Psychology looks at atheism and theism. Also, atheism is tenuous/non-existent/rare ..

I should have said that the Mayo Clinic study showed that a religous belief and prayer are totally ineffective in patient health. So it appears that the Mayo study supports the position of the atheists.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I seem to have struck a nerve in this post. I particularly thought this thread would do that.I have offered material from the social sciences in this thread. I have offered the words of professed atheists and credible testimonies of their actions.If you want to offer evidence that disputes what I have offered please do so.In regards to you saying:

quote:

---

I would assert that antagonizing atheists, who as a result of apparently having no moral objection to killing you for no reason as well as being crazy to boot, is not indicative of mental health on your part.

​

If we atheists are as crazy as you say and as morally unconstrained as other suggest, maybe you'd better look the fuck out, huh?

---

1. I never said all professed atheists are as crazy as Nietzsche was at the end of his life.2. You have offered no real evidence that atheists exist either.3. I never said professed atheists do not have God given consciences.4. Lastly, what the King David who trusted in God purportedly said is relevant:"I will not fear the tens of thousands drawn up against me on every side."

My post should have read:I particularly thought this thread would do that in terms of yourself.I wish to add:Science is alledgedly the reason why professed atheist reject God according to many professed atheists. My social science studies regarding atheist/non-religious/less religious should be welcomed at this forum or at the very least addressed.I have not seen this happen.

1) I am an atheist.2) I exist.Ergo, atheists exist, at least one of them.Surely some other atheist tried this already, right? I'm sure you had some cute, fallacious "dismissal". I don't care to look it up, I guess. I'm satisfied that at least one atheist exists.

TO: crashfrogYou said:

quote:

---

1) I am an atheist.

---

You never proved to me that you are an atheist and do not waver often. You have to show your testimony is unimpeachable. I see no reason why your testimony should be given carte blanche acceptance. I do not consider your testimony to be the gospel truth. Nothing personal. I just do not.

I think the professed atheists should embrace my skepticism and lack of belief that true atheism exist. This would be consistent.

Proof that I am an atheist:1) I lack belief in gods of any kind.Ergo, I am an atheist. No, actually, at this point you have to prove that I'm not. Since you're not privy to my personal beliefs, etc, I don't see how you can do that. Your challenge is without merit. I have proved that I am an atheist because you have no rebuttal.

ClarificationI think the professed atheists should embrace my skepticism and lack of belief that true atheism exist. This would be consistent in terms of publically embracing skepticism. Right now you are being inconsistent which is not the hallmark of those who are considered more credible.

That's your rebuttal to my argument? Sophistry? We can't know anything, so therefore, you can't know you're an atheist?Ok, granted. Unfortunately, sophistry means you can't know any of your other conclusions in this thread, either.It's actually you who's being inconsistent, offering sophistry to rebut my argument without realizing that sophistry rebuts all your arguments, too.

Actually, as an atheist, I don't reject the christian god any more than I reject Zues, Shiva, or ancestral spirit, I just don't believe that any form of diety or supernatural exists. Kinda hard to reject something which you don't believe in. You simpley lack the desire or ability to accept the existance of atheism or athiests. That is fine, whatever gets you through the day.

I don't really comprehend the point you are trying to make, Kendemyer.Ken wrote:

---

You have not done the following:1. Provided evidence that professed atheism enhances mental wellness.2. Provided evidence that atheism exist.

---

1. I'll go out on a limb here, and admit that I don't believe atheism consistently enhances mental wellness (however that may be defined). If religion is an evolved trait, then atheists are excluding or denying this compulsion. They also have to stare straight into the face of their own mortality and deal with it without making up fairy tales.This is certainly no sales speil for atheism, but acknowldging the blind randomness of existence is not always heartening.Some atheists deal with this perfectly ok. At least there is a reassuring degree of consistency in atheism.On the other hand the "mental wellness" of the theist is predicated on a appeal to the emotional compulsion to avoid the fear of mortality. It manifests extremely inconsistently as shown by the myriad of religious beliefs and the variable mental states of those within them.I'd have to say, that those theists that "appear" to be the most mentally sorted are those that take their faith entirely dogmatically and refuse to analyse the validity of their beliefs. Emotional masturbation at the cost of intellectual integrity.Not really my idea of mental wellness either.2. While I do acknowledge that some athiest are conclusive in their beliefs, I do not see an issue if some atheists border between atheism and agnosticism. Most atheists have come into thier beliefs through a thorough appraisal of the evidence available for the existence of God. Why is it that retaining some degree of openess to new evidence that might comes along is seen as a deficiency by you?Atheist Martyrs?
Given that life is the most valuable thing to an atheist, why the heck would you expect to see atheist martyrs?

quote:

---

Next, one must consider that to my knowledge there are no materialist martyrs

---

Nonsense; many communists have sacrificed their lives for the benefit of others and humanity in general. Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxembourg are probably the most famous, but I'd consider the bulk of the Russian Bolsheviks to qualify. Che Guevara of course is probably the most popularised.

quote:

---

... I have found that "freethinkers" have a strong penchant for appeals to authority, genetic logical fallacies, and are loathe to admit their errors or arguments that are poorly reasoned.

