Imagine there’s no heaven
It’s easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today…Imagine there’s no countries
It isn’t hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace…~ John Lennon
In his 2005 study, “Atheism: Contemporary Rates and Patterns,” Phil Zuckerman concluded that nations with high organic atheism are more likely to have healthy societies.
The study used data from the 2004 Human Development Report (HDR) by the United Nations Development Program. The HDR ranked 177 countries using a Human Development Index:
The HDI – human development index – is a summary composite index that measures a country’s average achievements in three basic aspects of human development: health, knowledge, and a decent standard of living.
Health is measured by life expectancy at birth; knowledge is measured by a combination of the adult literacy rate and the combined primary, secondary, and tertiary gross enrolment ratio; and standard of living by GDP per capita (PPP US$)
Simply put, the higher the HDI, the healthier the country.
Well, the 2009 HDR is out. And if these countries have relatively the same religious composition as they did in 2005, guess what? Zuckerman’s conclusions still stand.
Below are the highest and lowest ranked countries, each followed by two statistics:
- Rank in the Top 50 Countries With Highest Proportion of Atheists, Agnostics, and Nonbelievers list
- Percentage of Atheists, Agnostics, or Nonbelievers in God
Top 10
- Norway — 4th — 31-72%
- Australia — 25th — 24-25%
- Iceland — 28th — 16-23%
- Canada — 20th — 19-30%
- Ireland — not in the top 50 — 5%
- Netherlands — 14th — 39-44%
- Sweden — 1st — 46-85%
- France — 8th — 43-54%
- Switzerland — 23rd — 17-27%
- Japan — 5th — 64-65%
Bottom 100
105. Philippines — N/A; largest Catholic Asian nation — <1%
111. Indonesia — N/A; largest Muslim nation — <1%
Bottom 10
173. Guinea-Bissau — N/A — <1%
174. Burundi — N/A — <1%
175. Chad — N/A — <1%
176. Congo — N/A — 2.7%
177. Burkina Faso — N/A — <1%
178. Mali — N/A — <1%
179. Central African Republic — N/A — 1.5%
180. Sierra Leone — N/A — <1%
181. Afghanistan — N/A — <1%
182. Nigeria — N/A — <1%
Still don’t get it? More heathens, more health — More superstitions, more sickness.
Next year marks the release of the HDR’s 20th anniversary edition, and I don’t see any indication that things are going to change. Socially unhealthy countries will stay superstitious and sick, making life a living Hell, while the healthy ones, the ones with more people who don’t believe in God, will get even closer to living in Heaven on Earth.
Imagine that.
Popularity: 6% [?]
Ah, Ryan,
there you go again, being rational upriver against a current of faith and stories. Trouble for sure. Health and heathens, indeed. I am sure the more well-read a society is, the greater the incidence of people who have faith in their brain.
Joe
I beg to disagree, my good friend Joe. I am sure the more well-read a society is, the greater the incidence of people who have faith on their brain.
Health and Heathens. That could’ve been a better title. And I totally agree with your thought about reading. Even reading the Bible would help get people out of the superstitious mindset. Of course, I mean the entire Bible, not the Cliff Notes version the laity are fed in mass and Sunday school.
I totally agree to that. True religion is in the Bible. Knowing the real God will set you free, and free indeed. Superstitious beliefs-thats paganism. A lot of reading materials telling us that a lot of catholics embraces or incorporates old pagan practices/beliefs. Not only catholicism, even islam, hinduism, and buddhism…venerating idols made from wood or stone is not part of the original catholic faith. Over time catholic faith was compromised over time…
Sorry, I actually mean that really reading the Bible, cover to cover, would disgust the reader so much that he will drop all superstitious belief based on it. I challenge anyone to try it. The Bible. Cover to cover. Without anyone else peeking over their shoulder and whispering apologies. Such an exercise will probably lead to atheism.
If you haven’t closed your mind….take a look at this…
http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/audio/newevidence.htm
http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9403/evidence.html
http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/iidb.htm
http://www.worldinvisible.com/avlib/life/html_series/What-is-The-Meaning-of-Life.html
Atheists can be just as dogmatic and preachy as diehard theists, thinking that only one set of conclusion can be arrived at from a body of literature or a set of events.
Atheists clamor for tolerance towards differences in opinion probably only because atheism is a minority opinion.
Thanks UP n grad. Both of your statements are true. These things are indeed possible, however unlikely.
But these atheists are not as dogmatic about conclusions as they are about the process, which they most often prefer to be the scientific method, unlike something more subjective, say, divine revelation.
And atheists clamor for free speech primarily because it is a good thing in itself. If they have other motives, such as you suggest, it does not make the cause for free speech any less valid.
This is just Phil Zuckerman, so we should see more.
I think the more important factor would be people with the ability and initiative to have a questioning mind. Even the Bible encourages that: “Put everything to the test” I Thes. 5:12. Of course, the nation should have an environment with a lot of religious freedom, where not even government would impose religion on your or follow influences of religious groups. The top 10 reflect that. The bottom 10 and our country are remarkably where a religious group is dominant, and imposes its rule on everyone, even those not members of their religion. Basically, they are religious dictatorships.
These are good points. Secularism is really a key ingredient. In countries where atheism is forced (i.e. not organic) the societal health is not as high as when it is freely chosen.
Moral decay goes with secularism…I beg to disagree that the bible for is simply superstitious belief…before anything else you have to take as a history book..I am more inclined to think that thosse superstitious beliefs that you have glimpse in the bible are simply explanations of pagan worships and beliefs of some people (gentiles)…
“Moral decay goes with secularism.”
Sorry Bitnik… there’s very little proof of your statement. If there’s proof in our country, it’s going the opposite way! There’s lots of moral decay in our country. Most of it is being traced to the Catholic Church’s influence (not necessarily the current influence, but also 16-kopong-koping influence) and that’s proof that religion is generally having a bad effect in the country.
The CEAP going against the Women’s Magna Carta is even more proof of this.
I agree though with tracing many superstitions here to pagan beliefs.
Thanks Chino F.
Bitnik, secularism as moral decay? the bible as a history book?
you many not be thinking in the norm. Norm is ordinary or within reason common within your own environment. out of 10 pinoy may not think the way you think. majority are catholic. I’m hoping that the facts of other countries may not conflict your own peace of mind. If you really wanna be happy? lose yourself….if you know what I mean. LOL
People can be superstitious not because of its religion. They become superstitious when their option is between zero or none. Economically, the top ten are stable countries. So , is the president of the top ten an atheist? My point, to make a country happy, the president must lose herself , go beyond herself and give all her strength and leadership skills for her people. She must have faith in GOD or her people will not vote.
leytenian: GMA, Erap, FVR, Cory, Marcos, Garcia, Macapagal…all the way back to Quezon. The Vice-presidents, Senate Leaders, justices of the supreme courts… all noteworthy for their faith in God and how Pinas had progressed under their leadership.
