everyone (else) seems to be hating on atheists

[Aiza]

The part you have in quotations. What are you quoting from?

No one. Its just all we can tell from the study.

Except those studies don't focus on the irreligious as usually understood (agnostics, atheists, humanists, freethinkers). They focus on how much time people spend in church. They're studies of religious slackers PLUS the irreligious. Given that atheists are a small minority and theists are a large majority who do you think most of the people identified as 'irreligous' in those studies are? How many of the people on Jersey Shore do you think are atheists?

Actually measures of religiosity depend per the study, with church going being a very popular measure of public religiosity. You pointed out yourself that not all atheists are "irreligious"--hell, a full 3% of atheists, agnostics and those with 'no religion' consider themselves to be 'very religious'.

I have no idea how many members of Jersey Shore are atheist since I don't watch the program. From what I've seen they certainly don't seem terribly devout.

I'm out of touch with my former step-mother's family, but I believe she died a nun.

Oh I see, I had a brain fart and confused 'step aunt' with 'aunt by marriage', so I was wondering how she managed to marry your uncle as a nun. Nevermind.

I hope you get your favorite of the three, or whichever will make you a better nun.

Aw, thank you. I hope so too! But yeah I am getting way ahead of myself. I feel like a l0 year old girl thinking about her married name.

As a matter of pickiness, I will be a sister, not a nun. Nuns are cloistered and so never leave their convent. They pray, contemplate, study and do simple work in order to pay their own way (male equivalent is a monk). Sisters do work in the community, as teachers, working with the poor, in ministry, etc. (male equivalent is a brother or a friar).

Monks: http://www.carmelitemonks.org/
Friars: http://franciscanfriars.com/
Nuns: http://www.nunocist.org/
Sisters:http://www.sistersofmary.org/index.php

I don't know if I could ever be a nun. I'd probably end up missing my family too much.

Did you think we would take an article written by a Catholic at a Catholic university as legitimate when it comes to classifications? You are more foolish than even I thought if you do. That article is rubbish. An interesting detail about that university:

You quoted literal unsourced atheist websites which had already been debunked in this thread as your own sources, so what is this hypocrisy? On top of being a textbook ad hominem fallacy, its fantastically ignorant because plenty of research comes from Catholic run universities (especially given the Catholic church runs the largest non-governmental school system worldwide). The journal in which it was formally reviewed and published isn't Catholic either.

If you want to say a study is "rubbish" you are going to have to do a lot better than say "it was done by Catholics". That very Catholic university also is the one whose research produced what we now know as the Big Bang theory.

But I am happy to indulge you here, because the link between high religiosity and lower psychoticism (and vice versa) is pretty well established anyway, as you would know if you took the time again to look into this thing yourself:

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.10...9808406493
http://www.amsciepub.com/doi/abs/10.2466...3.93.3.819

[Norfolk And Chance]

Meaningless waffle.

So you want to be a nun? Bub-bye then!

[Mister Agenda]

Actually measures of religiosity depend per the study, with church going being a very popular measure of public religiosity. You pointed out yourself that not all atheists are "irreligious"--hell, a full 3% of atheists, agnostics and those with 'no religion' consider themselves to be 'very religious'.

I wonder how many people who don't go to church much believe in God? My guess is most of them.

I have no idea how many members of Jersey Shore are atheist since I don't watch the program. From what I've seen they certainly don't seem terribly devout.

Exactly. They're probably nominally Catholic, lapsed Catholics, nominal Protestants, or have their own theology they're comfortable with (the people I usually think of as Somethingists). I wouldn't be surprised if one of them is an atheist, but I would be surprised if half of them are.

As a matter of pickiness, I will be a sister, not a nun. Nuns are cloistered and so never leave their convent. They pray, contemplate, study and do simple work in order to pay their own way (male equivalent is a monk). Sisters do work in the community, as teachers, working with the poor, in ministry, etc. (male equivalent is a brother or a friar).

Monks: http://www.carmelitemonks.org/
Friars: http://franciscanfriars.com/
Nuns: http://www.nunocist.org/
Sisters:http://www.sistersofmary.org/index.php

I don't know if I could ever be a nun. I'd probably end up missing my family too much.

I learn something new every day.

[Creed of Heresy]

Sunuvabitch it never fails, I forget about a topic for a day or two and I come back and the conversation is waaaay the hell onwards.

Alright, so, we're discussing psychotic tendencies in the devout, or the lack thereof in both categories, yes?

