Interesting article... it seems that religion makes you more generous but:
It is at this point that the "We need God to be good" case falls apart. Countries worthy of consideration aren't those like North Korea and China, where religion is savagely repressed, but those in which people freely choose atheism. In his new book, Society Without God, Phil Zuckerman looks at the Danes and the Swedes—probably the most godless people on Earth. They don't go to church or pray in the privacy of their own homes; they don't believe in God or heaven or hell. But, by any reasonable standard, they're nice to one another. They have a famously expansive welfare and health care service. They have a strong commitment to social equality. And—even without belief in a God looming over them—they murder and rape one another significantly less frequently than Americans do.

Denmark and Sweden aren't exceptions. A 2005 study by Gregory Paul looking at 18 democracies found that the more atheist societies tended to have relatively low murder and suicide rates and relatively low incidence of abortion and teen pregnancy.
Full article here (http://www.slate.com/id/2203614/)

"Many would go further and agree with conservative commentator Laura Schlessinger that morality requires a belief in God—otherwise, all we have is our selfish desires."

All that morality requires is empathy. That said, I don't doubt that there are people who lack the requisite empathy who act nicer because of the tenets of their religion. Sadly, the tenets don't always dictate that adherents be nicer to people. Sometimes they dictate that adherents burn them alive, break them on racks, flay the skin from their bodies, or blow them up. Not surprisingly, religious tenets tend to change as the people in positions of power over the religion change.

At their heart, religions are about controlling people and making them behave in the way that the leaders of the religion desire.

As typical, I find this quite comical. The reasons being, it is like idiots like that in the article arguing morality requires a belief in god(s), obviously has done little in the way of actually looking into a history book, despite the facts that the knowledge is there, where it has all been done before, and yet, has been successful. So, in all honesty, no big surprise there that non religeous people can actually get along with each other with few qualms and problems. That view expressed by Schlessinger is quite a dehumanizing statement.

Yeah, but it seems that pretty much everyone thinks that religion is what keeps us from murdering one another for lollipops. It's a very commonly held belief, especially amongst religious people.

Ridiculous, of course. Humans wouldn't have survived as long as they have if they had needed religion to co-exist.

Somehow there are lots of complex societies in nature that manage to exist in large groups without killing each other. Do ants worship Jesus?

As typical with nature, the act of killing is generally out of necessity, food, things like that. As a whole, humans have changed very little in I unless I am mistaken, homo sapiens came around about 100,000 years ago. Their basic needs have yet to change. Their basic behaviors have yet to change, we are aggressive and territorial with the need to reproduce. Sure we have bright shinier toys since then, but, our basic instincts have little changed since then.

So, also in other animals, insects and so on, they are very similar in manner and behavior to humans. So, they do fight quite a bit amongst each other, with or without religeon that will never change, as well as against each other as evidenced by the many years of warfare as well as random inquistions, or finding your spouse/significant other in bed with another person. Other animals also display the same tendencies, insects such as ants display the same behaviors humans do, they go to war with other ant colonies, and well, kill each other in their own colonies for random reasons.

insects such as ants display the same behaviors humans do, they go to war with other ant colonies,
Interestingly in San Diego we only have one mega-colony of ants and they don't war amongst themselves. Apparently a colony of Argentinian ants was brought here and they thrived and destroyed all the other ants. Now they're all Argentinian and all so closely related they don't fight between different colonies.

It is kind of a bummer because it means we have LOTS of ants.

Yeah, but it seems that pretty much everyone thinks that religion is what keeps us from murdering one another for lollipops. It's a very commonly held belief, especially amongst religious people.

Ridiculous, of course. Humans wouldn't have survived as long as they have if they had needed religion to co-exist.

Somehow there are lots of complex societies in nature that manage to exist in large groups without killing each other. Do ants worship Jesus?

We don't need religion to co-exist in this modern era, perhaps...but remember that it was religion which brought us notions of justice, equity, and lovingkindness. To attempt to divest the social evolution of humanity from its religious history is not only futile, but disingenuous to attempt.

The enlightenment birthed the idea that we could be good people without the restrictions and formalities of religion. Religion, however, birthed the idea that being good was a goal to strive for, at all.

Further, I'd suggest that too often people confuse athiesm with agnosticism or deism. Very few people do not believe in God in some form or another. Most folks who are bundled into the "athiest" catagory mere have little or no use for organized religion and do not believe in an interventionist God.

Further, I'd suggest that too often people confuse athiesm with agnosticism or deism. Very few people do not believe in God in some form or another. Most folks who are bundled into the "athiest" catagory mere have little or no use for organized religion and do not believe in an interventionist God.

That may be so, but the general consensus in Denmark and Sweden (which Pan mentioned in the original post) is the "huh? no, I don't believe in god. No i'm not religious, when we're dead we're dead and we came to be through evolution, and we just don't really know how the universe as such came to be etc etc"-kind of atheism.

That said, there's a wide-spread belief in both ghosts and reincarnation. Though without much thought as to the reasons ghosts are ghosts and reincarnated people are reincarnated and the fact that the two concepts seem mutually exclusive.

I don't believe in god or spiritualism in any way shape or form. I know a lot of people that feel the same. I don't really hesitate to call myself an atheist but I have friends who believe as I do that label themselves as agnostic, feeling that since they can't prove there isn't a god it is more accurate than the other label.


We don't need religion to co-exist in this modern era, perhaps...but remember that it was religion which brought us notions of justice, equity, and lovingkindness.Such as were displayed in the middle ages with the heresy trials, witch burnings and crusades. It seems to me religion in the past, and somewhat in the present, is a wonderful vehicle to give a few men a lot of power over the masses and they abused it frequently.