Do you really think its their faith in God. Many are simply religious but doesn’t have the faith…
the point being made is not whether the president is a believer or not – the point is – the greater the proportion of non-believers and diversity of beliefs (or lack of it) in a country, the more dynamic and progressive is its economy.
Faith in God is not equal to faith in the devil.
For example, if God said “Thou shalt not steal!”, and the devil said “Come on, dude, steal!”, the president who has so much faith in God will heed the devil.
well, when it comes Filipino voters, vox populi, vox diaboli.
if your “god” was telling the president, such. I wonder what your “god” was telling the voters – did your “god” not have enough information about arroyo, so your god whispered vote for arroyo? :)
who said anything about arroyo? not me.
but the voters has true faith in God, that’s why they would vote for a candidate who is clean. but the candidate, who also has faith in God almost always got his/her faith corrupted after sitting on the hot seat inside the palace by the pasig river and so, what God has sown the devil reaped.
Actually, the voters themselves are not clean, nor have true faith in God. Or else in 1998, they would not have voted a gambler, womanizer, drunkard and already corrupt official to the highest office in the land.
Actually the voters really have true faith in God. They just want to try the womanizer, the genius, the dumb, the bar topnotcher, the soldier, the economist, the plain housewife, everything, not in that order. The womanizer who is not a genius has not proven his worth because the evil, err, civil society held a disco party at Edsa and Angie the dancer took his soldiers to the dance floor thus the womanizer was forced to cross the Pasig River after barely three years of running the show.
But, of those tried by the voters, all of which professing to have true faith in God, the voters found out that the genius/bar topnotcher and the economist are the worst of the lot.
So now, the voters who truly have faith in God, and the voters who don’t, are a bit wiser now, but not so much.
Because the candidate who has true faith in God who will be given the chance to sit on the throne, might change his mind.
bert:
the bar topnotcher and the economist are the worst of the lot – that’s your vox populi vox dei – your god did not foresee the change of heart? where’s the wisdom? another mystery? :)
BongV, you’re truly confused, hehehe. What I said was, the voters and the presidents have true faith in God. Not me. Remember it’s not me we were talking about, claro?
Well, I’m a voter too, but my faith in God is not as true as the other voter’s and the presidents’ faith because I’m a hard-headed person that anything not scientifically and repeatedly verifiably true will just bounce off it. Let me just assure you that your and benignO’s begging for platform plez here in FV is nothing to a resourceful person because a resourceful person knows everything happening around so has the capability and the wherewithal to choose the cleanest candidate of all. But I’m digressing.
Back to the topic, and to your question, my answer:
Maybe the God of the voters and the God of the presidents is not the Dictator type. Or, maybe the God is apolitical. Who knows.
Unfortunately, the candidate who has true faith in God may never sit on the presidential throne because the voters don’t have true faith in God. Sorry Bert, I still disagree with your point. And they want to TRY the womanizer, and the dumb? Good grief. The voters DON’T have true faith in God, and that’s a fact.
Or let’s just say the voters don’t have the brain for the right things.
It’s still better to be like the Danes. ;-)
“Unfortunately, the candidate who has true faith in God may never sit on the presidential throne…”-Chino F
Chino F,
Our dear president GMA professed to be a true believer in God, are you saying now that she lied again?
“Sorry Bert, I still disagree with your point. And they want to TRY the womanizer, and the dumb? Good grief.”-Chino F again
Good gracious, Chino F, you’re talking ambiguous logic.
Why are you so repelled by the womanizer who is loved by the people, and yet attracted to the economist, or maybe also to the genius bar topnotcher, who are so detested by the people for various despicable reasons.
Are you a woman-hater, Chino F? Just curious.
I am with and for my people, the Filipino people. Are you also? No? How sad.
No one has yet come forward to say that atheists are the ones who bring health, knowledge and a decent standard of living to a society.
But has been said several times that atheists and agnostics are “canaries in the mineshaft”. Their death is symptomatic of toxic air that is deadly to all life.
The proportion of atheism and agnostics in a society reflects the dynamism of the economy and the society.
Notice that countries with near homogeneity in religious belief have relatively less dynamic economies. Essentially, the economies mimic the intellectual stagnation.
That defies Darwinian theory. Atheists are the first to die!
blackshama:
when H1N1 first hit Mexico – i recall all those people in the church were the first to die.
god loves them so much, they had to die first?
We have a hard time feeding ourselves. How can we have good health?
You mean, Hyden, you, the ‘theists’?
This should clinched it already, R. Tani is right after all.
Hyden: Pinas does NOT have good health (or more correctly, high development index).
Others one would guess to be “below” Pinas are indeed below Pinas, like Ethiopia, Ivory Coast, Mozambique, Haiti.
But Colombia with its drug- and civil wars is way above Pinas. Cuba, too, higher-scoring than Pinas. Must be they don’t get typhoons, you think? Or they are better Catholics? Or maybe (for Cuba) it is they had a dictator in power for a really long long time? But dictator-led Syria is (slightly) below Pinas, so letting GMA be dictator for 6 more years no guarantee that Pinas becomes a Malaysia in Tabako Ramos’ lifetime.
http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR_2009_EN_Summary.pdf
Let me play the Devil’s Advocate against illogical atheism. I won’t bring God in my argument at all. After all like the Devil He/She can be a product of Darwinian processes. And that would shoot down atheism and it will crash to the ground.
The problem with this argument that the more atheistic a society, the healthier it is a logical fallacy. The countries listed here have small populations. You don’t need atheism to support the argument (atheism is a barmy explanation lacking scientific support) The more parsimonious explanation is that these societies have less environmental impact and are mainly European. Theism or its negation has nothing to do with it. Just human ecology and environment. The fact that Ireland is in the list already casts doubt on this silly argument.
Now let me completely shoot down the atheism and health argument which will definitely falsifies its conclusions.
The most theistic state is not Ireland at 95% but the Vatican which is 100% God believing! If there is an atheist there he must be a Dan Brown fan! The Vatican must be the healthiest country on the planet. It reported only 3 deaths to WHO due to infectious disease in the last 10 years! Its health minister must be doing its job very well! That’s a death rate of 0.3% a year. The most famous infectious disease casualty in that period is Pope JP II.
The Vatican is the only carbon neutral state on the planet and Papa Ratzi will keep it that way. BTW the devout believe that the Gates of Hell won’t prevail over it. Viva il Papa!
But, blackshama, your comparison is somewhat off-track, somewhat lang. Hindi ba, most of Vatican populations are celibates, some even might be sexually impotent? While the Irish are known for their reproductive prowess? Also, the Irish has to sweat it out to be able to make a decent living, while the Vatican population, like the Philippine economy, rely solely from the remittances (of priests) from all over the world.
parang pakaining-baboy lang sila, kaya matataba, heheh.
The Swiss Guards aren’t celibate. BTW, whether its residents are celibate or not is not part of argument at all.
“BTW, whether its residents are celibate or not is not part of argument at all.”
