Religion: Is it optional, important, or necessary?

[Microcosm]

I don't want this thread to devolve into trying to prove whether a religion is right or not. Rather, I want to talk about religion in the sense of a foundation for moral character and happiness or things of that source. How you define religious importance here can be changed as you see fit.

So, is religion just an optional source of happiness?

This is the one I most identify with. In the modern world, it doesn't seem that identification with a religion is necessary or important, but rather it's the case that not having a religion doesn't force you to miss out on anything too important or necessary.

Is it important? As in: Can society be moral without it?

Society can exist without religion and even be sustainable, but would the majority be made up of moral and happy individuals when religion is removed?

Is it necessary? As in: Can society be sustained at all without religion? Does societal cohesion fall apart entirely when there isn't one uniform set of religious belief or a set of beliefs that are closely related in nature?

Note: If you see it fitting to change the meaning of these questions from how I have stated or defined them, you may. I think it will make for a more open-ended and intriguing discussion.

[northy]

I don't want this thread to devolve into trying to prove whether a religion is right or not. Rather, I want to talk about religion in the sense of a foundation for moral character and happiness or things of that source. How you define religious importance here can be changed as you see fit.

So, is religion just an optional source of happiness?

This is the one I most identify with. In the modern world, it doesn't seem that identification with a religion is necessary or important, but rather it's the case that not having a religion doesn't force you to miss out on anything too important or necessary.

Is it important? As in: Can society be moral without it?

Society can exist without religion and even be sustainable, but would the majority be made up of moral and happy individuals when religion is removed?

Is it necessary? As in: Can society be sustained at all without religion? Does societal cohesion fall apart entirely when there isn't one uniform set of religious belief or a set of beliefs that are closely related in nature?

Note: If you see it fitting to change the meaning of these questions from how I have stated or defined them, you may. I think it will make for a more open-ended and intriguing discussion.

Religion is optional as a source of happiness, many non religious people are happy.
Society could work without a 'main' religion, but we wouldn't be able to make one now. The main issue would be conflicting beliefs and laws surrounding sensitive issues, ie abortion etc.

[Splat]

I may have misread the way you have come across but I'll still put forward my ideas.

Well. Firstly, is religion really happiness?
All over the word people are being assaulted, discriminated against and murdered over religion. People in these places have to pretend they are a certain religion to keep themselves moderately safe. Therefore, in this case it isn't optional. Else, if people strongly believe in their religion they are in danger. Therefore, perhaps getting rid of religion is for the best.

Now let's think back hundreds of years ago. Religion then would have played a massive part of most people's lives. Especially around the time of the Tudors and Oliver Cromwell. However, here violence seems to crop up yet again. And here it's not just different religions eg Islam and Christianity, but the sub-religions I guess you could call it. Like CofE or Catholic.
Yet! What does most if not all religion tell us? It tells us to be peaceful with one another.

Another thing that annoys me is how things to go against religions can make people think the wrong way. For example Muslims are not ISIS! Islam teaches to be peaceful and, well....

I feel privileged to live in an area where not many people are discriminated especially in such violent ways. However, it still happens.

The thing is, people can say they are religious. But are they really?
I was scrolling through Facebook the other day (as ya do lol) and I came across a page that our old retired priest shared. I can not remember the details exactly, but:
It was about a man who was to become the priest of a church but before he was appointed, he decided to live on the streets for a while. On the Sunday he was appointed, he lay out at the front of the church and not one of the church goers spoke or even looked at him (remember, they did not know he was the next priest just then). He went into the church but the servers in the church said to him 'you must sit at the back'. Everyone who came in ignored him. During the service, the current priest told everyone to congratulate the new people to the church. No one spoke to the 'homeless' guy. Near the end, the current priest finally introduced the new one and everyone was surprised. He spoke to everyone and said to them a verse:



Bible > NIV > Matthew 25

◄ Matthew 25 ►
New International Version

34“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

37“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40“The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

Now, were these people true Christians? I think the current day makes it harder for people to stay strictly religious.
I have been a regular church goer for 5 years (since I was 11) until I stopped a couple of weeks ago due to exams. I'm not gonna lie, I don't consider myself to be very strictly religious. However I find it to be something that I can do privately in my own time in my mind.

[mattsmith48]

I don't want this thread to devolve into trying to prove whether a religion is right or not. Rather, I want to talk about religion in the sense of a foundation for moral character and happiness or things of that source. How you define religious importance here can be changed as you see fit.

