By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Religious people more likely to be happy with them and their lives - atheists more likely to be depressed, sad and miserable

sapphi_snake on 28 August 2011
Slimebeast said:

Of course I am happier knowing there is a heaven and eternal life instead of just becoming worm food.

Plus, you conveniently forget about hell also, and the possibility of burning there for eternity.



"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"

"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."

                                                                               (The Voice of a Generation and Seece)

"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"

                                                                               (pizzahut451)

Around the Network
sapphi_snake on 28 August 2011

In Brave New World, the people who took the some were the happiest.



"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"

"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."

                                                                               (The Voice of a Generation and Seece)

"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"

                                                                               (pizzahut451)

Player1x3 on 01 September 2011

pearljammer said:
This thread wasn't conducive to a progressive exchange from the start (I think due to the nature of it and the fallacy of its method among other reasons). But that... that's a whole lot of conjecture, right there. ^^

this research is just as  false as the research reporting atheists to be more wealthy and educated . the gap between the researched groups is too big. so, you see, it works both ways, your just biased to another.

It is among the more ignorant things I've read on here for quite sometime. The only merit to what you have said is that atheists tend to have more privileged upbringings and better education. Everything else is conjecture. Everything. That is unless you have some studies or research that can verify your experience so that we may extrapolate to include all atheists as you so generally speak of.

its not really. its funny how atheists always support criticism of one ideology (especially if its a religious one)  but once they are put to it, they start complaining and whining. what makes your ''superb belief'' free of any form of criticism at all?

It begs the question, if you believe all atheists to be so condescending and antagoistic, why bother engaging or antagonizing (which this clearly is) them? I realize ragebot's post as equally full of conjecture, but you have been given several reasonable responses to respond to over that one.

why do atheists engage religious peple when so many of them consider them to be less human beings with lower inteligence? same can be said for your fellow believers

On that note, I have to call you on dodging the original issue with the study that I'd brought up. I provided you with a study that when certain variables are reversed, there are huge discrepencies in the result. Instead of addressing that, you focus on people who put efforts on debating which countries are or are not mostly reglious. That was beside the point - there are countries where this is the case and reults in huge discrepencies.

whats there to adress? the results arent really that different, the gap is just smaller, my research dealt with the issue on a lot bigger scale





pearljammer on 01 September 2011
Player1x3 said:

pearljammer said:

this research is just as  false as the research reporting atheists to be more wealthy and educated . the gap between the researched groups is too big. so, you see, it works both ways, your just biased to another.

They are completely different. One is completely empirical and, from what I've seen from studies of secular societies, not significantly different based on geography. It isn't even a suggestion - it is undeniable. Please don't assume my lack of judgment based on my biasedness. I've given nothing but evidence to support my claim - my motivation was based on my biasedness, yes, however, the evidence I've given is quite convincing regardless.

its not really. its funny how atheists always support criticism of one ideology (especially if its a religious one)  but once they are put to it, they start complaining and whining. what makes your ''superb belief'' free of any form of criticism at all?

Where is this even coming from? My belief is far from criticizing. It's criticized every day to better model our understanding. I admit that we don't really have a clue with all of the specifics on how the universe started and evidence is scarce with abiogenesis and that I, especially me, am only relatively knowledgable about these things we still know so little about. I'm not claiming to have all the answers - just simply that it makes no sense to jump to a conclusion that cannot possibly ever be known without any inkling of evidence.

On another note, I am an anit-theist as well (I admit to know next to nothing about eastern religions and reserve any judgment). However, I rarely speak as one here as to avoid needless confrontation. It's sad that one cannot have an open forum being both sceptical and critical over religion without accusations of being inciteful and incapable of self-criticism. I realize that, yes, it does, work both ways. What doesn't help though is when users like yourself and others (atheist and theists alike) start hurling assumptions and insults every which way and ignore any bit of reasonable criticism or testimony given. I criticize you specifically because: a) you're the thread creator and you posed the study; and b) you're of dissenting opinion to myself, obviously.

why do atheists engage religious peple when so many of them consider them to be less human beings with lower inteligence? same can be said for your fellow believers

I'm not getting dragged into this childish back and forth. I do not mean this in a condescending way as I know several atheists are responding in kind. I however, am not getting into it. The inferrential belittling and victim-playing is reprehensible.

whats there to adress? the results arent really that different, the gap is just smaller, my research dealt with the issue on a lot bigger scale

It is significantly smaller. The magnitude of the difference is hugely different. If you can look at those numbers and refuse the conclusion that factors of geography (population, being part of a minority, communal factors, etc) are not as or, what seems most likely, significantly more important, then you're willfully ignorant to the facts.

It's plain for anyone to see. I'll post again if anyone chooses not to take my word on it:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/650q541579041625/fulltext.html







Krstorm on 01 September 2011

So may religion threads lately =/
Over the past few days I found out I'm a criminal and that I'm depresed with life for being an atheist, but I've read nothing about the cathloc priests who molest kids, or the scam in evangelical churches (money to the pastor! miraculous healing!)

Everyone who makes these threads just loves flaming atheists while we just live our lives instead of investigating shit about belivers, have you noticed there are no atheist/anti religion threads? yeah that's because us atheists don't really give a damn about all that junk, we just LIVE OUR LIVES, you should try that for once, it's fun =)



Around the Network
benao87 on 01 September 2011

So is people that believe in Santa and in the Easter Bunny!

Whats with all these religious threads, it's like when you are in a bus or something and this old lady starts asking you about your bloody beliefs, I mean WTF!