Of course it is. The reason why most Vatican population are celibate is because of their theistic beliefs. And because they’re celibate and single, they don’t worry as much as the Irishmen about the wife who oftentimes nagged so much.
Biro lang, blackshama, CHEERS.
“The problem with this argument that the more atheistic a society, the healthier it is a logical fallacy.”
This is not even an argument, this is a fact. The countries with more organic atheism ARE indeed more healthy. The data already backs this up.
What you could have argued against is whether the relationship is one of causation or correlation. All that has been proven so far is the latter. But the research at least proves that high organic atheism does NOT lead to societal degradation.
“The most theistic state is not Ireland at 95% but the Vatican which is 100% God believing”
Vatican is a city-state in Rome in Italy, and 6-15% of Italy is not “god believing.” They are actually 34th in the Top 50 Highest Proportion of Nonbelievers list.
The fact is the Vatican by virtue of the Lateran Treaty is a SEPARATE SOVEREIGN STATE from Italy.
We cannot twist the facts to support the religion called atheism.
@blackshama
Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color.
But if you want to include the Vatican as an entry in the list of countries, tell that to the HDR and the other organizations who don’t count the Vatican as a country. In any case, it wouldn’t change the overall results of the findings.
how do you know the vatican is carbon neutral?
The European Union gave a carbon neutral certificate/citation to Pope John Paul II just before he passed away. It seems there is enough trees in the Vatican Gardens and its extraterritorial possessions to offsets all the incense and candles! :-)
I believe the Vatican also has no permanent residents, not even the pope. It’s a tourist spot. So I would imagine that people with infectious diseases would find a hospital more equipped to handle their disease than die on vacation.
Ask those Politicians why they are derelict in their duties for the
common good. They will answer: “The Devil made us do it”. I dont have
a quarrel on those who believe God or those who do not. I have a quarrel on those who force us to believe, or not to believe. Then,
bomb you because you dont share their views.
I watched an interview with Zuckerman on Youtube. Even he does not say that atheism is the cause of the top ten countries doing well. Rather, they practice actual values that work. He interviewed Danes and Swedes, and he found that Christianity is seen by these as less of “Christ saved us with our blood,” and more of “we look out for each other.” While Americans (and Filipinos) are more fond of public show, Danes and Swedes are fond of actually applying good action. I would say it’s ethical practices that made these countries good (Ethics is the secular version of right and wrong). I believe that this should be the focus of real Christianity rather than show.
Here is the interview:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9vc7v7em_4&feature=player_embedded#
Actually this should be “Christ saved us with His blood.” Basic Christian belief. But just as basic is what to do.
Can’t Filipinos be more like the Danes in this?
ChinoF,
Very superb observation. Myself, for fun-loving entertainment, I watch those television preachers on US television. They all seem to have southern accents, pretty hair streaked with grey, and the slick style of a snake-oil salesman; frequently they end up getting caught in some illicit love triangle or house of ill repute.
I personally think Jesus was one cool dude, but, all the priestly posturing from the pulpit is just men at work . . . I think the Bible is best read quietly and taken into the heart, not advertised or promoted like the latest Toyota, with authorities of the faith condemning us eternally to hell for an interpretation that differs from theirs . . .
Joe
Mahatma Gandhi liked Jesus Christ. Supposedly, Gandhi said this :
“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”
And this one:
UP n,
My job here on FV is to channel Gandhi, Obama (real time live), Ayn Rand, Jonathan Swift, Charles Dickens, and, on occasion, Sponge Bob. Of course my eloquence is rather that of Bubba Clinton, dear Bill’s yahoo brother, but style comes where you find it.
You are doing a fine job finding aid resources on line, I might add.
Joe
I’m more of a child of The World Tomorrow televangelism, although I didn’t reach Herbert W. Armstrong himself (of the Worldwide Church of God, which today has changed its name to Grace Communion International, and has dropped Armstrong’s beliefs as well). Actually, it wasn’t Herbert who got involved in a scandal, but his son Garner Ted. Televangelism sure is among the best examples of cardboard Christianity you can see.
I agree. The problem is not faith, but rather the wrong kind of faith. It would be better if the kind of faith Filipinos had was the kind that says “God has saved me” instead of “God will save me”, and “God has provided” instead of “God will provide”. Because then instead of wasting time praying for God to wipe our asses, Filipinos could instead put their own two hands to work and clean up their own crap.
Although I still believe that any kind of faith loses to rational thinking, the wipe-your-own-but faith is acceptable. This is why I have no problem at all with deists.
Ryan, great discussion here, a lot of times discussions on religion goes astray because of the non-acceptance by a few that everyone has the right to choose, whether one feels it is based more on logic, more on faith, all of the above, some of the above, or non of the above. The fact is, is that such discussions can be elevated to the conscience of the reading public without having to resort to whether or not believers or “non-believers” have a monopoly on what is right or “righteous”.
this goes the same for our esteemed colleague Blackshama. Quite a few disagreements, even on the inherent possible conclusions of the study, but such disagreements are to be expected.
Great job handling the discussion, all around.
Thanks, Nick. I’m lucky that the participants here are more “enlightened” than those I encountered when I brought this up in the Inquirer website. There all I got was name-calling and even cursing. Which is why I enjoy participating in a discussion here from time to time.
“Socially unhealthy countries will stay superstitious and sick, making life a living Hell, while the healthy ones, the ones with more people who don’t believe in God, will get even closer to living in Heaven on Earth.” Tani
look around you or among your close friends and family, how many think the way you think especially the non existence of GOD as a “determinant of happiness”.
Your blog can be connected to ” economic of happiness” but i’m not a believer of too much wealth in material sense. Been there done that. The more we put actions to words , the more we become in tune to ourselves, IMHO.
Here’s a good wiki to supplement your “lack of substance” blog
@leytenian
“look around you or among your close friends and family, how many think the way you think especially the non existence of GOD as a “determinant of happiness”.”
I never said superstitions was a determinant of happiness. And I don’t really get the point of that long quote you pasted. Can you put your point in your own words?
And by the way, many Filipinos are happy. But as Bertrand Russell said, “The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one.”
“Bertrand Russell said, “The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one.”
can you put your point in your own words and connect it to the reality that majority of pinoys are believers. look around you… I don’t care about the view of Beltrand.. I care about how you deliver your own.
“And by the way, many Filipinos are happy” tani
how do you know? how many?
“I never said that superstitioous is a determinant of happiness? “Socially unhealthy countries will stay superstitious and sick, making life a living Hell, while the healthy ones, the ones with more people who don’t believe in God, will get even closer to living in Heaven on Earth.” tani
you started referencing so I give you more references for more substance.. that’s all there is to it. No worries its only wiki for now. there’s more to life….
whatever you’re smoking right now, i want it. LOL.
The point of Bertrand Russel’s quote is that happy is not always a good end — you also have to consider the means you got to that state.
The Human Development Index did not include happiness, a very subjective value, in their criteria. They included variables that can be measured.
