one post... you finally stepped on the mine I hastely prepared for you. Now, you say Plato and the Gospels are historical documents (I personally dont care either way). Well by who's authority and by which stick to you measure which is or is not historical or mythological? By your own definition you'll be forced to invoke special pleading. ;) Good thing I didn't do that in my original post. You assumed you knew what I ment by myth and superstition.
Biter
elbowbiter1 2 years ago
@elbowbiter1:
I want you to give me a legitimate source. You're probably going to give me a source which Atheists themselves laugh at. Zeitgesit conspiracy theories are irrational, and if you want respect, you have to come up with something respectable. Not some irrational zeitgeist trash, or blatant lies about ceirtain celctic mythologies.
As for your definition of mythology, you placed it side by side with supersition. Superstition is false. So what are you saying?
ogirv101 2 years ago
Well according to religious athorities prior to the enlightenment and right up to the 19th century, headaches and mental illness were the result of demons. Don't sell me that xtianity is the only religion void of superstitions. The only reason you are having a tough time with this is beacuse of special pleading. Which again I didn't do in my original post. Let's stay on topic. The point of my Odin/Esus thing wasn't what you think it was. It was to trap you into special pleading.
Biter.
elbowbiter1 2 years ago
@elbowbiter1:
Christians have been superstitious, that doesn't mean Christianity itself endorses these superstitions. In fact, during the high middle ages, the Scholastics looked down upon the idea that headaches were caused by demons, they established methdological naturalism, and rather look for natural causes.
Furthermore, there were various Christians who opposed the idea that demons caused such, even though mainstream opinion thought it. Ever hear of hasty generalization fallacy?
ogirv101 2 years ago
Superstition is false? How so? Did I say superstition is false? Nope, you did though. Perhaps there is some truth to the superstition that chewing willow bark cures a headache. Perhaps knocking on wood or pitching salt over the shoulder has a placebo effect. I dunno do you? Care to do some more special pleading? Are these things necessary to social capital? I don't believe so. Evidence? Do you need to be superstitious to volunteer? Nope, is it benefitial to the volunteer and society, yep.
EB.
elbowbiter1 2 years ago
@elbowbiter1:
I don't care if you believe superstition is false, it is, because it goes agains the methdological naturalistic principle of scientific inquiry. Superstition goes against the principles of science, therefore false and irrational.
By the way, the placebo effect is explained naturally, Science has shown superstition to be false. Superstition is false, and you compared religion to it. I'm not making special pleadings, you're just trying to cover up.
ogirv101 2 years ago
You don't care if I believe superstition is false? Are you even reading anything I am typing at you? We are not in disagreement about the definitions of superstition and myth? You are like a crazy person!?! Please! Read what I am typing and not what you want me to be typing. Also, stop all the special pleading. You accuse me of it then you carry on, and on, and on, and on, doing it yourself? It's madness? Let your ego go and let's have a discussion. Christ sakes man.
Peace,
Biter.
elbowbiter1 2 years ago
@elbowbiter1:
Lol, you're one funny hypocrite. Have a nice day.
ogirv101 2 years ago
Dear Ogir, In sum: We are very alike in opinion. I think you feel like you have something to prove and wish to argue ever little chinsy dipshit point to a T so you can walk away with some satisfaction. You have been shown to be a little hypocritical, I have been shown to have been hasty with my Esus remark, which by the way you read too much into my meaning. So no, I invoked no special pleading unless you want to play at semantics. Why? We agree on the defs. Put your ego to bed, I have.
EB
elbowbiter1 2 years ago
These are usa stats. Now compair them to more secular societies and the usa mortality is lower.
cujomade101 2 years ago 2
@cujomade101:
Those secular societies aren't really that secular. Want to know why? Well, because Christianity has been in those countries far longer than in the USA. The culture of those secular countries are deeply cultivated in Christian morality.
