God: No magic required

[Darkstar]

The Catholic bishops claim that they are a persecuted minority.

Hence the 'war on Christmas', wherein Christians cry persecution whenever atheists try to uphold separation of church and state.

Atheists, Catholics, and Evangelicals all watch NFL football on big flat screens and drink craft beer while so doing. If they don't like football, they can choose between Hannity, Maher, Maddow, Limbaugh, Stuart, and so on. Life sure is tough for these persecuted minorities.

I was about to say "well, they're not legally disadvantaged" until I remembered that in seven states it is illegal for an atheist to hold public office. It would easily be shot down in a higher court, but still...

I'm not an expert on the UK, but do I listen to the BBC most nights. Don't see a lot of evidence for anti-atheist bias there.

I don't think it is nearly as prevalent in the UK.

So any atheist who (like Bill Maher, for example) chooses to make public derogatory remarks against religious people should realistically expect blow back, as well.

I can more or less understand that, an an atheist merely existing is considered derogatory to some Christians.

Discrimination against atheists

What's there to feel stressed about, much less persecuted?

I hesitate to say atheists are 'persecuted' because it seems like such a strong word (though they are persecuted in Islamic countries, where apostasy is punishable by death). The exact definition of persecute is:

per·se·cute transitive verb \ˈpər-si-ˌkyüt\
: to treat (someone) cruelly or unfairly especially because of race or religious or political beliefs

Unfairly? Perhaps. Cruelly? Mostly only in the Islamic countries, though some people can end up being disowned by their families for being atheist in the US. (I've little idea as to how frequently this occurs, though.)

[lweisenthal]

Höh, mikä törkimys, ei se sitten haluaa jutella mun kaa suomeksi..

Eller är du kanske finlandssvensk, från Pampas eller skärin och förstår inte finska?

Hi Kayenneh,

I don't speak/read Finnish; my maternal grandparents spoke Finnish at home as their native language. All of my maternal great-grandparents immigrated to Northern Wisconsin from Finland in the 1870s, to take advantage of the Homestead Act, in which Europeans could get 160 acres of free land in certain frontier regions of the USA by clearing the land, building a house, and living in the house for several years. Both of my maternal grandparents were born on those farms in the 1880s. They spoke Finnish as their first language at home, but, of course, learned English as they were growing up and went to school. They continued to speak Finnish at home and taught their children (including my mother) Finnish. My mother, in later adult life, was pretty good at understanding Finnish, but couldn't really speak it. I did learn some cuss words and when my grandmother was pleased with me she'd say:

hyvä poika

And, of course, I used to have a sign on my wall in my office at work which said, simply:

SISU

- Larry W/HB CA

[pineapplebunnybounce]

Agree wholeheartedly with rasetsu's reply, it's basically what I thought when you (OP) tried to establish or claim that there is a causal relationship between religiosity and health when there is only association. As for minority status and health, it's not so much the stress you physically feel, it's more about the stress you experience from different parts of life due to your minority status. If you have less community support or face more discrimination, it will have an effect on your emotional health and sometimes even financial capabilities, both of which, of course, have huge impacts on health.

---

Additionally, I don't think you have a good grasp on the scientific method or scientific evidence because you kept referring to your personal experiences as evidence.

[Kayenneh]

Oh Loki forgive me for the fallacy I'm about to commit!

You, sir, are not a True Finn TM!

[lweisenthal]

Hi Minimalist,

You say:

"Lots of things "could" happen. I don't have time for such idle speculation. Let's deal with facts."

Of course, I can't offer "proof" of "facts" (that the factual dark energy of the universe - or hypothetical dark energy of the multiverse - could contain organized sentience). What I have suggested is plausibility.

It was only after I decided that it was plausible that there could be a God that I decided that it wouldn't be a waste of my time to determine if it were possible to develop a belief in said postulated God through regularly participating in several types of religious services. Again, my motivation for so doing was that (1) I was impressed by the robust medical literature supporting the hypothesis that there are both mental and physical health benefits (including impressively increased longevity) associated with religiosity and (2) I had some personal behavioral issues which were refractory to secular management strategies.

So, as explained, I did what I did and it's thus far working for me. It doesn't mean that you need to do it yourself, and it certainly isn't offered as "proof" of anything. It's only offered to support the point of view that there are objectively rational reasons for people like me to actively explore the possibility of developing belief in something which is provable only at the level of the individual. Of course, I can't prove it to you, and I'll never have it proven beyond the shadow of a doubt to me (and many of the most famous religious people in history readily "confessed" to having doubts).

Another example: I believe that I'll live at least another ten years, and I live my life and make plans accordingly, even though I have an element of doubt about this, being a cancer doctor and knowing lots of people my age who have died of cancer. It's akin to not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. For me, religion comes down to plausibility, faith, and personally demonstrable benefits. But, of course, that doesn't "prove" anything to you. I never expected that it would.

- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

You (and others) demanded citations/links from me,

Um, no. I asked for evidence of this statement.

If the bioelectric energy of the human brain can organize itself into consciousness, then how can we be certain that the dark energy of our universe and/or the exotic energy of other universes cannot do so, also?

Lots of things "could" happen. I don't have time for such idle speculation. Let's deal with facts.

---

Oh Loki forgive me for the fallacy I'm about to commit!

You, sir, are not a True Finn TM!

My chromosomal DNA may be only 50% Finnish, but my mitochondrial DNA is 100% Finnish. - Larry W/HB CA

[Angrboda]

As I wrote, I "passed" for an atheist for more than 40 years. I can't think of any unusual "stress" that I felt because of this.