But if you’re interested in a study that deals with happiness, check this out: http://worlddatabaseofhappiness.eur.nl/hap_nat/nat_fp.php
By the way, please refrain from personal attacks. Please criticize my arguments and not my character. Thank you :)
Ryan,
Albert Camus posed the question, if life is such a pain, why not just commit suicide? After a book of nearly unintelligible brilliance (I guess; I only got to page 28), he concludes that life is worth living because of the downs as well as ups. It is what provides the fabric, the meaning, of life. And I suppose it is why our struggles get etched deeply into our memories whereas the happy times generally disappear in a puff of pink happy smoke. I have come to appreciate the bad times, even though I don’t enjoy them. Or maybe more accurately, appreciate that I was able to “sustain” through them . . .
Joe
Sorry, Joe, but I’m not clear about what you’re getting at with this. Care to enlighten me?
Ryan,
I was addressing B. Russel’s comment “happy is not always good”, essentially saying “unhappy is not always bad”. As frequently occurs in a brain where synapses have become unhitched in places, the words lost their track in the forest.
I enjoy your discussions. Cerebral, dude, cerebral . . .
Joe
As Arthur Miller himself said, the purpose of suffering in life is to inform us, not as a disease that we try to eliminate. Hey, here’s another atheist for you, Ryan! hehe.
Atheists say the darndest things ;)
You have a point… If you go back and read my post, I said, your blog CAN BE CONNECTED to economic of happiness.
BTW, there’s nothing wrong with your character except substance is lacking in your blog.
It’s my fault for giving you my time but I think you need some help…
Wait a minute. What do you mean when you say my “blog”? Did you mean my blog *post*? Sorry, I thought you were talking about my blog (ryantani.com) ;)
Then if substance is lacking in my blog, thanks for providing relevant information and help. Anyway, thanks for participating leytenian, I look forward to your comments on my next post, too :)
“The non-acceptance by a few that everyone has the right to choose…”
This is one of the most damaging things in the world. Nothing good comes out of this. It’s a problem in the Philippines too. Hello, CEAP?
ChinoF,
Very superb observation. Myself, for fun-loving entertainment, I watch those television preachers on US television. They all seem to have southern accents, pretty hair streaked with grey, and the slick style of a snake-oil salesman; frequently they end up getting caught in some illicit love triangle or house of ill repute.
I personally think Jesus was one cool dude, but, all the priestly posturing from the pulpit is just men at work . . . I think the Bible is best read quietly and taken into the heart, not advertised or promoted like the latest Toyota, with authorities of the faith condemning us eternally to hell for an interpretation that differs from theirs . . .
Joe
Those Televangelists are just earning a living. You will be thrown
to Hell. Fire and brimstone will fall on you. If you dont attend
their churches and give enough contributions. The DEVIL can also
come to torment you. Why not be a Suicide Bomber to get immediate
entrance to Heaven? I think, we are the Insane Asylum of the Universe!
Hey Dollar Joe why don’t you educate these poor devils with the role of the State most especially the U.S.A. Army Corp of Engineers.
They have jurisdiction over all waterways including the shorelines of the entire U.S.A. (including dams)
J_ag,
The military indeed has its domestic assignments. I was pleased to read that the Philippine Army was a least better prepared for the last typhoon that hit Luzon, and was diligently clearing roadways and other useful duties immediately in its wake.
Joe
Just to pull a strand from your thread, RP, as a country is socially unhealthy.
Our people are superstitious and sick and their life is really a living hell.
While they believe in God or not, those in the base of our ‘social pyramid’ are largely patronizing of their political leaders (who bongV tags as bozos. As if by shared ‘faith’ however mistaken, they characterize a kind of ‘groupthink’ such as that being promoted at FV, which can either be heavenly or hellish.
Applied in the case of the victims of Ondoy, those people who transformed as their human habitat – rivers, creeks, esteros, hillsides, under bridges, canals, et cetera – they are probably the worst believes in God. Being so, they got what they may not have expected – ang delubyo ni Ondoy.
Come to think of it, these victims are “human floods” themselves that have long ‘flooded the whole of Metro Manila’.
rtani,
I think you were a bit misleading when you came up with the formulas “less superstition, less sickness” and “more heathenly, more heavenly.” Though you pointed out in your response to blacshama that the quality of the relationship was still in question (causation vs. correlation), your failure to dwell on the matter in the main posting smacks of intellectual dishonesty just to prove a point or push an advocacy.
For all you know, secularization might be the underlying reason why societies progress (based on HDI), not the rising proportion of non-believers.
While I am fully aware of superstitions fostered by religion throughout history, to equate theism with superstition as you have done is simply disingenuous.
Thanks for the reply apanfilo.
Like I told blacshama, it’s not even an argument. It’s a fact. “Less superstition, less sickness” and “more heathenly, more heavenly” does describe the current global situation.
And although I do not have research to link to, I think it’s reasonable to assume that the more secularized a society is, the higher the proportion of nonbelievers. They go hand in hand.
Lastly, although theism does not equal superstition, theism is a system of superstitions:
Superstition:
1 a : a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation b : an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition
2 : a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary
Simply put, theism is a bunch of beliefs without proof. There are some beliefs that can be proven, but those are in the realm of ethics. What I mean is for the things that make theism what it is, they are no better than superstition.
Unless of course, you have proof to back your claim that the main tenets of your religion (e.g., resurrection, virgin birth, invisible creatures, etc.) are more than superstition. And by the way, faith is not evidence.
but you cant disprove God either. its a wash.
This is a common error. When a statement can neither be proved nor disproved, the probability of it being true is not 50%. Take this for example:
“There is a man on earth who can fly, walk on water, resurrect the dead, turn invisible, teleport, and has adamantium claws.
I have no proof, but neither do you have proof that he does not exist. Therefore, the chances of this man actually existing is just the same as his chances of not existing.”
the plausibility of a proposition is subjective and depends on context.
Of course, what I mean by proof is scientifically valid evidence, objective, testable, repeatable, falsifiable.
If you mean relative proof, then believers have a lot of that. Feelings, hunches, faith, etc. Of course, these are never taken as valid, except by the same people who use it.
And in what context do you think the superstitions of religion are more likely to be factual than fantastical?
There is a reason the fiction writers made the god character stop appearing and the faithful followers stop performing observable miracles BEFORE society had the means to test these claims.
Today, all we have are claims with ambiguous results, or claims made without critical thinking to screen them.
ryan tani,
I don’t dispute the observed phenomenon but its formulation, or the conclusion you derived from the observation. Zuckerman’s study only concluded that progressive societies have a higher proportion of non-believers. Nothing was said about the level of superstition.
Clearly what we have at the moment is at least some correlation. And this kind of relationship’s easy to generate. I mean, I can bet that the high proportion of toilets in “less superstitious” countries will also correlate with their high HDI scores. Sanitation, after all, can prevent the spread of diseases.