Also, technically the Big Bang Theory was not developed by that university but by a secular priest at that university. Keyword secular. It was actually hypothesis at that time; the hypothesis of the primeval atom, in fact. It didn't become the Big Bang theory until later via Hubble, and the equational groundwork was actually written up by one Alexander Friedmann. Still, yes, a catholic, even if a secular one, came up with the groundwork explanation, upon which further work from many different sources compiled to eventually create the Big Bang Theory as we know it today. Alas this does not exactly help your case. When a religious institution puts together a scientific project that is secular in scope, that's fine, it's working against its potential bias but when it starts working on studies that are non-secular in scope [as in they include elements of religious or non-religious groups] unfortunately this negates its credibility due to the potential for bias. Even if it has a perfect track record in the past of working on secular ideas, it still has the possibility of bias when it comes to non-secular studies, and bias has no place in the scientific method. Every scientist MUST approach a project absolutely ready to completely destroy his own ideas. If you're getting it right and it's all going according to how you thought it would, you're doing something wrong, and you need to bring in outside sources for criticism to determine what it is you're doing wrong.

Now as for psychoticism and so forth in religious individuals, I'll agree that there is potential for lower psychoticism or neuroticism, but not for the right reasons. Ignorance is bliss, as they say, and that is what the conditioning effect of religion induces. But when has ignorance ever been looked upon kindly? Even that old saying is actually spoken tongue-in-cheek. This segues into the whole "should you tell a lie to keep someone happy" debate, and that is a back-and-forth debate with no clear-cut winner due to its subjectivity. Some people want the truth, some people want happiness. Me, I'd like the truth. A happiness built on lies is a false happiness and ultimately if it ever blows up in my face it's going to hurt a lot more when I realize that it was never real. Whereas if I get the truth, it will hurt a lot at that point but not nearly so much...and I will have the satisfaction and closure of knowing the truth. The longer a lie goes on, the more agony it imbues if/when it ultimately falls apart. If it doesn't fall apart and someone dies believing a lie, then it doesn't hurt them, obviously, but more the shame to the liar for never coming clean and for continuing to abuse one's trust.

As to you becoming a sister, I hope you continue to keep posting on here when you do. Meanwhile I am going to be going to a nearby catholic church in a couple weeks to have a discussion with the bishop there; I am interested to see what he has to say regarding those passages I brought up earlier. I hope his answers will not be as unsatisfying as the ones I myself came to understand after doing a bit [twelve hours worth] of reading into the history involving those passages.

[ScienceLovesGod]

As to you becoming a sister, I hope you continue to keep posting on here when you do. Meanwhile I am going to be going to a nearby catholic church in a couple weeks to have a discussion with the bishop there; I am interested to see what he has to say regarding those passages I brought up earlier. I hope his answers will not be as unsatisfying as the ones I myself came to understand after doing a bit [twelve hours worth] of reading into the history involving those passages.

"Some people want the truth, some people want happiness. Me, I'd like the truth. A happiness built on lies is a false happiness and ultimately if it ever blows up in my face it's going to hurt a lot more when I realize that it was never real."

I totally agree. I felt pressure and pain in my heart when I was an agnostic. I asked God to heal me, and He did. I cried knowing that I had been living a lie.

[Aiza]

Also, technically the Big Bang Theory was not developed by that university but by a secular priest at that university. Keyword secular.

Why is that a keyword? Do you know what a "secular" priest even is? Most priests are secular priests.

Religious priests live as part of a religious order (like the Franciscans), serve primarily their fellow monks, brothers or friars, and make vows of poverty, chastity and obedience.
Secular (or diocesan) priests live in the world and make promises of celibacy and obedience, and serve primarily laypeople. Every single bishop or Pope who ever was a bishop is drawn from secular priests only.

So I'm not sure why you say "even if a secular one" unless you totally miss what the word "secular" means in that context. Like I said, by that standard, the Pope is secular too. Secular here comes from sæculum, meaning "of the world", as opposed to being shut up in a monastery. (Though if you do want a scientist who was shut up in a monastery, there is always Gregor Mendel ).

Alas this does not exactly help your case. When a religious institution puts together a scientific project that is secular in scope, that's fine, it's working against its potential bias but when it starts working on studies that are non-secular in scope [as in they include elements of religious or non-religious groups] unfortunately this negates its credibility due to the potential for bias.

No it doesn't. This is a rather textbook ad hominem argument actually (unlike some people who treat "ad hominem" and "insult" as synonymous). Any probability of bias needs to be taken care of in the experimental design, since all people are going to have bias regardless of what university they do their research at.

