Suicides more likely to be atheists

SAM:

I am not aware of the thread you refer to in post #90. But it doesn't matter. Diverting the discussion onto a tangent to avoid taking responsibility for your actions does not demonstrate much integrity in my opinion.

Two wrongs do not make a right. The fact that somebody else is dishonest does not mean it is ok for you to be dishonest. You ought to take responsibility for your error/deception.

The Gallup Poll also uses WHO data. Its the standard for suicide rates worldwide.

Comparing World Health Organization suicide statistics with Gallup Poll data show that in countries where most people are highly religious....
 
How many honour killings in Muslim countries? They are not encouraged or condoned, they are criminal acts - condemned by the religion and the law.

I hate having to refer to this site, but I honestly can't be stuffed searching atm:

In April 2008 it came to light that some months prior, a woman was killed by her father for chatting on Facebook to a man. The murder only came to light when a Saudi Cleric referred to the case in an attempt to demonstrate the 'strife' that the website 'causes'.[23]

A June 2008 Report by the Prime Ministry's Human Rights Directorate, says that in Istanbul alone, there is one honour killing every week; and reports over 1,000 during the last 5 years. It adds that metropolitan cities are the location of many of these.[24]

UNICEF reported that "According to 1999 estimates, more than two-thirds of all murders in Gaza strip and West bank were most likely 'honour' killings."[25]

In 2003 James Emery (adjunct professor of anthropology at Metropolitan State College of Denver and expert on Afghan politics and the Taliban) wrote: In the Palestinian communities of the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Israel, and Jordan, women are executed in their homes, in open fields, and occasionally in public, sometimes before crowds of cheering onlookers. Honor killings account for virtually all of the murders of Palestinian women in these areas. [26]

As many as 133 women were killed in the city of Basra alone in 2006 -- 79 for violation of "Islamic teachings" and 47 for honour killings, according to IRIN, the news branch of the U.N.'s Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. Amnesty International claims honour killings are also conducted by armed groups, not the government, upon politically active women and those who did not follow a strict dress code, as well as women who are perceived as human rights defenders.[27]

In Israel, an honour killer was punished in March 2008 by bieng sentenced to jail for 16 years over [the] 'honour killing' of his sister" in the Hamda Abu Ghanem case.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_killing#Middle_East

Yeah, about one a week. Very rare.:rolleyes:

And condoned indeed. Cleric uses an honour killing as an example of why a website is bad. Don't know about you, but that doesn't sound like condemnation to me. Does it sound that way to you?

No, that is paranoia and scaremongering.
Of course it is.

Keep on sweeping..

You do realise Muslim women use the teachings of Islam (Quran and saying of the Prophet) to back up their claims. Religion is open up to interpretation. And plus I seriously doubt one side was made up entirely of women and the other entirely of men, its never that simple.
No. One side was made up of individuals who recognised the absurdity of laws that denied equal rights to one sex, they being the females. The other side were made up of the religious believers who saw it as a denial of their religious teachings. Read the report. It is quite enlightening.

And yes, women in Islam often use the teachings of Islam to attempt to get equal rights and treatment. Unfortunately for them, they are often preaching to the deaf and the blind, who view women as being somehow subservient and lower than the male. So they can back up their claims all they want. If the men refuse to listen, they have no recourse. Some men use their religion to back up their claims that they are allowed to beat and rape their wives and no one dares to refuse them of that 'right'. I guess that's one way to look at family togetherness I suppose.

Your tone is not helpful. I think a decrease in the practising of religion, church going and other religious-community stuff can easily be linked to the social ills facing society in the 21st century. The West (generally) is even more individualistic, everything is me, me, me! Eastern cultures are more collectivistic.
I disagree. My response was in that tone to match the tone you originally set with those remarks. The way you put it, family, friends and community only exists in religious communities. When we both know that the reality is vastly different.

In the West people send their parents to old care homes, they can't be bothered.
What makes you think they can't be bothered? In the West, the elderly parents often want to go to an old people's home. And not everyone does send their elderly parents to such homes. Many do stay with their children until their deaths. Some demand to continue living in their own houses and their children sometimes end up moving very close or in with them to help care for them.