You still have to make a convincing argument that theism — not merely religion mind you — works against progress because it promotes superstition.
Hi apanfilo,
Actually, the point of my post was to show that given the 2009 HDR data, Zuckerman’s original conclusions still apply: “Phil Zuckerman concluded that nations with high organic atheism are more likely to have healthy societies.”
“Still don’t get it? More heathens, more health — More superstitions, more sickness.”
If this statement bothers you, let me rephrase it. The more heathens (organic atheists) you find in a country, the more health you will likely find too (high HDI score). The more superstitions (belief in a God/Gods/Spirits) you find in a country, the more sickness you will likely find too (low HDI score).
Sorry if this can be taken another way, say like this:
Increasing atheism will increase HDI, Increasing religion will decrease HDI.
But in the context of my post, I made the statement right after the table. I was in effect saying: If you did not see the trend in the data, here it is.
Now, if I showed data with the figures for different years, which include increase in HDI and/or religious proportion, then my statement will be taken in the context you are probably against.
And though I did not say it in my post, it is indeed a theory of mine that religion does cause societal harm. But that is for a different post :) Although my previous posts here have been in that direction.
@Liam, this is indeed possible. That high health promotes the growth of atheism, in the same way that poor health promotes the increase in religion.
I wouldn’t be surprised if this were also the case. I say also because I believe that the relationship runs both ways. High organic atheism leads to healthy societies, and healthy societies lead to high organic atheism.
This is what I believe, by the way, not what Zuckerman’s study suggests.
Ryan:
“There is a man on earth who can fly, walk on water, resurrect the dead, turn invisible, teleport, and has adamantium claws.
I have no proof, but neither do you have proof that he does not exist. Therefore, the chances of this man actually existing is just the same as his chances of not existing.”
———————-
Science has methods to protect you from con-men and misguided’s. Science has a way to tell you how to determine if “Yes/No” to fifty-fifty-chance or not.
“Science has methods to protect you from con-men and misguided’s. Science has a way to tell you how to determine if “Yes/No” to fifty-fifty-chance or not.”
@up, exactly. Science is the best way of testing truth claims. But as we know, Religion wants to be exempt from scientific testing. That is, most of their truth claims are based on faith rather than valid evidence.
you said :”
Of course, what I mean by proof is scientifically valid evidence, objective, testable, repeatable, falsifiable.
If you mean relative proof, then believers have a lot of that. Feelings, hunches, faith, etc. Of course, these are never taken as valid, except by the same people who use it.”
by what standard should we evaluate religious statements? via a consistent religious standard/framework.
this is the point of theology, to establish said standard.
Tani: I sense some pressure… why the insistence that the Catholics or the Muslims or the Iglesia ni Kristo among FV prove the truth of their religion?
That’s a tack different from the premise that “..a society with high HDI is a society with high percentage-population of atheists/agnostics”.
And warning: The nature of the curve that maps HDI as function of percent-non-religious is not known. The first derivative may be steeply negative when percent-non-religious is above 60%.
The default position is there is no deity. The burden of proof lies on those who allege the existence of a deity.
Thanks @Gabby and @UP,
“by what standard should we evaluate religious statements? via a consistent religious standard/framework.
this is the point of theology, to establish said standard.”
Internal consistency is the same standard used in evaluating good speculative fiction. Consistency with reality, that is the point of science.
And it’s not as if theology is internally consistent. Books have been written about the logical contradictions of theology. I could point them out to you, but that would take us too much off track, as UP has mentioned.
@UP, I only mentioned about this burden of proof thing to elaborate the part of my argument relating religion to superstition. Some comments seem to disagree, so I had to show that unless there is valid evidence, from a scientific standpoint religious dogma of the supernatural kind can be nothing more than superstition.
@UP:
“And warning: The nature of the curve that maps HDI as function of percent-non-religious is not known. The first derivative may be steeply negative when percent-non-religious is above 60%.”
There are 7 countries in the with maximum percent non-religious above 60%, and 3 of them are in the top 10 GDI list.
But even if the data in some way changes when atheism goes above a certain atheist percentage, say Sweden’s 85%, this would be part of another study.
Check back with me in ten years. By then I *theorize* that even more countries in the list will be above 60%, and they will have higher GDIs still than those with the lower percentages.
apanfilo,
indeed, the relationship could be anything. there could be no relationship.
Sorry Gabby, but there is already at least one of correlation ;)
I’ll bet once you are done with the calculator, a stronger correlation will exist between HDI and the race of the head of government.
UP n grad, Zuckerman studied this correlation because he believes religion (or the lack of it) does affect human behavior, which does affect human development.
Sure, you could study for race, toilet seats, etc. But some things are more relevant than others.
In any case, Zuckerman’s study will only be irrelevant if religion has absolutely no effect on human development, in which case I’ll be equally as content.
I see.. But I also have one correlation theory..
Would it be possible if it is the other way around?
I was wonder whether High HDR is one of the primary factors that help create an environment where people can afford/have a choice whether or not to become a/an Atheist, Agnostic, Non-believer?
@Liam, this is indeed possible. That high health promotes the growth of atheism, in the same way that poor health promotes the increase in religion.
I wouldn’t be surprised if this were also the case. I say also because I believe that the relationship runs both ways. High organic atheism leads to healthy societies, and healthy societies lead to high organic atheism.
This is what I believe, by the way, not what Zuckerman’s study suggests.
“i was **wondering** ..”
sorry if i am being too inquisitive, this topic is making me curious..
so coming from your point is it possible, also, that higher atheism/non believer incidence is an INDICATOR OF rather than CORRELATED WITH Higher HDR? sorry if it sounds confusing..
i had this interesting conversation with an atheist classmate, it strikes me that the kind of thinking/logic a practicing atheist possesses is helpful/enriching to the evolution/development of any society..
@Liam
“sorry if i am being too inquisitive, this topic is making me curious..”
Never apologize for being inquisitive or curious.
“so coming from your point is it possible, also, that higher atheism/non believer incidence is an INDICATOR OF rather than CORRELATED WITH Higher HDR? sorry if it sounds confusing..”
That’s the same thing. The correlation of one variable with another “indicates” their relationship. A high correlation suggests that a high value of one variable tends to be paired with a similarly high value on the other.
“i had this interesting conversation with an atheist classmate, it strikes me that the kind of thinking/logic a practicing atheist possesses is helpful/enriching to the evolution/development of any society..”
A lot of the revolutionary thinkers — philosophers, scientists, inventors, leaders — who have advanced society in terms of technology, tolerance, science, and many other ways are atheists.
@ryan
i was referring to the causal relationship. it could be anything. it could be totally unrelated.
also, this: “… that poor health promotes the increase in religion.” is unfounded as well…
@gabby d, yup, right now the causal relationship is only a theory that I’m working on, but the correlation is a valid clue.