So, is religion just an optional source of happiness?

This is the one I most identify with. In the modern world, it doesn't seem that identification with a religion is necessary or important, but rather it's the case that not having a religion doesn't force you to miss out on anything too important or necessary.

If not being able to have any fun because of your religion is a source of happiness then yes religion is an optional source of happiness

Is it important? As in: Can society be moral without it?

Society can exist without religion and even be sustainable, but would the majority be made up of moral and happy individuals when religion is removed?


Religion and moral are 2 different and separate things so no. Also worshiping someone who kills hundred of thousands of people just cuz is not moral

Is it necessary? As in: Can society be sustained at all without religion? Does societal cohesion fall apart entirely when there isn't one uniform set of religious belief or a set of beliefs that are closely related in nature?

Note: If you see it fitting to change the meaning of these questions from how I have stated or defined them, you may. I think it will make for a more open-ended and intriguing discussion.

we would be 400 years more advance if man kind never invented religion

[phuckphace]

one of the main reasons why people are generally less religious today (mainly referring to Christianity in the West) is due to the fact that faith and community are intertwined, and we've since lost the community that was the sustaining foundation of this faith way back when.

a lot of people, including a lot of Christians today, don't consider this angle when they're wringing their hands over declining church attendance and a rise in the numbers of atheists. their theories basically amount to Satan getting bored one day and drinking too many Red Bulls or something. but faith without community is like your marijuana plant without a root-ball - it's just going to whither and then die before it can go to seed and create more plants down the line. religious parents deal with this problem a lot - they likely grew up in close-knit communities that shared their faith, but their kids were born into an atomized world and have nothing to anchor themselves to. the parents don't realize that coming from a religious home means nothing if, the moment you step outside your door, you're buried under an avalanche of used condoms and heroin needles.

the number of sex-crazed homeschooled kids I've run into kind of underscores my points. a common reaction against our Brave New World is for religious parents to try and shelter their kids from the world by hiding them away in a safe-space, which doesn't work, isn't healthy and only increases the feelings of isolation and despair one feels from being alone in the world without a community of people like you for positive reinforcement.

tl;dr - religion is declining because community is declining.

[Tris]

Personally, I would think it's optional.. It certainly helps in building morals and trying to aim for a higher standard of living, but it shouldn't be like wearing the latest fashion to show off. At the core, it should be about you and your personal connection to whatever you think of as source, God, etc and how it helps you relate to others.

Funny thing is though, you don't need Religion to have morals.. Not one Religion is more right than another.. I guess they all have some truth to offer

I don't really like how we limit this God to human traits though.. "God" just serves as a vehicle to explain something unknowable. I don't think there is some guy above the clouds waiting to punish people, I just think it's rather the source of all life, it has laws that make up the world, and you're either in balance with nature or you're not.

It's really hard to fully understand what "God" truly is or what causes our reality to form, but all we can do is make sure we live in harmony with it and not give in to too much superstition and fear

Merged double post. Please use "Edit" and "Multi Quote" buttons next time.
~P&S

[Judean Zealot]

While I'm not going to answer in terms of religion, I will say that without an attachment to a transcendent system of duties humanity will never be happy. Those duties, whatever they may be grounded in, are what maintain meaning in our lives. Our lazy, depressed, drug-addled, and debauched generation is what results when duty's due attention gets diverted to presumed "rights".

If not being able to have any fun because of your religion is a source of happiness then yes religion is an optional source of happiness

If being able to have fun is a source of happiness then our generation would be the happiest ever. They aren't, though; in fact, we're closer to the opposite.

Religion and moral are 2 different and separate things so no. Also worshiping someone who kills hundred of thousands of people just cuz is not moral

And what are your morals grounded in? Also, how does religion in general necessitate worshipping 'someone who kills hundred (sic) of thousands of people just cuz (sic)'?

we would be 400 years more advance if man kind never invented religion

Nope. Religion has driven improvement in matters of state all throughout history, from Hammurabi to Madison.

[Uniquemind]

I may have misread the way you have come across but I'll still put forward my ideas.

Well. Firstly, is religion really happiness?
All over the word people are being assaulted, discriminated against and murdered over religion. People in these places have to pretend they are a certain religion to keep themselves moderately safe. Therefore, in this case it isn't optional. Else, if people strongly believe in their religion they are in danger. Therefore, perhaps getting rid of religion is for the best.