Now as for psychoticism and so forth in religious individuals, I'll agree that there is potential for lower psychoticism or neuroticism, but not for the right reasons. Ignorance is bliss, as they say, and that is what the conditioning effect of religion induces. But when has ignorance ever been looked upon kindly? Even that old saying is actually spoken tongue-in-cheek. This segues into the whole "should you tell a lie to keep someone happy" debate, and that is a back-and-forth debate with no clear-cut winner due to its subjectivity.

Except religion doesn't "induce ignorance" though, contrary to popular belief of some irreligious , and we aren't talking about "bliss" either. Psychoticism deals with a lack of agreeableness/empathy and also a lack of conscientiousness--conscientiousness meaning deliberation, carefulness, and self-discipline. Agreeableness and conscientiousness more prevalent in religious, and some papers have suggested its THE difference from which most other differences between religious and irreligious are born. Why, on average, religious people are healthier physically/mentally, why they are better adjusted socially, etc.

But like we've been saying, you can be an atheist and still be religious--I think 1-2% of Christians are atheist, for example. Altogether 3% of atheists/agnostics/"no religion" say they are "very religious".

Though on the subject of happiness, I always thought it was interesting how those without a religious affiliation percieve less reasons for living. I've heard some atheists say that "you need to appreciate the life you have now, religion keeps you focused on the afterlife", but religious people (or those with a religious affiliation) percieve more reasons for living and are as a result much less likely to commit suicide.

As to you becoming a sister, I hope you continue to keep posting on here when you do. Meanwhile I am going to be going to a nearby catholic church in a couple weeks to have a discussion with the bishop there; I am interested to see what he has to say regarding those passages I brought up earlier. I hope his answers will not be as unsatisfying as the ones I myself came to understand after doing a bit [twelve hours worth] of reading into the history involving those passages.

I am currently only looking at traditional communities, and in that case I would not be able to keep posting on here. I'd be able to write my family an email every two weeks. Every 2 or so years I get 9 days off (until 8 years in and final vows when I get 9 days off every year) and so maybe I'll stop by then.

There's also untraditional communities (those are the ones currently trying to be reformed by the USCCB/CDF) and they tend to give the sisters a lot more freedom, but I don't know if that fits me. I love the divine hours, the Holy Mass, Eucharistic Adoration, the rosary, etc. On the other hand I am very close to my siblings and parents so it will be bittersweet for sure at least at first.

And VERY cool you get to meet the bishop! Maybe my diocese is just busy but its very difficult to even meet with my parish priest, let alone the bishop where you are lucky just to shake his hand and get a picture taken. Let alone have a full conversation where you interview him about Bible passages!

You will probably get the same answers I gave you earlier though, assuming he has a decent catechesis (you would think any bishop would have good catechesis but one of our auxiliaries proves me wrong).

Or if you want a tidier answer you have
Calling men Father: http://www.fisheaters.com/callingmenfather.html
The "brothers" of Jesus: http://www.fisheaters.com/mary.html (halfway down the page, under "Ever Virgin")
"Vain repetitions": http://www.fisheaters.com/vainrepetitions.html

I really love this site, linked ScienceLovesGod to it before, but it helps to explain those verses and others very well in light of Church Tradition

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Most priests are secular priests.

A secular priest is simply one who does not belong to any order,such as most parish priests.

[Aiza]

A secular priest is simply one who does not belong to any order,such as most parish priests.

Yep. Diocesan is the word more commonly used. Either way I can't see how its the "key word".

[Epimethean]

Did you think we would take an article written by a Catholic at a Catholic university as legitimate when it comes to classifications? You are more foolish than even I thought if you do. That article is rubbish. An interesting detail about that university:

You quoted literal unsourced atheist websites which had already been debunked in this thread as your own sources, so what is this hypocrisy? On top of being a textbook ad hominem fallacy, its fantastically ignorant because plenty of research comes from Catholic run universities (especially given the Catholic church runs the largest non-governmental school system worldwide). The journal in which it was formally reviewed and published isn't Catholic either.

If you want to say a study is "rubbish" you are going to have to do a lot better than say "it was done by Catholics". That very Catholic university also is the one whose research produced what we now know as the Big Bang theory.

But I am happy to indulge you here, because the link between high religiosity and lower psychoticism (and vice versa) is pretty well established anyway, as you would know if you took the time again to look into this thing yourself:

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.10...9808406493
http://www.amsciepub.com/doi/abs/10.2466...3.93.3.819

Since you did not include the full texts of either article, and since the latter seemed a bit more comprehensive, I will have to humor you as it were. However, here is some food for thought. It is a very unbiased article, and, as much as it supports a modicum of what you want to be true, its conclusions also point out some things you may want to consider before you wax smarmy about religion.

http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S010...xt&tlng=en

The authors are circumspect about the overarching effect of religion. One aspect they almost touch on, and which I can see as having a beneficial effect is the relative mind-numbing effect of rituals and a feeling that there is something supernatural out there. This is one of the biggest reasons religion thrives, so perhaps a study will be done in time on how many mentally ill people the net of religion traps in its web of deceit and lies. After all, parents use Santa, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy to good effect to control behaviors, too, and those are all irrealities as well.