Furthermore, if you look at so called secular societies in which Christianity has not been prevalent in history, like Japan. You will find suicide rates extremely high.
ogirv101 2 years ago
And the further the european countrie cut their ties to religion, the better they get.
cujomade101 2 years ago
@cujomade101:
You don't get it do you? Europe may have cut ties with the spiritual part of Christianity, but Christian ethics has only dwelled deper into European culture. So technically, and culturally Europe is nowhere near being a "Christian Continent". By the way, Christianity is still prevalent among Europe, you're acting like small countries like Sweden and Cezch republic make up the majority of Europe. In the larger nations, liek Germany and France, Christianity is still dominant.
ogirv101 2 years ago
Dear Cujo, You should weigh in on Ogir's comment. Seems odd doesn't it that first Ogir makes the claim that Christianity is the basis for good stats, then points out Japan? Japan has far better stats than some European countries yet Christianity is realatively new to her shores. Note that the specific suicide stat is used. Why not morbidity/mortality stats? Probably because it would work against the initial claim. ;) There's your weapon, happy cerebral dueling.
Peace,
Biter.
elbowbiter1 2 years ago
This makes me wonder how much better everything would be if there actually was someone watching us, 24/7. Tangibly. 1984 style. Bet statistics would be even better. Except maybe those for suicide.
n3rdm4n 2 years ago
religion can benefit society as well as make it worse by causing separation by placing ppl in certain groups. though i think this question is not as important as the question of whether a god as described by whatever religion is infact real or fantasy.
Even the Taliban brought in benefits however a little good does not justify it.
i don't think society will change too much if religion was total or gone as it is culture, your overall environment and yourself personally that effect morality etc
klasco1991 2 years ago
The reason this has a low rating is probably because you can cherry-pick to find some study to support absolutely anything. The question is whether the majority of studies share the same finding, and if the study was done honestly.
Although I can't look up every single statistic cited, some of them are quite jarring when compared to known statistics. For example all mainstream studies I find show that atheists/agnostics have the LOWEST divorce rate, but this says the OPPOSITE.(Just one example)
Flyborg 2 years ago
I find your statement quite ironic. You've said that people can cherry-pick a study to support their position, and that the conclusions are more valid when they are supported collectively by multiple independent studies. Every pro-atheist website and youtube video I've visited uses the exact same one and only source to validate their divorce claim:
Jews 30%
Born Again Xtians 27%
Other Xtians 24%
Atheist/Agnostic 21%
-Barna Group
UNFFwildcard 2 years ago 2
If the low atheist divorce rates is as mainstream and commonly known as you claim them to be, why is it that atheists insist on using the same one source (sometimes by copying and pasting from other websites), when I can go on the internet and find 8 other studies that contradict the atheist's conclusion in five minutes, if not for the reason than that there arn't any other sources to back up their own position?
UNFFwildcard 2 years ago
That's the result I get when searching google, shown on seemingly non-biased websites. It's shown in multiple places. The only way to find your source is to specifically search for it. Furthermore, the first source I found seemed to be about "what kind of relationship with God" people had. Red flags there.
Flyborg 2 years ago
Aslong as you guys don't sit on your asses waiting for a Saviour I have no problem with religious people.
But if you do please get off your ass and save yourself
FeroGotBalls 2 years ago
This video is a lie. Do some real research. It doesn't take long to find out the truth.
downtoearth9 2 years ago
When I read the teen pregnancy and STD spread part of your video, a question came to my mind: if the majority of teen pregnancies seem to come from right-wing, mostly religious states and areas, does the LEVEL of religion affect the society as well? Like, is moderate religious belief, like what you have, more of a benefit than fundamentalist belief? It seems that moderate theism is the better choice, but I want you input. Great vid, by the way.
ElDeclan 2 years ago
I'm not sure. If I remember correctly, I've seen some conflicting statistics that despute whether fundamentalist belief is better or worse than moderate belief in terms of common social problems. I'll have to look into that one some more.
UNFFwildcard 2 years ago
UNFFwildcard, You should look up the video "Religion and Social Problems" or use the video ID: watch?v=YxTZv8c_GBM.
You can find the study by Googling for "Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies"
as published in the Journal of Religion and Society.
artyfarty2 2 years ago
I have a question, Do the statistic in this video refer to people who have a religion in general or people who practice in general? There are alot of people who claim to be part of a religion, but many of them being hypocrites and don't even practice religion or even follow the teachings of their religion. Another video told me that Atheists were least likely to smoke than Christians, but I'm guessing it refers to Christians who don't practice Christianity.
ogirv101 2 years ago
Sorry for answering your question so late. It depends on the statistic. If it said, "People who believe in a higher being...X", then it's based off of belief and not on practice. However, if it said, "People who regularly attend religious services...X" then it's based off of behaviour and practice.