Now let's think back hundreds of years ago. Religion then would have played a massive part of most people's lives. Especially around the time of the Tudors and Oliver Cromwell. However, here violence seems to crop up yet again. And here it's not just different religions eg Islam and Christianity, but the sub-religions I guess you could call it. Like CofE or Catholic.
Yet! What does most if not all religion tell us? It tells us to be peaceful with one another.

Another thing that annoys me is how things to go against religions can make people think the wrong way. For example Muslims are not ISIS! Islam teaches to be peaceful and, well....

I feel privileged to live in an area where not many people are discriminated especially in such violent ways. However, it still happens.

The thing is, people can say they are religious. But are they really?
I was scrolling through Facebook the other day (as ya do lol) and I came across a page that our old retired priest shared. I can not remember the details exactly, but:
It was about a man who was to become the priest of a church but before he was appointed, he decided to live on the streets for a while. On the Sunday he was appointed, he lay out at the front of the church and not one of the church goers spoke or even looked at him (remember, they did not know he was the next priest just then). He went into the church but the servers in the church said to him 'you must sit at the back'. Everyone who came in ignored him. During the service, the current priest told everyone to congratulate the new people to the church. No one spoke to the 'homeless' guy. Near the end, the current priest finally introduced the new one and everyone was surprised. He spoke to everyone and said to them a verse:



Bible > NIV > Matthew 25

◄ Matthew 25 ►
New International Version

34“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

37“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40“The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

Now, were these people true Christians? I think the current day makes it harder for people to stay strictly religious.
I have been a regular church goer for 5 years (since I was 11) until I stopped a couple of weeks ago due to exams. I'm not gonna lie, I don't consider myself to be very strictly religious. However I find it to be something that I can do privately in my own time in my mind.


I also want to add that the general moral of that bible verse (generosity and kindness, sense of empathy), has been challenged by society by people whose generosity has been taken advantage off by the "least of them".

So I would ask this pastor to extend his lecture and find versus to address this issue which is the cause of why people look past the needy in many cases. In politics this takes the guise of the conservative vs bleeding heart liberal position debate.

In fact people get annoyed too when they know generosity is good, but the reasons why they've held back aren't addressed by the faith.


---

In regards to to OP, I'd argue that many religions are or were once faiths, but got caught up in such traditional dogma, that the spiritual heart of the faith is lost in their teachings.

Also one can argue that the Abrahamic faiths purpose is not to promote happiness, but rather ensure one has a life in heaven, and that in some ways it calls the current life unimportant in that context.

Hence why some versus of these faiths and the cultures spawned from them have tolerated such abuses and worldwide cultural ignorance even at a scientific level.

[mattsmith48]

If being able to have fun is a source of happiness then our generation would be the happiest ever. They aren't, though; in fact, we're closer to the opposite.
How?

And what are your morals grounded in? Also, how does religion in general necessitate worshipping 'someone who kills hundred (sic) of thousands of people just cuz (sic)'?
or asking people to do it for him cuz you know God is the most powerful being that exist but he needs regular people have to kill people for stupid reason like being a witch, worshiping another God or not being a virgin on your wedding night. Name one religion that as neither

Nope. Religion has driven improvement in matters of state all throughout history, from Hammurabi to Madison.

They still burned or/and jailed people of saying the earth is orbiting the Sun.

[Judean Zealot]

How?

How many more people are depressed nowadays than 50 years ago? How many more suicides do we have? How much more self harm? How much more alienation? How many more broken homes? How many more heroin addicts? How many cowards who need to cower in their 'safe-spaces' so as to not be triggered by some mild criticism?

Let's face it, our generation is one of the most miserable in all of mankind's history.


or asking people to do it for him cuz you know God is the most powerful being that exist but he needs regular people have to kill people for stupid reason like being a witch, worshiping another God or not being a virgin on your wedding night. Name one religion that as neither


Philosophical Theism?


They still burned or/and jailed people of saying the earth is orbiting the Sun.

Nice try. They jailed Galileo for mocking the Pope in his work (through his depiction as the blustering Simplicio), when the Pope was most indulgent to him. Copernicus's On the Revolution of the Heavenly Spheres was actually encouraged by several cardinals and dedicated to Pope Paul III (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Paul_III). But go ahead, enlighten me: who was burnt at the stake for promoting the heliocentric model?