I don't think religion ever taught those things. Humans have them instinctively and societies have been able to apply laws and education to extend them outside their own groups to others and even people different from them.

For instance, when I was a little girl there weren't very many black people around and white people like me tended to not like them. But my parents for some reason decided these attitudes were not correct. Not exactly sure what caused them to change. They weren't religious although my Mom did believe in God she pretty much rejected organized religion. But anyway, they made an effort to have black friends when that was a very unpopular thing to do. I had black friends too. Their values became mine. Meanwhile in the local white churches, this sort of acceptance and tolerance was very slow coming.

Even now, in the South, it is the very religious people that are the least accepting of gays or people different from them. The church seems geared towards keeping people segregated into "them and us".

So absolutely I do not buy that kindness and lovingness comes from religion or ever did.

We don't need religion to co-exist in this modern era, perhaps...but remember that it was religion which brought us notions of justice, equity, and lovingkindness. To attempt to divest the social evolution of humanity from its religious history is not only futile, but disingenuous to attempt.Religious zealots are a lot like politicians. When things turn out good, they take credit where no credit is due. When things turn out bad, they find a scapegoat to blame.

The way we govern our society is built into our genes, and long predates any sort of organized religion. Those forces shaped religion, not vice versa.

Organized religion evolved when our societies grew bigger, with a stricter hierarchy, and the leaders needed a mechanism to control the masses.

Speaking of religion... and silliness.

In CA during all the fuss leading up to the passage of Prop. 8, which is the "no gay marriage" in the constitution act, there were some people being interviewed by a good secularist leaning talk show host. Anyway, they were fasting and praying that God would show people the path to vote on Prop. 8.

The talk show host said, "What if it doesn't pass? Does that mean God isn't on your side?" Heh! It was quite a fun interview hearing the illogical contortions about how God had heard them if they won, but if they lost it didn't mean God wasn't on their side.

Anyway, they were fasting and praying that God would show people the path to vote on Prop. 8.Apparently "god" ended up showing the blacks the path, as they voted overwhelmingly (70%) in favor of it, whereas everyone else was marginally against it. With the huge black turnout this election, it put Prop 8 over the edge. Kind of a conundrum for the white bigoted Christian zealots, wouldn't you say?

Speaking of religion... and silliness.Just look at these people. It's like we're living on different planets.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/11/28/national/a131718S95.DTLKy. law requires Homeland Security to credit God

(11-28) 13:17 PST Lexington, Ky. (AP) -- A lawmaker says the state's Homeland Security office should be crediting God with keeping the state safe.

State Rep. Tom Riner, a Southern Baptist minister who was instrumental in establishing that requirement in 2006, disapproves of the fact that Homeland Security doesn't currently mention God in its mission statement or on its Web site.

The law passed under former Gov. Ernie Fletcher, who prominently credited God in annual reports to state leaders. But Gov. Steve Beshear's administration didn't credit God in its 2008 Homeland Security report issued last month.

"We certainly expect it to be there, of course," Riner, D-Louisville, told the Lexington Herald-Leader.

The law that organized the Homeland Security office first lists Homeland Security's duty to recognize that government itself can't secure the state without God, even before mentioning other duties, which include distributing millions of dollars in federal grants and analyzing possible threats.

The religious language was tucked into a floor amendment by Riner and passed the General Assembly overwhelmingly. It lists the office's initial duty as "stressing the dependence on Almighty God as being vital to the security of the Commonwealth."

Included in the law is a requirement that the office must post a plaque at the entrance to the state Emergency Operations Center with an 88-word statement that begins, "The safety and security of the Commonwealth cannot be achieved apart from reliance upon Almighty God."

Not surprising, but, then those laws will not stand up in the supreme court. What they really forgot about in their interests in being subversive to the first amendment regarding religeon, and also a few other clauses in the United States constitutation. They have obviously not read up on the various other religeons out there, many of them non theistic, and as such they have failed to take liberties in recognizing the many gods that are also governing the safety and welfare of the state of Kentucky, thereby shoving down one specific religeous figure down people's throats. You wanna recognize one, better recognize them all. They better include Thor, Odin, Zeus, Athena, Ares, Ra, Set, Quezcoatl, the Hindu gods as well, amongst others, with a shoutout to Buddha, atheists, agnostics, and so on for assisting in the monumental task of liberating Kentucky from political dumbasses.

Not surprising, but, then those laws will not stand up in the supreme court.The Supreme Court now has an conservative majority, with four ultra-conservatives. The old rules from the 60s that actually prevented a major establishment of religion have been eliminated or severely weakened. The First Amendment is practically meaningless today, with respect to religion.

quote"The Supreme Court now has an conservative majority, with four ultra-conservatives. The old rules from the 60s that actually prevented a major establishment of religion have been eliminated or severely weakened. The First Amendment is practically meaningless today, with respect to religion."

I disagree. While yes, in that instance I was making an argument for first amendment priveleges. I am aware of the incrementalist erosion towards religeon, except one religeon, in general. I was making a case for the many other religeous figures that are also not represented, while also pointing out some of the other various non theistic religeons also not represented that also provide for the security of the state of Kentucky. While, yes that argument is rather weak in itself, as I was more or less trying to prove a point, given my next argument, which is quite stronger and carries more weight.

But, however plain as day, I will quote the last paragraph of Article Six, of the Constitution of the United States.

Quote"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. "

Plain as day. It is flat out unconstitutional. The Department of Homeland Security is a public trust and office under the direct federal laws that created and financed it. Federal always supercedes State. Now if Kentucky wishes to continue upon that course of action..... I am sure federal taxpayer money could be better spent elsewhere.

Does religion make you nice?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article5258462.ece

Sure...