Also of interest, and intersecting your offerings:

http://epiphenom.fieldofscience.com/2011...evers.html



Not surprisingly, OCD sufferers tend to suffer more when religious, with Catholics comprising the worst affected group:

Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder Linked to Piety

June 10, 2002

The notion that a strict, possibly even God-fearing, upbringing may contribute to obsessive-compulsive disorder has been boosted by a survey which discovered that devout Catholics were more likely to show symptoms than less religious people.

Patients with OCD get caught in a vicious mental cycle that can take over and cripple their everyday lives. For instance, a sufferer may become convinced that everything around them is dirty, and in extreme cases spend up to eight hours a day cleaning in a bid to banish the thought.

The causes of the disorder, which affects at least five million Americans and a million Britons, are still obscure. But genes, upbringing, head injuries and emotional trauma have all been implicated.

Now Claudio Sica at the University of Parma in Italy and his team have found that committed Catholics are more likely to show symptoms of OCD.

The researchers compared people, such as nuns and priests who worked in the Church, with committed lay Catholics and others with virtually no religious involvement. Each subject was asked to document mild OCD symptoms, such as intrusive mental images or worries. The more devout Catholics reported more severe symptoms. "It is tricky to tie these findings to clinical OCD," Lynne Drummond, a psychiatrist at St George's Hospital in London told New Scientist. She thinks a patient must have a genetic predisposition to develop such symptoms. However, she adds that many OCD patients do say they had a strict upbringing where actions were either right or wrong.

There is a movement in many churches, including the Anglican Church, to class the forcing of undue strictness in piety and morality as "spiritual abuse." No doubt there will soon be an officially listed psychiatric category for it. BM


From New Scientist, found at http://www.upliftprogram.com/h_personal_03.html

[Creed of Heresy]

Also, technically the Big Bang Theory was not developed by that university but by a secular priest at that university. Keyword secular.

Why is that a keyword? Do you know what a "secular" priest even is? Most priests are secular priests.

...Secular (or diocesan) priests live in the world...

Pretty sure we ALL live in the world. Unless you mean they live in open society. ...If I need to spell it out any further I'm going to ragequit. ;D

So I'm not sure why you say "even if a secular one" unless you totally miss what the word "secular" means in that context. Like I said, by that standard, the Pope is secular too. Secular here comes from sæculum, meaning "of the world", as opposed to being shut up in a monastery. (Though if you do want a scientist who was shut up in a monastery, there is always Gregor Mendel ).

A man who was a brilliant scientist until he became an abbot, thus ending his scientific career. Not a good example; I laud the efforts of the individual and I abhor the credit given to the religious institution to which one belongs for the individual's work, since the religious aspect is unnecessary.

No it doesn't. This is a rather textbook ad hominem argument actually (unlike some people who treat "ad hominem" and "insult" as synonymous). Any probability of bias needs to be taken care of in the experimental design, since all people are going to have bias regardless of what university they do their research at.

Uhm. No they won't. Any scientist worth his salt will tell you that having a bias towards their own work is counter-productive and detrimental to the process of discovery, as history has taught us repeatedly. It's a little thing called confirmation bias and it's highly frowned upon in the scientific community. As far as my argument supposedly being ad hominem, you need to know an individual much better before you can go around throwing that claim at someone's feet: I disagree with atheistic and agnostic scientists quite often, such as Richard Dawkins, who often says things I find to betray a bias in some of his studies. So tell me, whose prejudices am I appealing to here, or whose character have I attacked with what I said? There was nothing ad hominem about what I said as far as I can tell.

Except religion doesn't "induce ignorance" though, contrary to popular belief of some irreligious

Yeah, and all the evangelicals and creationists and the KKK and the entire middle east and the whole debacle with the IRA don't exist. I gotcha.

and we aren't talking about "bliss" either. Psychoticism deals with a lack of agreeableness/empathy and also a lack of conscientiousness--conscientiousness meaning deliberation, carefulness, and self-discipline. Agreeableness and conscientiousness more prevalent in religious, and some papers have suggested its THE difference from which most other differences between religious and irreligious are born. Why, on average, religious people are healthier physically/mentally, why they are better adjusted socially, etc.