[Porpoise101]

I think religion is good for ordering society, and keeping a set of generally inflexible rules in place. This makes society stronger, but also less adaptable. So to me it has a place depending on the state of the nation in general. Nowadays, we have too many radicals and maybe not enough moderates who actually understand religions beyond the basic tenets. Atheism is alright as long as there is a substituted set of social rules. Secularism is alright too as it tends to foster discussion on this kind of thing. The other issue with today is that people don't talk about these issues and just don't care about anything religious.

[mattsmith48]

How many more people are depressed nowadays than 50 years ago? How many more suicides do we have? How much more self harm? How much more alienation? How many more broken homes? How many more heroin addicts? How many cowards who need to cower in their 'safe-spaces' so as to not be triggered by some mild criticism?

Let's face it, our generation is one of the most miserable in all of mankind's history.

We didnt know as much about depression and mental health 50 years ago does would be are hard stats to find.

Nice try. They jailed Galileo for mocking the Pope in his work (through his depiction as the blustering Simplicio), when the Pope was most indulgent to him. Copernicus's On the Revolution of the Heavenly Spheres was actually encouraged by several cardinals and dedicated to Pope Paul III (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Paul_III). But go ahead, enlighten me: who was burnt at the stake for promoting the heliocentric model?

1. Criticizing the CEO of the catholic church shouldnt be a reason to jail someone it would like being jailed for saying Donald Trump is a Neo-Nazi.
2. They burned Giordano Bruno for saying stars are distant suns surrounded by exoplanets and propose the idea of alien life on those exoplanets

[phuckphace]

mattsmith48

http://i.imgur.com/gr9Num5.jpg

[Judean Zealot]

We didnt know as much about depression and mental health 50 years ago does would be are hard stats to find.

People weren't lying in bed all day too depressed to do anything and you know it.



1. Criticizing the CEO of the catholic church shouldnt be a reason to jail someone it would like being jailed for saying Donald Trump is a Neo-Nazi.

You're hotfooting around the issue. I too have little respect for the Papacy, but the science vs religion dichotomy is a lie spread by the enlightenment thinkers, prominently Thomas Paine.

2. They burned Giordano Bruno for saying stars are distant suns surrounded by exoplanets and propose the idea of alien life on those exoplanets

No, he was an Arian (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism). They burnt him for denying the trinity, the incarnation, the virgin birth, blasphemy, and a whole bunch of other religious issues. Perhaps you don't like that, but it hardly substantiates your absurd claim that without religion we'd be 400 years ahead scientifically and socially.

[Babs]

optional imo. I think people should do whatever works for them. Whether that's atheism or religion or whatever else, fine by me as long as they're not hurting anybody. I'm not about telling people how to live their life.

[Porpoise101]

Perhaps you don't like that, but it hardly substantiates your absurd claim that without religion we'd be 400 years ahead scientifically and socially.
Personally I feel like superstition and mysticism, while cool sometimes, has slowed progress in society. Mostly I think it has slowed down social change rather than scientific advancement, but maybe that could be good as maybe moving too fast is a bad thing. Then again, what is too fast?

[Judean Zealot]

Personally I feel like superstition and mysticism, while cool sometimes, has slowed progress in society. Mostly I think it has slowed down social change rather than scientific advancement, but maybe that could be good as maybe moving too fast is a bad thing. Then again, what is too fast?

Superstition and mysticism =/= religion.

[phuckphace]

the Catholic Church has historically been one of the biggest boosters of science and knowledge. the Dark Ages would've been even darker had it not been for the clergy preserving that knowledge after the Roman Empire fell.

also as I pointed out in the other thread, the Big Bang theory was invented by Georges Lemaitre, a Catholic priest and physicist. this is handy to point out whenever the trilby crew tries to claim religion is a conspiracy to suppress knowledge, or when Christians try to claim science is an atheist conspiracy.

[Porpoise101]

Superstition and mysticism =/= religion.
I know I was just talking about those particular facets that can arise from certain religious movements.