Gabbyd:
We can get the statement from the NYC Atheists, Inc. on the matter
Guys, all that the Zuckerman study itself says is two things:
1. The healthiest nations in the world include the Scandinavian nations, with good health care, the highest satisfaction and low crime and suicide rates, et al;
2. These are also the nations with the highest relative numbers of atheists, as well as secularists, in the world.
However, the correlation between these two is the subject of another study. It’s Ryan’s interpretation that nations with high atheism will be healthier. Whether the atheism is the cause or not, there, another study is needed. However, I can assume that a nation with more atheists is likely to have a very free religious environment – which means true separation of church and state.
The unfortunate fact is that many atrocities are committed by some highly theistic nations… like Islamic and African ones. Though some atheistic people like Josef Stalin and Pol Pot have their share of killings. >:)
Thanks for clarifying, Chino.
Though Stalin and Pol Pot were evil not because of their atheism: They just happened to be atheists. Unlike the atrocities that are caused precisely because of religious beliefs.
A bit glad that you didn’t include Hitler, who happens to be a Christian ;)
The similarity of these two sentences go beyond sentence-structure, e.g. neither are based on the scientific method.
You saying this sentence:
blackshama saying this:
UP:
for the life of me, I can’t find the part of Ryan’s statement that says “but because”.
UPn, those statements were based on observation, which can be scientific in itself.
Hitler, though a Christian at the start, ended up a cultist. I watched a documentary showing that the Nazis created a cult religion of their own, using the occult, Norse mythology and pseudo-science, all based on their idea of the Aryan Superman. They were anything but Christian in the end. But it implies they were not Atheistic either. I would say they regressed back to paganism.
http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR_2009_EN_Summary.pdf
5. Ireland 0.965
15. Spain 0.955
18. Italy 0.951
27. Israel 0.935
30. Brunei Darussalam 0.920
33. Qatar 0.910
34. Portugal 0.909
35. United Arab Emirates 0.903
38. Malta 0.902
Ireland NA
Spain 27th 15-24%
Italy 34th 6-15%
Israel 19th 15-37%
Brunei NA
Qatar NA
Portugal 42nd 4-9%
UAE NA
Malta NA
http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html
ryan,
why is the range for norway so big? its 31 to 72%? thats huge.
This is due to the problems of definition discussed by Zuckerman’s here http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/Ath-Chap-under-7000.pdf . You can also consider reading the entire thing (relatively short). I promise it’s at least an interesting read.
but as far as i can tell, the surveys in norway that ask the question has had a wide range of responses of yes to “atheist” type questions. a nice middle estimate for norway would be 41% described in the text.
Re this UN report, maybe it is time to question not only the message, but the messenger as well.
Because people we do look beyond the numbers in the report, have this to say:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/10/024649.php
This short analysis ends with:
The point is that statistical compilations of this sort are always misleading and politically motivated. Their purpose is to convince the rest of us that people who live in very liberal or socialist countries are best off. The methods are transparent, but organizations like the U.N. are secure in the knowledge that news outlets who read their press releases over the air or reproduce them in newspapers will not actually read their reports to assess whether they have any validity.
Anybody care to dispute the dissenting view’s analysis?
erratum:
“we” on 2nd paragraph should be “who”. Thanks.
you cant dispute it, coz its true.
the fact that you index with health and education (equal weights) implies that total production is only 1/3 of the value of the index — i.e. you need to add other measures of success. what these other measures are, and how they are inputted, are decisions that require other factors/preferences than increasing income.
if anything, the HDI reminds us that countries ought to bring in concerns other than income. thats fine and good.
One very important thing that the writer of this post neglected to mention is the fact that the top 10 countries in the list of the best in human development are countries that have a very interventionist and effective state participation in the economy that promotes social welfare. Human welfare.
Human development is front and center. They do not believe in dogmatic secular religion. They regulate human wickedness. This is an offshoot of their experiences during their formative years. They practice a form of libertarian socialism.
They have gone through conflicts wherein theological and secular religions merged.
Facism of the left and the right always used either secular or theological religion to oppress and exploit people.
It was never simply theism versus secularism.
Humans versus nature (Creation) is a false dichotomy. How can we be against ourselves? The problem always has been when we get to believe that we become like the Gods.
It has always been about survival and putting culture as the predicate of human development is totally wrong.
Every rational person will understand that for human survival to be sustained we must become aware that humans have been given the gift of observation over eons over nature to the point that we have learned to build and destroy ourselves or sustain human evolution on this planet. Nature will survive even without us.
If man is simply an accident of natural selection so be it. Let us live simply for the moment.
The thread is going well. I “see” Ryan sending two messages : the first has an informational tone: “…societies with higher HDI human development index are societies that have higher percentage non-religious”, and pointing to the United Nations study has information value. The other one has an assertive tone — that atheism is better because Catholics, Muslims, Iglesias or whatever’s do not have proof that the main tenets of their religion are other than superstition”.
—————
In my opinion. . . .
It is a stretch to claim that “…because Iglesias have no proof of the main tenets of their religion..”, then “atheism is better”. The sentence structure resembles “The 1978-model Chevy Camaro overheats, therefore, the 2004 Nissan-Z is the best sports car!!”.
It will be helpful if Ryan points to a study that uses scientific method to arrive at a conclusion resembling “atheism is better”.
“The other one has an assertive tone — that atheism is better because Catholics, Muslims, Iglesias or whatever’s do not have proof that the main tenets of their religion are other than superstition””
I only discussed something related to this point to respond to those who disagree with my comment that by the definition of superstition, religion is based on superstitions. If it somehow comes out that I think something based on science is better than something based on superstition, then good. I am a rationalist, after all.
By the way, my atheism is a result of my freethinking, and freethinking is based on making truth claims with science instead of superstition, reason instead of faith, and freedom to think instead of fear of blasphemy.
Again, if I will claim that atheism or freethought is better than religion it is because I think that to understand and deal with reality, science is better than superstition. Do you need a scientific study to back this up? Perhaps this will be enough: http://www.quackwatch.com/
you cannot judge a book by its cover. How do we know that Mang Juan is not happy? (for example) Maybe he is innocent, poor and ignorant but it doesn’t mean he is unhappy.
Happiness is a state of mind. Fear is a state of mind. Therefore, when a country is run by people lacking the ” happiness state of mind” and has plenty of ” fear state of mind” like being guilty of corruption, of course the whole country will not be happy economically.. period. goodnite…
Hi Leytenian, again, like Bertrand Russell said, “The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one.”
Good night :)
russell failed to share how the scientific measure for happiness was derived, and if there is internal consistency between what is experienced by a believer and an inebriated person. ah, equivocation–a fallacy.
If happiness is an area of the brain lighting up, then agriculture
may indeed for Pinas salviation.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5290545
If happiness is an area of the brain lighting up, then agriculture
may indeed be Pinas salviation.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5290545
Yup, beer, illegal drugs, *anything* that hinders the rational part of the brain’s functioning does seem to bring about happiness. But like a wise man once said, this is not so much happiness as it is the temporary cessation of unhappiness.
ryan tani,
“By the way, my atheism is a result of my freethinking, and freethinking is based on making truth claims with science instead of superstition, reason instead of faith, and freedom to think instead of fear of blasphemy.