If you want a more detailed explanation you would have to look at the methods described in the publication itself, or look at the surveys they used.
UNFFwildcard 2 years ago
One cannot deny that the psychological effects of religion or the lack of, regardless of the validity of each, is significant. It is easier to feel secure in a religion with an afterlife than with a belief promising no life after death, if one is at imminent risk of death, there will be, psychologically speaking, less fear in a devout theist than an atheist, though this would vary greatly between each and every person. Still, this effect is not as significant as professed in the video.
SteelFyire 2 years ago
2:36 lol, why would anyone encourage schizophrenics to feel additional halucinations (god / jesus residing in their soul) in order to stop them from hallucinating?
kittygirl792 2 years ago
Please explain how God and Jesus are hallucinations, this was just an appeal to ridicule fallacy, come back with logical coherence.
ogirv101 2 years ago
oh hey, it's you again! r u sure u want someone who understands nothing about science to explain something to such an all knowing genius as yourself?
but ok... when ppl say that they feel the presence of god/jesus it's probably not true because it is way more likely that they are persuading themselves of feeling something that isn't there (aka a halusination) than the fact that their religion is the correct one and god/ jesus are indeed appearing to them.
kittygirl792 2 years ago
Oh my God, why did I even reply to you. Please just stop, you're one of the dumbest people I've met, I thought I was awnsering to someone else....
From the begginign I can see how irrational your claim is, you said 'it's probably not true', well it's true by fact that you're making a bare assertion fallacy and you're using circular reasoning. I also want your Ph.D. in Psychology, or any empirical peer-reviewed evidence for your claim, psychology is very unstable anyway though..
ogirv101 2 years ago
I'm familiar with many of those studies. It is a very dangerous and disingenuous use of them to say the least. Several of them have been proven to be completely false because of an ingrained bias in the way the study was conducted. Let alone that some of them are published by religious organizations with a bias for results. Which is why they've been ignored by everyone but Faux News. When a study cannot be relied upon because the methods used were questionable at best.
Blkphoenix7 2 years ago
And therefore any conclusions drawn from a flawed and biased source are tainted by said bias. Your video it therefore tainted and the conclusions unreliable. This is not to say that there are no positives that may result from Religion, but your conclusions as with those studies are flawed, lack standing in actual evidence as well as the fact that there is no investigation to verify from where the benefit derives and if its religion or just the calming effect that can be derived in other ways.
Blkphoenix7 2 years ago
Wait a second, did Jesus do all of that?
ogirv101 2 years ago
have you heard of northern ireland?
religion is the cause of the problems.
X0XPWNER123 2 years ago
Tom Paine, American founder, influenced Jefferson, Lincoln, Franklin, Washington, etc. said:
All churches, Jewish, Christian, or Turkish [Islam], are human inventions, to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.
Christianity is a parody on the worship of the sun, in which they put a man called Christ in the place of the sun, and pay him the adoration originally paid to the sun.
My own mind is my own church.
imaginethereisnogod 2 years ago
It does not matter what Tom Paine said.
simsimaz2 2 years ago
The point of studies are to look at a lot of data to see overall effects without being swayed by outliers
(although these studies, and no study for the matter, will encompass all possible information)
simsimaz2 2 years ago
Show me similar studies conducted in Sweden, comparing the same values in a setting where there is no social stigma for being an atheist, and conducting said studies do not require willingness to openly wear a label that's considered as nothing less than a brand of evil by something like half the population, then I'll take a serious look at the data.
BTW before you go touting teen pregnancy studies you might want to look at a comparison of the US and Western Europe's rates.
cyxgun 2 years ago
The problem with these studies is you are automatically selecting for a factor with negative consequences on one side and not the other, given that it's surprising to me that the results are not more lopsided.
All the people surveyed as atheists in these studies are willingly identifying themselves as an otherwise unidentifiable minority that carries a significant social stigma. This is antisocial behavior.
Before you say I'm bashing atheists, know that I AM an atheist, but it's still true.
cyxgun 2 years ago
These studies are almost all fundamentally flawed. If I used the sorts of methods these people used and did analysis to skew my results, I could prove conclusively that Religion is the worst thing that ever happened to man.
Honestly. The methodologies and analyses are terribly flawed.
Ozymandyus 2 years ago
Which particular publications did you look at?