[mattsmith48]

People weren't lying in bed all day too depressed to do anything and you know it.
fine your right people might more depressed today but thats because of the media and the internet but its also easier to be happy and have fun now because there is less restriction on by religion on what people can and can not do. in other words people dont give a shit wetter god (if he exist and hes doesnt) think about what they do



You're hotfooting around the issue. I too have little respect for the Papacy, but the science vs religion dichotomy is a lie spread by the enlightenment thinkers, prominently Thomas Paine.

seriously the US have a entire party who fight scientific facts with fairy tales and bed time stories. The Catholic church didnt accept the fact the Earth is round until October 1992. They still fight evolution and the big bang which are scientific facts and they believe the earth and the universe was created in 7 days and are 6000 yrs old


No, he was an Arian (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism). They burnt him for denying the trinity, the incarnation, the virgin birth, blasphemy, and a whole bunch of other religious issues. Perhaps you don't like that, but it hardly substantiates your absurd claim that without religion we'd be 400 years ahead scientifically and socially.

im pretty sure saying the earth is not the centre of the universe and intelligent life might exist on other earth like planet that orbit other stars didnt help is case.

[Judean Zealot]

fine your right people might more depressed today but thats because of the media and the internet but its also easier to be happy and have fun now because there is less restriction on by religion on what people can and can not do. in other words people dont give a shit wetter god (if he exist and hes doesnt) think about what they do

But this is precisely the point. I agree that it is easier to have fun, but even so we see no greater indicator of happiness.


seriously the US have a entire party who fight scientific facts with fairy tales and bed time stories.

First off, appealing to the dumbest segment of Christianity does little to further your argument. Secondly, I don't see how denial of climate change is a religious belief.

The Catholic church didnt accept the fact the Earth is round until October 1992.

Liar.

They still fight evolution and the big bang which are scientific facts and they believe the earth and the universe was created in 7 days and are 6000 yrs old

As has been pointed out literally above, the big bang theory was first proposed by a Jesuit, Georges LeMaitre.


im pretty sure saying the earth is not the centre of the universe and intelligent life might exist on other earth like planet that orbit other stars didnt help is case.

Possibly, but that is irrelevant to why he was executed.

-------

Given the lies and shifty tactics you've been using, I'm finding it hard to believe that you are actually operating in good faith here, which leaves me with two possibilities: either you're intellectually dishonest or a dimwit. Take your pick.

[Vlerchan]

Depression is based in a large part on genetic factors. I imagine a large part in the jump is a bump in diagnoses. In the US there's also specific socio-legal factors underlining this.

In 1950 suicide occured at a higher rate than at any point in the last decade (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0779940.html). I'm also certain it's underscored for 1950 given the taboo surrounding reporting suicides.

I'm not sure about self harm.

Safe spaces are no reflection of societal happiness.

[Judean Zealot]

Depression is based in a large part on genetic factors. I imagine a large part in the jump is a bump in diagnoses. In the US there's also specific socio-legal factors underlining this.

Are you trying to say that these factors rule out the social aspect of depression? That doesn't follow and is patently ridiculous.

In 1950 suicide occured at a higher rate than at any point in the last decade (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0779940.html). I'm also certain it's underscored for 1950 given the taboo surrounding reporting suicides.

Look at the age groups and the trends. That explains it all. I'm pretty sure that when an 85 year old offs himself it's not because he's a junkie or a misfit; it's the indignities of old age. Look at the young people, who have everything to live for. We see a neat divide between youth and the elderly, while the youth has risen the elderly has fallen - something I would attribute to greater financial security, health, and general accommodation.

Safe spaces are no reflection of societal happiness.

They are of self-confidence and ability to cope.

[mattsmith48]

First off, appealing to the dumbest segment of Christianity does little to further your argument. Secondly, I don't see how denial of climate change is a religious belief.

I was not talking about climate change that part is about oil company buying politicians. I was talking wanting to teach Christianity in science class and creationism as an alternative to evolution it and teaching abstinence only sex ed class because it hurts Jesus' heart when you use condoms. and btw christians use to be that dumb


As has been pointed out literally above, the big bang theory was first proposed by a Jesuit, Georges LeMaitre.

And? they're still fighting it like they're fighting evolution if we were back at the time the church controlled everything they would burn every books about the subject and jailled everyone who is trying to teach it thats why we wasted centuries not progressing technologically because everytime someone made a scientific discovery or proposed a theory that was going against the bible they were automatically going to censor it instead of you know helping them research about it, btw that Earth thing look it up its true

[phuckphace]

the suicide statistics quoted above are pretty interesting, especially that the figures for the VT demographic of ages 15 - 19 has doubled since 1950, confirming once again that the era was a better time to grow up for reasons I've painstakingly outlined over and over. sure, it wasn't perfect or we'd be seeing 0.0 for all categories, but hey.

also interesting is the consistently low figures for females which have remained more constant. the burden of male privilege I guess

[Vlerchan]

Are you trying to say that these factors rule out the social aspect of depression? That doesn't follow and is patently ridiculous.
I'm attributing a significant jump in diagnosis to its acceptance as a mental illness. Given that we haven't pinned down its exact underlining factors - environmental triggers etc. - it's also difficult to utilise effective proxies. This makes using it as a gauge of happiness difficult.