In Eastern cultures, brothers and sisters fight eachother to have their mum and dad live with them, it is an honour.
And in some households, they fight to not have them live with them. It is the same in the West as well.

The West has a large number of single households, mateys that are not married, no kids, just living on their own. Rare in the East, you will hardly ever see such a thing in Arab countries, Pakistan, India etc.
That's because in the West, we tend to have the belief that once a child becomes an adult, they need to learn to fend for themselves instead of forcing their aging parents to continue to cook, clean and wash their clothes for them. We believe that an adult should start to take responsibility for themselves as well as others instead of living off the parents. There are many who do not leave home but continue to live with their parents and allow the parents to continue to baby them.

Women have every right to drive, it is only the Saudis that ban them, God knows why.
Indeed.
 
What about them?

They are asessing the effects of secular education on suicide ideation and the effects of decreasing religiosity on suicide.

That doesn't solve the problems with them.

Don't care, not when James quotes Gallup poll data and tells me to apologise for quoting a similar association derived from assumed religiosity or lack of based on same data. I was hardly presenting an original or radical idea.
 
Atheists harm themselves, theists harm others.

Are you sure you want to be making this point, S.A.M.? Why don't you put up some bar graphs on pedophiles?
 
Athiests harm themselves, theists harm others.

Are you sure you want to be making this point, S.A.M.? Why don't you put up some bar graphs on pedophiles?

Not if you factor in that atheists are more likely to condone abortion.

Besides, the fact that increased atheism leads to social disintegration is sufficient reason to avoid it.

Decay of religion in any society has a historical precedent for leading to its dissolution.
 
Ah yes, from Ghosts comments. Do you think atheists have no family and friend gatherings? Or social and community contact and contract?

Do you think that atheists have no social cohesion or goals that affect the whole?
 
I think it is evident from a cursory view of society where atheism is on the increase, that individualism takes precedence over community. Objectively, that would, over several generations lead to a breakdown in the ideals that sustain the family unit. Simply because individualism is not compatible with teamwork.
 
SAM said:
They are asessing the effects of secular education on suicide ideation and the effects of decreasing religiosity on suicide.
And doing it without controls or reliable data. Apparently they aren't even controlling for theism or accidental death or murder - researchers after your own heart.

But the point has been stipulated (your original point, about theism not religion): suppose suicide becomes more common as atheism increases, though still rare, of course. What do you conclude?

Do humans have to believe in a particular form of nonsense in order to be happy in a large society? And if so why?

This, for example, is silly:
SAM said:
Objectively, that would, over several generations lead to a breakdown in the ideals that sustain the family unit. Simply because individualism is not compatible with teamwork.
As a quick perusal of some group like the Scotch Irish in America will show plainly, even extreme individualism is by no means incompatible with multigenerational family cohesion and loyalty. And it improves social teamwork, by improving flexibility in team formation - it creates the possibility of tight teamwork with nonfamily.

This failure to promote out-teaming, let's call it, may explain the difficulties faced by modern forms of government and civilization in the Muslim countries, eh?
SAM said:
Don't care, not when James quotes Gallup poll data and tells me to apologise for quoting a similar association derived from assumed religiosity or lack of based on same data. I was hardly presenting an original or radical idea.
Your problems with James, if any, don't fix the problems with such data.
 
Do humans have to believe in a particular form of nonsense in order to be happy in a large society? And if so why?

Because the root of culture is apparently cult and a study of all nations of the past shows that to understand their social framework, you need to first study the particular form of nonsense they believe in.

As Will Durant says,

There is no significant example in history, before our time, of a society successfully maintaining moral life without the aid of religion


The decline in education, social institutions etc, has already begun.
 
SAM said:
Durant: There is no significant example in history, before our time, of a society successfully maintaining moral life without the aid of religion
The original topic was theism, SAM. Suicides among atheists.

Not to mention that Durant apparently skipped the smaller tribes, such as the Inuit, that appear to have little in the way of religion. Or perhaps he regarded them as not successful in their moral life - they did have a high rate of murder, and were famously open about sex.