Complete comic

kain_kusanagi on 12 September 2011

Do we really need more threads like this? "Prove God" and now this? I don't think Theist Vs. Atheist topics are helpful. Que sera, sera people and live and let live.



Player1x3 on 13 September 2011
pearljammer said:
Player1x3 said:

pearljammer said:

this research is just as  false as the research reporting atheists to be more wealthy and educated . the gap between the researched groups is too big. so, you see, it works both ways, your just biased to another.

They are completely different. One is completely empirical and, from what I've seen from studies of secular societies, not significantly different based on geography. It isn't even a suggestion - it is undeniable. Please don't assume my lack of judgment based on my biasedness. I've given nothing but evidence to support my claim - my motivation was based on my biasedness, yes, however, the evidence I've given is quite convincing regardless.

They really arent that different. For example, you have 20 atheitsts and 200 theists. Now only 50 theists make more than lets say, 200k per year. That would be 25%. And for atheists, you have 10 of them who make over 200k a year, so thats 50%. So, on averige atheitsts make more money. As for your studies the results are similar just the gap is smaller, but the point stays. Religious people, are in general, more satisfied with their lifes and atheists are more likely to be sad and miserable.

its not really. its funny how atheists always support criticism of one ideology (especially if its a religious one)  but once they are put to it, they start complaining and whining. what makes your ''superb belief'' free of any form of criticism at all?

Where is this even coming from? My belief is far from criticizing. It's criticized every day to better model our understanding. I admit that we don't really have a clue with all of the specifics on how the universe started and evidence is scarce with abiogenesis and that I, especially me, am only relatively knowledgable about these things we still know so little about. I'm not claiming to have all the answers - just simply that it makes no sense to jump to a conclusion that cannot possibly ever be known without any inkling of evidence.

Funny how you say your beleifs are far from criticizing and in the next paragraph you say your an anti-theist, which is solely based simply on criticizing and hostility towards religion.

On another note, I am an anit-theist as well (I admit to know next to nothing about eastern religions and reserve any judgment). However, I rarely speak as one here as to avoid needless confrontation. It's sad that one cannot have an open forum being both sceptical and critical over religion without accusations of being inciteful and incapable of self-criticism. I realize that, yes, it does, work both ways. What doesn't help though is when users like yourself and others (atheist and theists alike) start hurling assumptions and insults every which way and ignore any bit of reasonable criticism or testimony given. I criticize you specifically because: a) you're the thread creator and you posed the study; and b) you're of dissenting opinion to myself, obviously.

The sad thing is, that the assumptions and accusations in both ways are, unfortunately true. One group is just a lot more vocal the other about criticizing it and is thus, a lot more vulnerable to the accusation of being inicteful and incapable of self criticism.. And what exactly did I said my post that you took as an insult?

why do atheists engage religious peple when so many of them consider them to be less human beings with lower inteligence? same can be said for your fellow believers

I'm not getting dragged into this childish back and forth. I do not mean this in a condescending way as I know several atheists are responding in kind. I however, am not getting into it. The inferrential belittling and victim-playing is reprehensible.

I know, ALL TOGETHER 2. I know I didnt mention it in my post, but of course, I didnt mean ALL atheists by that statment.

whats there to adress? the results arent really that different, the gap is just smaller, my research dealt with the issue on a lot bigger scale

It is significantly smaller. The magnitude of the difference is hugely different. If you can look at those numbers and refuse the conclusion that factors of geography (population, being part of a minority, communal factors, etc) are not as or, what seems most likely, significantly more important, then you're willfully ignorant to the facts.

It's plain for anyone to see. I'll post again if anyone chooses not to take my word on it:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/650q541579041625/fulltext.html

See above









pearljammer on 13 September 2011
Player1x3 said:
pearljammer said:
Player1x3 said:

pearljammer said:

They really arent that different. For example, you have 20 atheitsts and 200 theists. Now only 50 theists make more than lets say, 200k per year. That would be 25%. And for atheists, you have 10 of them who make over 200k a year, so thats 50%. So, on averige atheitsts make more money. As for your studies the results are similar just the gap is smaller, but the point stays. Religious people, are in general, more satisfied with their lifes and atheists are more likely to be sad and miserable.

The magnitude is grossly different. To ignore that is to ignore the vast importance of other variables. Willfully ignorant and inexcusable.

Funny how you say your beleifs are far from criticizing and in the next paragraph you say your an anti-theist, which is solely based simply on criticizing and hostility towards religion.

Given the context, it's incredibly easy to see that was not what I had meant - I made a mistake in typing it:

"Where is this even coming from? My belief is far from criticizing. It's criticized every day to better model our understanding. "

I'm saying that my beliefs are far from being free of criticism. Because of that, models are adjusted continually to reflect that.

An honest congenial discussion is dependent on one another not purposely misreading another's quote.


Odd to respond to this being nearly two weeks after the fact

I won't respond to the other points as they are simply beside the original point I was making: That this study, while probably accurate, made over-attributal conclusions given the importance of other variable displayed in other studies. To ignore the difference in magnitude is to ignore the importance of other variables - which can only be described as willfully choosing results to match a desired conclusion.

To say that it's just smaller and sweep any reasons being under the rug is disingenuous. Note that I have not said that their conclusions, wholely, are wrong. Just simply that they were either a) naive in attributing the difference simply to religiosity or b) that they were willfully ignoring other variables. It was a deeply flawed study because of it.

It's patently obvious.

Perhaps we should exchange PMs rather than fully revive this dead thread?

@Kain: Why, then, bump it twelve days after it had died?



kain_kusanagi on 13 September 2011

My intent was not to "bump it". I clicked on a link with a title that look like more religious flaim bait and responded to what I saw.