Whilst suicide statistics are open to manipulation and have some grave shortcomings - phuckphace highlighted one without realising it - the likelihood is that it's a much better indicator.

Look at the age groups and the trends. That explains it all. I'm pretty sure that when an 85 year old offs himself it's not because he's a junkie or a misfit; it's the indignities of old age. Look at the young people, who have everything to live for.
Ugh. I skimmed and misread the argument.

I was going to argue that we've seen a rearrangement of the diffusion of happiness - not unhappier societies. Though that wasn't the claim: the claim if I'm correct is that at the moment we seem to be the unhappiest generation. I imagine that's true if suicide proxies for unhappiness - and not just the most extreme unhappiness. It's questionable whether that jumps valid.

Nonetheless it's worth noting that the oldest people make up a negligible proportion of that 1950 sample - and without a doubt the large proportion of under fives (12% of the population) is bound to weigh it down. When I get the chance I plan on attempting to construct another table illustrating which groups are the biggest contributors to the overall prevalence of suicide.

They are of self-confidence and ability to cope.
I'd never come across this concept until a few months ago. I can't say I'm aware of what types of people use them.

---

also interesting is the consistently low figures for females which have remained more constant. the burden of male privilege I guess
Woman have a higher rate of depression than men and whilst the statistics are incomplete seem to attempt suicide at a similar rate. Woman are just less effective at commuting suicide - through use of ineffective methods in particular.

[Judean Zealot]

I'm attributing a significant jump in diagnosis to its acceptance as a mental illness. Given that we haven't pinned down its exact underlining factors - environmental triggers etc. - it's also difficult to utilise effective proxies. This makes using it as a gauge of happiness difficult.

Nonetheless, it's an indicator of some element of unhappiness, which if anything is sufficient to dispute Mattsmith48's assertion that more fun= more happiness.

Whilst suicide statistics are open to manipulation and have some grave shortcomings

:D

I imagine that's true if suicide proxies for unhappiness - and not just the most extreme unhappiness. It's questionable whether that jumps valid

Which is why the suicide demographics are backed up by behavioural phenomena of other sorts: drug abuse, broken homes, depression to some extent etc.

[phuckphace]

looks like I've been had. quelling my embarrassment here, I should've recognized from the start that true happiness comes only from NAFTA, Prozac, Instagram likes and unlimited porn downloads - silly me.

Whilst suicide statistics are open to manipulation and have some grave shortcomings - phuckphace highlighted one without realising it - the likelihood is that it's a much better indicator.

now I'm confused - I used the same statistics you did. I presume the "manipulation" in question refers to my differing conclusion?

even if they didn't recognize suicide ideation as a mental condition in those days I don't see how that would affect the figures for successful suicides: body found with a noose or some other self-inflicted injury, death ruled "suicide" in the police report, figure added to records - doubt that's changed much.

[sqishy]

the Catholic Church has historically been one of the biggest boosters of science and knowledge. the Dark Ages would've been even darker had it not been for the clergy preserving that knowledge after the Roman Empire fell.

also as I pointed out in the other thread, the Big Bang theory was invented by Georges Lemaitre, a Catholic priest and physicist. this is handy to point out whenever the trilby crew tries to claim religion is a conspiracy to suppress knowledge, or when Christians try to claim science is an atheist conspiracy.

Some question if there were really Dark Ages as a whole, because the knowledge was simply kept in 'warehouse storage' form to keep away from a turbulent environment, but I agree with what you say.
It's one route for the 'science V religion' thing all over again, regarding stereotypes and simplistic opinions made by one side of the other.

Depression is based in a large part on genetic factors. I imagine a large part in the jump is a bump in diagnoses. In the US there's also specific socio-legal factors underlining this.

In 1950 suicide occured at a higher rate than at any point in the last decade (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0779940.html). I'm also certain it's underscored for 1950 given the taboo surrounding reporting suicides.