Again, if I will claim that atheism or freethought is better than religion it is because I think that to understand and deal with reality, science is better than superstition.”
We’ve finally come to the meat and potatoes of your position, which you’ve tried to put some gravy on by citing the Zuckerman study.
Freethinking likes to imagine it’s free. That it’s purely guided by reason and reality-tested claims. Religion, freethinkers imagine, rests solely on faith and by extension a hodgepodge of superstitions.
A problem with your position is that you equated faith in God with superstition. Your rationality demands that a believer proves his faith but faith by definition does not need proof. Or more to the point, demanding a proof of the existence of God is a doomed enterprise because a God whose existence can be demonstrated empirically is not a God at all. This God will just be another phenomenon which can be properly studied by science. And I’m not sure that’s what believers have in mind.
So does a believer’s inability to prove his God make him superstitious? Perhaps a believer can also brand you as superstitious because you believe that religion causes societal harm without adequate proof.
Again, superstition:
1 a : a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation b : an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition
2 : a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary
You’ve said it yourself. “Faith by definition does not need proof.” That is, faith is what you use when you have no valid reasons or evidence, thus making it irrational and unempirical, hence superstitious.
That religion has caused societal harm is beyond the scope of this post. But do you honestly doubt this? Religious wars, intolerance, racism, sexism, slavery, anti-intellectualism, anti-Science, anti-progress, you name it.
Religion’s involvement in these atrocities are hardly superstition, they are fact. Do you need me to write a study to prove religion’s involvement in each of these atrocities? Although I could, or I could point you to other studies, I trust in your better judgment.
you recall the latest incidence in Mexico where the churchgoers went to church and prayed their sickness will be gone. guess what, they died, 150 of them, from H1N1 – and spread the virus, too.
frakking superstition does cause social harm.
source of this fabricated statistics please.
Just a thought… Denmark and some of the countries mentioned in the study are those not prone to disasters. Who knows if things go down and their secularism is disturbed. Lately, Zuckerman himself stated in a radio interview that Iceland is undergoing the financial dumps, so this may shake up the secularism a bit. There are many more factors affecting the religiosity of the country other than what religions (or non-religions) are in it.
But then again, there’s Japan, and they’ve got earthquakes. Perhaps the secularist approach also helps them deal with problems more ethically. Still, that’s for another study.
this definition, defines superstition NOT faith
“:1 a : a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation b : an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition
2 : a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary”
why is it faith?
is faith ignorant?, fearful?, trustful to chance?, maintained despite evidence to contrary? what evidence? we can’t prove it either way.
c’mon man. be fair naman.
Hi Gabby,
Ignorant? Yes. With certain knowledge faith is not required. “I don’t know, but i have faith” “the lord works in mysterious ways” “we don’t know god’s plan” etc.
Fearful? Yes. Especially the Christian kind. Nothing as frightening as eternal damnation.
Trustful to chance? Yes. The odds are against the fantastical claims of the bible. Yet believers trust, against all odds.
Maintained despite evidence to contrary? Yes. There is no evidence of the fantastical things in the Bible. Yet believers take these as fact.
Gabby, this is fair.
ur using the colloquial meaning of “faith”. as in “i have faith in you”… “i am faithfull…”
this is not the religious meaning of the word faith.
and thats unfair.
Faith:
1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1) : fidelity to one’s promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs
Sorry, by faith I meant definitions 2 and 3. There is the first definition, but in the context of our discussion I hope you’ll agree it’s obvious I was referring to the other 2.
lets get specific…
is it ignorant? no. its being open to life. is it about fear? no. its obvious that acting on fear is not something a good xtian is about. its about love — not magic, chance. we dont demand that god do things for us. do we have an abject attitude towards anything? i dont think so.
a notion despite evidence? there is no evidence against it. more to the point, it IS NOT about evidence.
“it’s being open to life”
Sorry, this is on a different scale than ignorance and knowledge.
“acting on fear is not something a good xtian is about”
Don’t Christians say the fear of god is the beginning of all wisdom? And tell that to the millions of Christians afraid of hell.
“love, not magic, chance”
Again, irrelevant. It’s either you believe in improbable, supernatural events, or you believe in nature grounded in reality. Love is not in the equation.
“it is not about evidence”
EXACTLY.
this discussion is getting nowhere. lets tackle this a couple at a time, real slow.
1) is faith ignorant? to answer, what is ignorance? ignorance is the act of ignoring information.
what information are the faithful ignoring?, in fact, they are open to life,they are curious. by definition, they are searching/yearning?
2) notion despite evidence? again (and we are repeating ourselves…) there is NO evidence for and against.
further, and this IS important, a religious claim should not be analyzed by science.
it is NOT because faith is illogical — it is because they are talking about different things. faith does not seek to explain the working of natural phenomena.
The default position is – there is NO deity.
Whoever is alleging there is a DEITY bears the burden of proof. Thus there are disprovable stuff – and there are probable stuff.
And some disprovable stuff are far less probable than other undisprovable stuff. Red unicords, tooth fairy, god, zeus, mercury, jupiter, ( ______ – place the name of deity here), Santa claus, voltes 5.
“this discussion is getting nowhere. lets tackle this a couple at a time, real slow.”
I agree. I think this is getting to the point where we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
“what information are the faithful ignoring?, in fact, they are open to life,they are curious. by definition, they are searching/yearning?”
For one, how about this information: There is no valid evidence for God. There is also ignoring all information and reasoning that does not agree with dogma. There is also ignoring the Bible itself. Do you know how little have actually read the entire Bible?
“2) notion despite evidence? again (and we are repeating ourselves…) there is NO evidence for and against.”
Again, you don’t have to have evidence to know that some truth claims are less probable than others. There is no proof that a Superman lives on the Moon right now. Does that make the chances of my statement being true and false the same?
“further, and this IS important, a religious claim should not be analyzed by science.
it is NOT because faith is illogical — it is because they are talking about different things. faith does not seek to explain the working of natural phenomena.”
There is only one reality, and Science is our best way of understanding it. A faith healer in quiapo cannot say that my methods do not work by scientific standards but they work by supernatural standards. It’s either they can be demonstrated to work or they don’t.
Anyway, this is getting so far off topic now. It’s been a pleasure discussing with you guys. Till I post my next article, I’ll let this website do the arguing for me for now: http://godisimaginary.com/
If you want to discuss more of these topics, please post a question or argument on our forum here: http://www.filipinofreethinkers.org/forum/ .
Now I’m off to work on my next post (among other more important things, of course). Till then!
BongV,
We exist, therefore God exists,
God, the Creator.
QED
Joe:
That sounds like circular reasoning.
We are not able to explain how we came about therefore a deity created us.
an argument from incredulity?
BongV,
Well, God may then just be a chemical reaction,
but you did not create us,
nor did I,
so I trust that it was Him.