I don’t want this blog to be about me and my own specific beliefs. I have them (beliefs), but they aren’t of prime importance, nor would I ever claim my own particular set of beliefs to be “true,” much less “The True.” Eventually, I may get around to talking about them (my specific beliefs), but I want to consider first the Big Picture.

I’m a very long term agnostic/secular humanist who has sometimes risen to the spiritual level of Unitarian-Universalist. My intended audience would be like-minded people. If you are an already religious (or even spiritual) person or if you are a hard core atheist, then you are probably wasting your time. In my own case, I’d had a Big Bang, religious awakening as an adolescent boy, which, over time, faded away to mere background radiation. Religion made no sense to me, though I never got to the point of assertively declaring myself to be an atheist.

— Larry Weisenthal, The Physical Heretic blog (emphasis added)

[Kayenneh]

My chromosomal DNA may be only 50% Finnish, but my mitochondrial DNA is 100% Finnish. - Larry W/HB CA

But as an MD, you should know that some genes don't activate without the proper environmental triggers. The finnish gene is triggered in Finland, not the USA

[lweisenthal]

Hi Rasetsu, When I wrote that I "passed" for an atheist, what I meant was that I'd essentially become a secular agnostic, meaning that I had (and continue to have) an entirely secular marriage, raised my kids as secular humanists (I taught them that religion was a personal matter, which everyone needs to figure out for themselves, and that I didn't think it appropriate to indoctrinate kids into religious beliefs - or to indoctrinate them into non-beliefs). We didn't go to any form of church or other worship services. To the outside world, I was a totally secular, non-religious person. As I wrote in my blog, I had an early teenage "born again" experience, but this faded away to agnosticism, because I always had this little bit of what I call "background radiation" feeling of nagging religiosity. But I never told anyone about this: not my wife, kids, or outside world. To the outside world, I was a totally non-religious person. That's what I meant by "passing" as an atheist. Just as an aside, the type of theism to which I have ultimately gravitated is not of the "born again" persuasion.

I stand by my assertion that the average person who keeps his his/her own religious beliefs or non-beliefs private, as I did and as I advised my kids to do, would never have any reason to experience health-assaulting "stress." I don't know the religious beliefs or non-beliefs of the vast majority of people with whom I've worked or socialized over the course of my lifetime. Most people in a pluralistic society are sufficiently polite to respect the private religious beliefs of others and to keep their own religious views private. It's not staying in the "closet;" it's simply that it's not generally polite to proselytize, unless the person with whom you are speaking wishes to hear your views on religion, politics, or how they ought to be raising their children, whom they should be dating, etc.

Now, if one makes the voluntary decision to wear one's religion (or non-religion) on one's public sleeve, then one should be prepared for the fact that the world doesn't universally share the same belief (or non-belief), and one should expect blow back from certain segments of society. I like to have stimulating exchanges of ideas; so my main hobby over the past 20 years has been discussing/debating everything from politics to sports to nutrition to religion on Internet discussion boards. I've gotten tons of blow back in each case: I'm a liberal, so I like to debate politics with conservatives on conservative blogs. I'm into fitness and health and I've enjoyed debating various types of diets and training programs on nutrition and sports blogs with people who have different ideas. On religion blogs, I've had very vigorous debates with conservatively doctrinal theists (I trust that it's apparent that I'm not your typical dogmatic theist). And now I'm grateful for the forbearance of the editor(s) of this particular forum in allowing me to present and defend my views.

The point is that whatever "stress" I am now experiencing as a result of my exposing my own religious views to public scrutiny is entirely self-inflicted and entirely voluntary. Most people don't choose to wear their theism or atheism on their public sleeves and are therefore spared this type of "stress." (n.b. this little side debate about the alleged "stress" associated with being an atheist in American society was raised as a response to my citations of the mental and physical health/longevity advantages associated statistically with theism, in comparison with atheism).

- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

As I wrote, I "passed" for an atheist for more than 40 years. I can't think of any unusual "stress" that I felt because of this.

Resetsu quotes me, from my blog:

I don’t want this blog to be about me and my own specific beliefs. I have them (beliefs), but they aren’t of prime importance, nor would I ever claim my own particular set of beliefs to be “true,” much less “The True.” Eventually, I may get around to talking about them (my specific beliefs), but I want to consider first the Big Picture.

I’m a very long term agnostic/secular humanist who has sometimes risen to the spiritual level of Unitarian-Universalist. My intended audience would be like-minded people. If you are an already religious (or even spiritual) person or if you are a hard core atheist, then you are probably wasting your time. In my own case, I’d had a Big Bang, religious awakening as an adolescent boy, which, over time, faded away to mere background radiation. Religion made no sense to me, though I never got to the point of assertively declaring myself to be an atheist.

— Larry Weisenthal, The Physical Heretic blog (emphasis added)

[Neo-Scholastic]

Too many assertions. Maybe you could narrow it down to an actual topic.

[lweisenthal]

Hi Chad, My main assertions are simply the following:

(1) There are objective "this life" personal advantages associated with theism, as opposed to atheism, in terms of mental and physical well-being, including longevity.

(2) Therefore, it is not irrational for a present day non-theist to determine if it's possible for he/she to morph into a theist.

(3) Theism is perfectly compatible with state of the art knowledge and theory, relating to physical cosmology, without the need to invoke mysticism or magic.

The rest is mainly responding to the comments of others, with a bit of self-indulgent bloviating.

Cheers!

- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

Too many assertions. Maybe you could narrow it down to an actual topic.