Might also be that there's a social stigma to being an atheist that leads to them being considered or just simply becoming outcasts considering a vast majority of the people I've ever admitted being an atheist to jumped to wild conclusions about me almost instantly, NONE of them positive, and this entire forum is filled with posts from people who've endured this kind of bullshit in the exact same ways for the exact same reasons, and the very beginning of this thread began with us discussing why the hell christians seem to jump at the chance to mash on the "hate" button whenever it comes to atheists...

But hey. What do I know. Maybe it's god's connection to you guys that's making you healthier, not your lot tending to shit upon us making us feel like shit and therefore utterly destroying us on a psychological level. Granted, YOU are exempt as is any other theist who doesn't jump on the hate-train. But from what I've seen and what virtually everyone else on this site has seen and will tell you, you're NOT the rule; you're the exception.

But like we've been saying, you can be an atheist and still be religious--I think 1-2% of Christians are atheist, for example. Altogether 3% of atheists/agnostics/"no religion" say they are "very religious".

Basically following Christian teachings without believing in the divinity of them, just accepting them as good moral values. I was like that towards the end of my time as a Christian. I discarded the bible almost entirely and only really followed the entries about things Jesus said. And really if you follow what Jesus specifically said the bible is a lot nicer to read, though there's still a couple moments where you're left going "dafuq?"

Well, I'm left going, I'm sure you react differently. ;P

Though on the subject of happiness, I always thought it was interesting how those without a religious affiliation percieve less reasons for living. I've heard some atheists say that "you need to appreciate the life you have now, religion keeps you focused on the afterlife", but religious people (or those with a religious affiliation) percieve more reasons for living and are as a result much less likely to commit suicide.

Someone who is going to commit suicide is doing it out of despair. This goes back to my whole thing involving the devastation of realizing a lie when you see it. Hell, even I still haven't fully recovered from it, myself, but my fear of death is far less now than it was before. Still, I've seen a few Christians who were friends of mine commit suicide because they didn't feel like they had anything left to live for and they just wanted to "go with god." The placebo doesn't always work.

I am currently only looking at traditional communities, and in that case I would not be able to keep posting on here. I'd be able to write my family an email every two weeks. Every 2 or so years I get 9 days off (until 8 years in and final vows when I get 9 days off every year) and so maybe I'll stop by then.

There's also untraditional communities (those are the ones currently trying to be reformed by the USCCB/CDF) and they tend to give the sisters a lot more freedom, but I don't know if that fits me. I love the divine hours, the Holy Mass, Eucharistic Adoration, the rosary, etc. On the other hand I am very close to my siblings and parents so it will be bittersweet for sure at least at first.[quote]

Holy crap, that's a lousy vacation package. ;D Just kidding, but hey at least you'll be close to your family, and if you genuinely enjoy all that, rock on.

[quote]And VERY cool you get to meet the bishop! Maybe my diocese is just busy but its very difficult to even meet with my parish priest, let alone the bishop where you are lucky just to shake his hand and get a picture taken. Let alone have a full conversation where you interview him about Bible passages!

Well it helps that I actually have spoken to him on several occasions while I was waiting tables at a restaurant that he went to. Tipped very well, too. I actually requested this meeting back in February. Take in mind, though; this IS Wisconsin, ain't shit happening up here no matter what your job is.

You will probably get the same answers I gave you earlier though, assuming he has a decent catechesis (you would think any bishop would have good catechesis but one of our auxiliaries proves me wrong).

Or if you want a tidier answer you have
Calling men Father: http://www.fisheaters.com/callingmenfather.html
The "brothers" of Jesus: http://www.fisheaters.com/mary.html (halfway down the page, under "Ever Virgin")
"Vain repetitions": http://www.fisheaters.com/vainrepetitions.html

I really love this site, linked ScienceLovesGod to it before, but it helps to explain those verses and others very well in light of Church Tradition

I haven't given those sites a check yet, but I'll probably do it after I get home from work tomorrow. Gotta [attempt] sleep here in a short bit, last thing I want to be doing is being a mail presorter on less than eight hours of sleep...this job is mind-numbing enough without me being half-awake before I even start. XD

I totally agree. I felt pressure and pain in my heart when I was an agnostic. I asked God to heal me, and He did. I cried knowing that I had been living a lie.

How nice of god to heal you while meanwhile I was raped, beaten, malnourished, lost and strung out on drugs all while practically begging for help every night with tears in my eyes, help that never came until long after I'd stopped praying. Pardon me one second while I am overcome with joy for you, and while I add yet one more reason why I think that if god were real I'd think he was a colossal, preening prick.