Joe
Trust could be the same as faith. It does not prove anything.
Bert,
Faith and trust. Faith in my mind is the personal assumption that a greater power exists, and for some, it is that the greater power will somehow do good. The latter is highly speculative to me. But having seen things in life that are truly outerworld (esp), I don’t automatically say it can’t exist because my rational brain denies it.
Trust, however, is something entirely different. I trust the guy in the foxhole with me will shoot the enemy to save his ass and my ass, and will not climb and run the other way, sacrificing my ass to save his own. Rather like we place our trust in Congress that they will act in our behalf.
Rather paints many legislators as cowards, now that I think of it in those terms . . . sacrificing the people so they can remain in power and grow rich.
Joe
Can anyone find anything right, or wrong, with this statement?
“I believe, therefore it’s true!”
Joe, my good friend,
How can I argue with what you are saying, I cannot, in fact I tend to agree. Your faith and your trust are your personal thing just as my faith and my trust are mine. Just my hope, and my trust as well, that you don’t find it erroneous my saying that, “faith and trust does not prove anything” with regards the question of whether God’s existence is true or not.
Of course, if I am wrong I’ll be happy to be enlightened some more. CHEERS!
Bert,
“I believe, therefore it’s true.”
Well, I’d just append a “to me” on the end of the sentence and tell you that you are not authorized to define my reality for me. My reality is mine to define. Do you have any idea of the limits of the human brain? It only knows what it knows, which is infinitesimal in the total sum of all worldly knowledge, but it convinces you that you know best, better, more than the guy over there who has a different idea. Eh, and you haven’t even gotten to the part where brains and trees share some kind of cosmic ether. How you gonna get there? You are trying to draw too many rational limits.
Open your mind, don’t close it with rational thinking.
Joe
“Well, I’d just append a “to me” on the end of the sentence and tell you that you are not authorized to define my reality for me.”
Not to worry, Joe, I’m not encroaching, no, no, no, not at all, please.
Mine are just questions that need answers, because I want to be enlightened. Oh, I love asking questions, and my head is not closed to rational thinking I can assure you, though the irrational most times bounced off it.
Joe,
Do you know the reason why I preferred to stick it out here in Nick’s blog, Joe? Because I want to learn. Lot’s of bright dudes here in FV whose wisdoms I can learn from, you included.
Well, the lead singers I can learn from also. But, the tseware-warewaps? Well, they’re entertaining.
Bert,
We remain aligned, especially the learning part. You ask your questions and I, on occasion, write outlandish things meant to provoke, and we stir up the new ideas.
Actually, some times you provoke with your questions, too. heh
Cheers.
Joe
This lengthy discussion appears to ignore the 800-pound gorilla in the room. The US of A.
The conclusions in this blog entry are anchored on the rankings on the UN report on HDI. But critics, especially coming from the US, have shown that that report at the very least is misleading, and politically motivated to boot.
Thus to be fair and in deference to the critical points raised by critics which remain undisputed , at the very least the report ought to be re-thought and re-calibrated.
If done so, shouldn’t the US be ranked higher? Among the top 5?
If so, it throws off the balance and significance of the rankings.
Here’s why I think so.
The US is a huge country of 307 million, with almost 80% professing themselves as Christians. Catholics alone compromise 23% of the population, and that’s almost 70 million.
Now, those professing themselves without any affiliations, like agnostics, humanists, and yes, atheists, and others, are lumped together at 10-15%.
In the current report, Norway is ranked highest. It is a country of +-5Million people. Self-professed Norwegian Americans alone equal that number, and these Americans are in most likelihood Christians. And the US being a land of immigrants, we can go down the line of the rankings and maybe come up with similar realities.
Given these and other possibilities, can we outrightly claim then that being without faith translates to a healthier world?
Well Ryan I am looking forward to you next but better blog. Your blog here reflects a minority view or not in the norm. If you are willing to change the country by having an atheist point of view or belief then starting recruiting somewhere else. Expect a stronger storm of debate…. And prepare.
you are forgetting ryan that there are two levels of truths: material, which science can verify, and pychic, which, because this is non-material, scientific methodology cannot investigate.
but if you insist: prove to me the existence of a point, without invoking the most fundamental axiom in geometry. but then if you again insist, how can an axiomatic definition of point as that which has no space nor breadth bring existence to a cartesian plane and space? okay, okay, my point being: can something come out from nothing? and if does, why can’t science explain this very root?
because at the end of the day, science is just a method fit for investigating only the physical materiality.
“okay, okay, my point being: can something come out from nothing?”-inodoro ni emilie
this is coming full cycle now. “can something come out from nothing?”
if God exists, the answer to the question would be a resounding “YES”!
which bolster the doubt about the plausibilty of the existence of God.
depends on which truth domain you are coming from, bert: scientific or mathematical/psychic?
ine,
That’s a very interesting statement you made and quite baffling to me since you are, I think, is a believer.
Are you implying that a non-believer is more scientific in his/her stand, while the believer more psychic in her/his belief?
Sorry if I’m not talking sense with this question.
You see, ine, science has never proven that something can come out from nothing, such that the logical answer to your question “can something come out from nothing”, as far as science is concern, could only be’NO’. Therefore, to believe that God does not exist is based on scientific logic.
However, to believe that there is God, and that God materialized out from nothing and therefore the answer to your question is “yes” contradict the scientific axiom that “nothing can come out of nothing” so that, to insist that there is God could not possibly be scientific but ‘psychic’, am I wrong?
I hope my question is a fair question, if not, my apology.
bert,
you say no because you hold this preconceived notion that, as in science, to find evidence of something to exist, it should have location, presence [or trace of it], etc., for it to be verifiable, etc., [fill in the conditions of scientific proof here]. but see, science is forcing the issue of materiality for what is held as something spiritual. and for that, you say god does not exist in scientific term. [aha, but then again, how well have you exhausted this search, knowing the expanding infinitude of the universe?]
no, i was not referring to god as nothing to come out from nothing. i meant our existence having to come from nothing. while you may argue that this very argument will lead back to the god of the gaps solution, i will not even invoke that. still, it is a question that is worth reflecting, for then you will realize the limits of science in explaining things: only at the material level. it could not explain why our very materiality can proceed from nothing, unless one holds the view of a big-bang-big crunch model of the universe, where the universe is in perpetual existence, and therefore one has to forego explaining the “beginning of things”.
If anyone believes in his/her faith, I think there is no argument against that because that is a personal prerogative of the person.
But to believe in anything, including the existence of God, requires rational thinking.
Otherwise, an irrational reasoning will be misunderstood as true, like this: “I have faith that God exists! Therefore it’s true.”
I’d rather have DJB running filipino voices like hell rather than ryan tani who will send us to heaven….LOL
leytenian,
Are arguments always win lose for you? Ryan provokes thought. It’s what he is paid to do here, eh? One with whom you disagree need not be thrown in a barrel, heaped with scorn.
Joe