But dropping the apparently flexible "atheist" issue, we have another source of dubious assumption. I wonder whether Durant is, as you often are, simply defining "moral life" and spiritual recognition as religion? If whenever one sees people inculcating morals and spiritual views, one sees a religion (and I would go along with that), then the consequent is assumed and the argument is over.
SAM said:
The decline in education, social institutions etc, has already begun.
If they decline to the common levels of the fundamentalist theists of the earth, that would indeed be a mark against them.
SAM said:
Do humans have to believe in a particular form of nonsense in order to be happy in a large society? And if so why?

Because the root of culture is apparently cult and a study of all nations of the past shows that to understand their social framework, you need to first study the particular form of nonsense they believe in.
That doesn't answer the question.
 
The original topic was theism, SAM. Suicides among atheists.

Since the data consistently show increased atheism = increased incidence of suicide, for various reasons [acceptance, no religious stigma, blah blah), you are free to make the argument you want. Consistently one sees an increase in suicide and a decrease in birth rate in societies where atheism is on the increase.


Not to mention that Durant apparently skipped the smaller tribes, such as the Inuit, that appear to have little in the way of religion. Or perhaps he regarded them as not successful in their moral life - they did have a high rate of murder, and were famously open about sex.

But dropping the apparently flexible "atheist" issue, we have another source of dubious assumption. I wonder whether Durant is, as you often are, simply defining "moral life" and spiritual recognition as religion? If whenever one sees people inculcating morals and spiritual views, one sees a religion (and I would go along with that), then the consequent is assumed and the argument is over.
If they decline to the common levels of the fundamentalist theists of the earth, that would indeed be a mark against them.
That doesn't answer the question.

Since I don't share your belief that deities and prayers can be athiestic, we will have to agree to disagree here. Its been noted that while rationalists [presumably an euphemism for athiests] consider religion as stagnation, historians point out that the decay of religion in society is a consistent marker of the decline of that nation. Now you may consider atheism to be a religion, I don't, so we've reached an impasse here.
 
Besides, the fact that increased atheism leads to social disintegration is sufficient reason to avoid it.

Decay of religion in any society has a historical precedent for leading to its dissolution.I think it is evident from a cursory view of society where atheism is on the increase, that individualism takes precedence over community. Objectively, that would, over several generations lead to a breakdown in the ideals that sustain the family unit. Simply because individualism is not compatible with teamwork.

Because the root of culture is apparently cult and a study of all nations of the past shows that to understand their social framework, you need to first study the particular form of nonsense they believe in.

As Will Durant says,

There is no significant example in history, before our time, of a society successfully maintaining moral life without the aid of religion


The decline in education, social institutions etc, has already begun.

"Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies"

http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
 
Since the data consistently show increased atheism = increased incidence of suicide, for various reasons [acceptance, no religious stigma, blah blah), you are free to make the argument you want. Consistently one sees an increase in suicide and a decrease in birth rate in societies where atheism is on the increase.

Nope.

Suicide rates do not correlate positively with secularity. Life expectancies correlate positively with secularity, and suicide rates correlate positively with life expectancies.

http://www.211bigbend.org/hotlines/suicide/SuicideandtheElderly.pdf

“Suicide rate among elderly rises as people live longer.”

http://www.iol.ie/~afifi/BICNews/Health/health26.htm
 
And chocolates are more likely to cause car accidents. Yeah, so what?
 
Nope.

Suicide rates do not correlate positively with secularity. Life expectancies correlate positively with secularity, and suicide rates correlate positively with life expectancies.

http://www.211bigbend.org/hotlines/suicide/SuicideandtheElderly.pdf

“Suicide rate among elderly rises as people live longer.”

http://www.iol.ie/~afifi/BICNews/Health/health26.htm

My data was restricted to young men or adolescents.

But the elderly suicide is interesting from the POV of breakdown of the family unit in athiest societies. Did your grandmother live with you?
 
Because its sloppy research to assign religious affiliation to countries.

But that's exactly what your data on suicide did. Wasn't it? It assigned certain countries as "Christian", "Muslim", "Atheist", etc.

I eagerly await your cited published peer reviewed research showing that the homicide is perpetrated by practising religious people who are not frustrated closet atheists. Must avoid sloppy research.

Where was your published peer reviewed research showing that suicide is perpetrated by "practising" atheists?
 
Back
Top