UNFFwildcard 2 years ago
As an example, "Koenig, H.G." seems to make the same mistake repeatedly. A lot of his studies is a variation of the same, that is showing a connection between health of elderly people and their religious activity/attendance.
Problem is that it is to be expected, that elderly with increased health problems, have decreased activity in pretty much anything. So, showing that elderly who attend church often is of better health than those that don't, is rather pointless.
BentStigsen 2 years ago
Good point, a different operational definition such as religiosity measured by interview, survey, knowledge/understanding of their faith etc.. which could be equally completed by both very sick and very healthy individuals would work much better
simsimaz2 2 years ago
Although every single study ever conducted is flawed, you have not shown that any of those used have characteristics that would allow one to skew results towards his/her opinion.
(I'm not saying whether they do or don't, I haven't reviewed them either)
simsimaz2 2 years ago
I very much like how you provide evidence for your statements, but as you know there is a counter statistic to many of the stats you provided us with, I wish I could give links in this msg... Example, the stat stating those who pray recover faster in illness etc than those who do not, suggesting that prayer makes a difference, there are a number of studies done that refute this state and their methods of testing were more sound. Many of the stat finders here are religious based. (look it up)
Subfightr 2 years ago
yeah and i could make a video 20 billion times longer than this one describing the negative affects of religion on humanity.....im not saying there arent benefits..but the negatives outweigh the positives BY FAR
kateyaaa 3 years ago
kateyaaa, yes indeed, I agree with you.
In fact, If you enjoy debating Christians, great, it keeps them too busy to be smoking dope, getting drunk, making babies out of wedlock and the other things republican vice presidential candidates children like to do. But dont bother to try to enlighten them. Do it because it keeps them off the streets from committing crimes.
imaginethereisnogod 2 years ago
1 star for not citing sources.
TheRedneckAtheist 3 years ago
Epic fail for not checking video description or reading the several popups telling you to check video description.
UNFFwildcard 3 years ago
Now I can call you out on some bullshit.
For Citations 1,2,3,4 and 5.
In laymen terms:
When people are socially and mentally active, they live longer and people notice negative changes in health allowing medical intervention sooner.
I just love how you avoid the meaty parts like, you know, the conclusions!
TheRedneckAtheist 3 years ago
These statistics are valid irrespective of the existence of God. Everything you just said I already knew.
UNFFwildcard 3 years ago
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts -- for support rather than for illumination. "
-Andrew Lang
TheRedneckAtheist 3 years ago
As opposed to what? The point of statistics is to validate a claim. I'm making the claim that religion has positive health and social benefits, and I'm substantiating it with evidence.
If you wish, you can be illuminated by the association between religiosity and all of the points listed in the video.
I'm not here to prove God; these statistics are equally valid even if no god exists. I'm just here to answer the question the the title of the video asks.
UNFFwildcard 3 years ago
You're still not getting it, the statistics aren't worth crap when the conclusions say something else!
Correlation does not imply causation.
TheRedneckAtheist 3 years ago 2
I didn't directly state that there was a causation, although there very well could be, and in many cases, probably is. Hence though the reason why I put 'X is associated with' and not 'X causes' for the statistics in this video.
UNFFwildcard 3 years ago
So what does imply causation? what conclusions. The only conclusion drawn is that people who practice a religion have generally healthier lives. These stats prove just that.
cheesemonkey1990 3 years ago
lmao it's hilarious on youtube of all places where something gets voted down for not properly citing or referencing topics.
Fucking please, give the guy a break.
rba718 3 years ago
"That's ridiculous, what are your sources, because they're unreliable. "
Well... all the references I have on ciggarete, alcohol, and drug abuse come from the following venues (yes, all of them). You tell me whether or not my sources are unreliable:
American Journal of Epidemiology
American J. of public health
American J. of health promotion
J. of Gerontology
J. of Behavioral Medicine
J. of Psychology and theology
J. of sociological perspectives
J. of Sociological Forum
UNFFwildcard 3 years ago
UNFFwildcard 3 years ago
Religion just causes war, conflict, hate, violence, and stupidity.
XxXLucozadeXLoverXxX 3 years ago
No religion does not cause any of those things, your're thinking of fanaticism
auranit 2 years ago
Does religion benefit society?
yes
Greatslayerplayer 3 years ago
mitchewawa2 3 years ago