I'm not sure about self harm.

Safe spaces are no reflection of societal happiness.

Have you heard of the news regarding a large increase in mental health issues in junior/senior infants (evidently here in Ireland)? Wondering what your thoughts are on this. Search 'junior infants depression' as keywords if you want to look into it.

Also going with what you say here, though I know it's not a pure opinion. I see myself has being an example of someone who is predisposed to be depressed, anxious and so on, because both my parents were/are. It is more than that, I know, but still.

I know you've said more after this also, just thought was most suitable to reply at this first thing.

[Vlerchan]

[...] which if anything is sufficient to dispute Mattsmith48's assertion that more fun= more happiness.
Well mattsmith hasn't justified his claim at all really so a non-response would have been sufficient.

Nonetheless I still find that depression non being so obvious in our societies isn't too much of a gauge considering the cultural factors that regulate it's expression.

Even at the moment we can be quite sure that depression is under-reported. I'm friends with at least one closet-depressive.

:D
:P

Which is why the suicide demographics are backed up by behavioural phenomena of other sorts: drug abuse, broken homes, depression to some extent etc.
Before I address this I just want to cross-check some data. Is it in-line with your thought to run a cross-sectional regression: that is I plan on regress church attendance rates in certain areas to some of the variables being discussed and see what turns up? I just think we'll get a much clearer cut through that.

I'm quite sure regardless that the variables listed there all induce each other some extent which makes them poor instruments. Using those would - I imagine - lead to a significant overemphasis on the original independent variable - religion or lack therof: and it's questionable whether that's independent [for eg.] (http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/01/18/new_research_shows_children_of_divorce_are_less_religious_don_t_let_that.html).

I also chose that article because I'm sure you'd find it amusing.

now I'm confused - I used the same statistics you did. I presume the "manipulation" in question refers to my differing conclusion?
Insofar as the comment that woman commit suicide at a different rate for men because of some privilege on their behalf. The privilege happens to be that woman are worse at committing suicide. Woman have a much higher likelihood of attempting suicide through the use of medication - low success rate - or when using lethal weapons holding a much higher likelihood of shooting through the chest.

The latter is interesting and probably refers to them wanting to preserve their beauty.

Nonetheless:

[...] body found with a noose or some other self-inflicted injury, death ruled "suicide" in the police report, figure added to records - doubt that's changed much.
In Ireland it used to be quite common to instruct - or bribe - the coroner to mark the death as being a non-suicide. I can imagine this isn't uncommon in societies where suicide is treated as a grave sin. Though for obvious reasons that data is unattainable.

[Judean Zealot]

Before I address this I just want to cross-check some data. Is it in-line with your thought to run a cross-sectional regression: that is I plan on regress church attendance rates in certain areas to some of the variables being discussed and see what turns up? I just think we'll get a much clearer cut through that.

Well, to be quite honest, I consider the 'Pastor Bob's Bible and Bullets Emporium' sort of religion to be equally destructive both to society and the individual psyche as the angsty sort of nihilism popular amongst our peers. Non enlightened religion is the ultimate blasphemy in my eyes, and I wouldn't be surprised if the more Puritan areas would rival or even surpass their more urbane atheistic counterparts.

I'm quite sure regardless that the variables listed there all induce each other some extent which makes them poor instruments. Using those would - I imagine - lead to a significant overemphasis on the original independent variable - religion or lack therof: and it's questionable whether that's independent [for eg.] (http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/01/18/new_research_shows_children_of_divorce_are_less_religious_don_t_let_that.html).

I also chose that article because I'm sure you'd find it amusing.

They so snarky qq. As insufferably annoying as that train of thought is, yes, I am amused.

FsqJFIJ5lLs

[DoodleSnap]

Of course a society can be moral without religion. Religions are simply a common set of different political/societal/world views that many people adhere to, but to be an atheist means that you don't fall into any of the religious categories; likely meaning that you want to form your own opinion.

Case in point: I have moral opinions, and yet I am not religious.

I don't think that religion, in its truest, theistic form, is compatible with the way modern, educated society is going. To believe in a theistic Bible, Tora, or Koran is to put blind faith in a deity, to deny logic and science, and to instead put all hope into one idea, regardless of what evidence is presented to the contrary. This clashes because everything in our modern society exists because people have created it using logical thought process, critical thinking, and scientific evidence.

As for Dharmic religions, I know little, so shall avoid discussing.