---

"what you have found" is not evidence, it is opinion.This message has been edited by contracycle, 09-02-2004 05:27 AM

quote:

---

I should have said....

---

Why? What good would that have done?

quote:

---

If religion is an evolved trait, then atheists are excluding or denying this compulsion.

---

I would be inclined to agree with this, Gilgamesh.Some of us, I feel, have substitutes for this. I would never deny that there is a spiritual side to my personality. I suspect this is true for most professed atheists, although I would never, unlike some posters, insist on knowing what others' beliefs and feelings are, especially if they denied it.

TO: crashfrogYou crashfrog quoted me, kendemyer, as saying:

quote:

---

You never proved to me that you are an atheist

---

You crashfrog wrote:

quote:

---

1) I am an atheist.

​

2) I exist.

​

Ergo, atheists exist, at least one of them.

---

You, crashfrog, also wrote regarding your assertion that you are an atheist:

quote:

---

No, actually, at this point you have to prove that I'm not.

---

MY REPLY First, it is a time honored tradition in debate and in law that the burden of proof is upon the claimant. This principle is maintained by Western/English law and goes back to at least the Romans. This principle is well known as 'He Who Asserts must prove' or in the latin ei incumbit probatio qui affirmat, non ei qui negat! Also, this principle is upheld by EVC Forum at: http:///WebPages/ForumRules.html which clearly says:

quote:

---

Make your points by providing supporting evidence and/or argument. Avoid bare assertions.

---

Now the professed worldview of atheism of course directly implies a fairly high degree of skepticism. Thus, not only do you have a burden of proof and cannot provide bare assertions but to be consistent it seems as if you must offer a fairly high degree of evidence since professed atheism implies a fair amount of skepticism. You have not done this besides offering a bare assertion. Clearly, it doesn't take an accomplished advocate of theism, Christianity, or any other worldview to see that professed atheist has a fairly high degree of onus propandi in terms of showing that atheist do in fact exists. I assert that your fleeing regarding providing a reasonable amount of evidence is not only irrational but inconsistent as well. So far you are doing a fine job in demonstrating the irrationality of professed atheist and their inconsistently as well. I think you are demonstrating quite well what Wise King Solomon wrote: "Furthermore, the hearts of the sons of men are full of evil and insanity is in their hearts throughout their lives. Afterwards they go to the dead."Next, I, kendemyer wrote the following in my initial post:

quote:

---

The business skeptics tended to be very impolite and undiplomatic. I have found that on the whole boards or live debate chat rooms dominated by skeptics tend to have much more ad hominems and other unneccessary coarse behavior.

---

I would say that you, crashfrog provide a great piece of evidence for my assertion.You, crashfrog, wrote:

quote:

---

If we atheists are as crazy as you say and as morally unconstrained as other suggest, maybe you'd better look the fuck out, huh?

---

Now setting aside for a moment your assertion that you are an atheist, this certainly demonstrates the coarse behavior I had mentioned. So besides demonstrating your irrationality and inconsistency which I described above in this post it seems as if you added additional validity that there is some truth in my initial post.In addition you further buttressed my initial posts validity because I had stated the following:

quote:

---

At the same time the lack of materialist martyrs does raise the question on whether or not professed atheists truly believe there is no God and I do find Sartre's testimony revealing (Sartre was the most famous professed atheist in the the 20th century). I would also say it appears that the Christians have afforded more tolerance to the atheist when they have been in power if one looks at history (read the history of North Korea, Soviet Union, China, Eastern Europe, etc I also cite: http://www.persecution.com.au/news/allarticles.asp and http://www.hope-of-israel.org/dobsonps.htm and http://united-states.asinah.net/...cution_of_christians.html).

---

Now you, crashfrog, wrote:

quote:

---

If we atheists are as crazy as you say and as morally unconstrained as other suggest, maybe you'd better look the fuck out, huh?

---

Now I reasonably saw in the above comment an implied threat. Now if it is true that professed atheist have afforded less tolerance to Christians than Christians have afforded professed atheist, one would expect the person at evcforum who exhibits and expresses an interest in atheism to be the person who gave an implied threat to me.I cite crashfrog's profile at: http://http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/ubbmisc.cgi?action=getbio... [quote] Primary Username: crashfrog
Other Aliases:
Date Registered: 03-20-2003
Status: Member
Total Posts: 5516
Current Email: Interests: Atheism [/b]
ICQ Number: [/quote]I rest my case.Lastly, clearly this is a board whose sympathies should lie with empiricism and science. I have presented evidence from the social sciences regarding the mental fitness of theist and some professed atheist. In addition, I cited data regarding the charitable giving of the non-religious, less religious, and religious plus provided additional data providing additional support for professed atheists self absorbtion (Dan Barker, Brights [Dawkins], etc. ).I think the professed atheist need to either show the complete invalidity of all this data but more importantly rather than destroy all the buildings in town in order to have the tallest building (in other words dismiss the Mayo Clinic evidence,etc etc) , it would be helpful the professed atheist to give empirical studies (not ad hoc evidence) showing their charitableness or degree of mental fitness. Given the implied skepticism of professed atheism it would be helpful if this evidence is of a rather high degree of quality. But at this point I am looking for any evidence especially evidence that directly compares Biblically based Christians with professed atheists.Sincerely,Ken