Atheism and suicide

[downbeatplumb]

It's probably because the dominant religions teach if you commit suicide, it's a one way ticket to hell.

This does seem the most rational explanation.

True believers will put up with whatever because they are scared of hell.

[Godscreated]

Ignoring a situation doesn't make it better.

[Simon Moon]

Correlation does not equal causation.

When people get into a place where they might consider suicide, they are more likely to go through with it if they lack a support system.

Religions have a built in support system. They can even go to a church, synagogue or mosque in another city besides their own and have the same support system.

Atheists don't commit suicide more because of their lack of belief in gods, it's because they tend to lack the type of extended support system that theists have.

[Violet]

Ignoring a situation doesn't make it better.

It can.

And this is why you can never have nice things.

[mralstoner]

I have no proof, but I can see reasons why atheists would be more inclined to suicide:

1. Atheists are typically white Westerners, who's place in the world is on the decline. White kids are increasingly growing up to realise that there is no sane leadership representing their interests. Their countries are being overrun by immigration, their economies are stagnant and debt laden, etc. Throw in the global warming scare, the "Asian century" mantra, and lots of white kids are growing up with an apocalyptic end-times outlook. And physically a lot of white kids are born weak with health problems, due to unnatural lifestyles of their parents. Fragmented culture, the rise of uncivilised behaviour, etc. In summary, you might say that white Western civilisation is going the way of the Roman empire. Add to that the liberal one-world open-borders ideology just doesn't turn people on: we are evolved for smaller, stable and homogeneous environments. White kids probably grow up and think their leaders have gone mad.

The Chinese are atheist but I'm not aware of a suicide problem there (unless you're a factory worker under pressure). Compared to white people, I guess their culture/country is more stable, and their economic outlook is much better.

2. The atheist community is having a hard time (a) articulating a clear philosophy/lifestyle for its followers and (b) organising itself on a scale big enough to become a credible group.

The bottom line: atheism/humanism has a crisis of leadership, as do whites/Westerners. These problems are huge, but solvable. But it's going to take a new breed/generation of atheist leaders, who are more concerned with a positive outlook rather than simply bashing religion.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

2. The atheist community is having a hard time (a) articulating a clear philosophy/lifestyle for its followers and (b) organising itself on a scale big enough to become a credible group.

The bottom line: atheism/humanism has a crisis of leadership, as do whites/Westerners. These problems are huge, but solvable. But it's going to take a new breed/generation of atheist leaders, who are more concerned with a positive outlook rather than simply bashing religion.

There are a lot of holes in your post, but I want to take this one up.

People need to get out of the mindset that atheism is a 'movement' or a 'philosophy'; its not. It's a lack of belief in a god or gods and that's it. Atheists can be disestablishmentarianists, secularists, conservatives, socialists, Eco-warriors, homeopaths etc etc. the only thing that 'unites' us is a lack of belief in a god or gods.

I don't want a movement, I don't want a leader telling me what to fucking do, and I certainly don't want to be viewed as a 'credible group'.

In the 2009 BSA survey 50% of respondents indicated that they had no belief in the UK. Every single one of those people have their own individual take on morality and 'life' in general, and certainly don't need a person trying to homogenize them. Why? Because its impossible to homogenize people into a 'group' that attempts to preach on morality and society when the only thing that unites them is a lack of something, and too right!

In short, I thinks you've got the completely wrong end of the stick about what atheism actually is, and what atheists actually believe. For example, humanism is not synonymous with atheism. Whilst all humanists may be atheists (I don't know if that's true), certainly not all atheists are humanists. Same with secularism, which is another [political] concept that often gets misunderstood to be a 'tenant' of atheism.

[mralstoner]

I don't want a movement, I don't want a leader telling me what to fucking do, and I certainly don't want to be viewed as a 'credible group'.

You do, in effect, favour a movement. Let's call it: radical individualism.
You paint me in the other extreme corner, let's call me: homogeneous fascist.
There's a whole world in between these two demented extremes, but your mind is so black-and-white that I'm not even going to bother debating you. If you want to be a radical individualist then fine, but it's kind of ironic that you want to deprive me of the right to building something more substantial, ordered, compelling, instructive, educational, fulfilling, powerful, and lasting than individual anarchy (which will be consigned to the dust-bin of history by the first ordered/cohesive group that rises in the power vacuum that radical individualism leaves). History is about the struggle between groups. Only ordered/functional/cohesive groups survive. It's called group fitness, I believe, in evolutionary terms. Atheists, of all people, should understand this.

[Esquilax]

Uh, guys? Why are we even giving this study the time of day? Are any of you seriously reading the language even in the extract the OP gave ("Came from pond scum"?) and not seeing an emotive, religiously motivated bias? Really?

[Fidel_Castronaut]

I don't want a movement, I don't want a leader telling me what to fucking do, and I certainly don't want to be viewed as a 'credible group'.

You do, in effect, favour a movement. Let's call it: radical individualism.

FALSE

Did you not read what I wrote in response to your point? Why are you judging my perspective on philosophical/political/social norms and realities based purely on my atheism?

Don't tell me what I do and don't want. You know nothing about me.

You paint my in the other extreme corner, let's call me: homogeneous fascist.

STRAWMAN.

Now you're just debating with yourself. I've not once called you a homogenizing fascist (??? Nonsensical term, nonsensical post). I made a point about the futility of collectivization through atheism, but you've seemingly equated that to all philosophical and political viewpoints. Again, utter nonsense.

There's a whole world in between these two demented extremes, but your mind is so black-and-white that I'm not even going to bother debating you.

There's nothing to debate. You're wrong. It's really that simple. Atheism is nothing like what you describe, so at this point, its you debating with yourself. Have fun, snookams!

If you want to be a radical individualist then fine, but it's kind of ironic that you want to deprive me of the right to building something more substantial, ordered, compelling, instructive, educational, fulfilling, powerful, and lasting than individual anarchy (which will be consigned to the dust-bin of history by the first ordered/cohesive group that rises in the power vacuum that radical individualism leaves). History is about the struggle between groups. Only ordered/functional/cohesive groups survive. It's called group fitness, I believe, in evolutionary terms. Atheists, of all people, should understand this.

You can build whatever you want, but please, stop strawmanning me and replying to invented positions you imagine others to hold.

You've completely missed the point of what I wrote in my last post, so, I'll take up your mantra and agree that debating with someone who enjoys inventing opinions that others hold and investing time in demolishing them is not worth while. You clearly didn't read what I had written and instead transposed my perfectly valid and consensual point about atheism onto, seemingly, everything else.

Enjoy creating your 'collective of atheists' cupcake, I'm sure you'll get a large show of hands from people on here that think you're totally rational and worth the time.

[mralstoner]

I made a point about the futility of collectivization through atheism, but you've seemingly equated that to all philosophical and political viewpoints. Again, utter nonsense.

1. All atheists are human.
2. All humans have desires/preferences/ethics/philosophies/politics.
3. Therefore all atheists have desires/.../politics.
Does the word 'atheism' involve desires/.../politics, or should that word be restricted to merely talk about lack-of-belief in gods?
Answer: who gives a shit? For all practical purposes atheism involves philosophy. And I haven't tried to group all atheists into the same philosophy. Next time, throw your pedantic dictionary and fear of atheist collectives out with your teddy bear.