Atheists are not miserable gits ...

[Mulder]

There is an impression abroad that atheists have 'rejected religion', so they must be 'negative'. They have a 'hole' in their life! This easily translates to 'miserable gits'.

Next time someone says this, tell them about the Pirahã tribe of the Amazon basin. They have no deities or religion and are happy (well, as much as anyone else). This tells you two things: (a) religion is not inevitable for humans and (b) those without it are not left miserable. Becoming an atheist is a positive, life enhancing decision.

OK, can I go back to being a miserable git now ...

[Lord Muck oGentry]

There is an impression abroad that atheists have 'rejected religion', so they must be 'negative'. They have a 'hole' in their life!

Well, you can always try filling that void with "meaningless, materialistic, acquisitive hedonism."
But try to stay off the main drag- you can't get into the best places because the devout are there already, filling their voids as hard as ever they can. :smiley:

[Janot]

Next time someone says this, tell them about the Pirahã tribe of the Amazon basin. They have no deities or religion and are happy (well, as much as anyone else). This tells you two things: (a) religion is not inevitable for humans and (b) those without it are not left miserable. Yes, but you have to use a very obscure example of a community without a deity, which highlights the fact that very nearly all communities seem to need them. Why?

[Mongrel]

Yes, but you have to use a very obscure example of a community without a deity, which highlights the fact that very nearly all communities seem to need them. Why?

Because nearly all cultures grew from a few men wanting to keep all of the power. Whether they're called bishops, shamans or elders.

Some good things have come from this but are irrelevant nowadays.

[Cuddles]

Yes, but you have to use a very obscure example of a community without a deity, which highlights the fact that very nearly all communities seem to need them. Why?

It highlights that nearly all communities have them, not that they need them.

[Janot]

It highlights that nearly all communities have them, not that they need them.True, but why do you suppose they have them if there is no general need for them? I don't think it can be explained totally by manipulation by a clergy or a class interested in the phenomenon, if there was no inate need for religion generally.

[seren]

Atheists are not miserable gits ...

Yes I f***ing well am.

>:-)>:-)>:-)>:-)

[Mongrel]

True, but why do you suppose they have them if there is no general need for them? I don't think it can be explained totally by manipulation by a clergy or a class interested in the phenomenon, if there was no inate need for religion generally.

Habit (always gone to church, "never thought about it really")
Socialising, perhaps a more tribal thing than just Jumble sales and coffee mornings
Never got the hang of thinking for themselves, god(s)\the holy book has the answers
Similar to above: Some people like to be told what to do

[DrS]

Yet habit of going to Church implies a structure that would presumably not have been present at the outset, and Holy Books are notably absent from earliest (and least "sophisticated") religions.

[Sarama]

I propose all of us miserable gits get together and form the First Church of In-futuro Atheism.
Who's with me?
Why oh why do I have the funny feeling this has already been done?

[Pebble]

True, but why do you suppose they have them if there is no general need for them? I don't think it can be explained totally by manipulation by a clergy or a class interested in the phenomenon, if there was no inate need for religion generally.


FEAR I suspect is the answer. Primitive societies must have been very fearful, anyone who seemed to have answers however ludicrous would get a special place in such societies. So social organisation grows out of having fighting men, competition among these leads to tribes and then lords, kings and governments. 'Holy men' in India are taken at face value, what they believe in is irrelevant, but where there is competition among such people to have power through ever increasing adherents, this can readily lead to increasingly organised and complex religious associations, and hence increasingly complex belief systems. - No evidence just an idea.

[Matt]

I propose all of us miserable gits get together and form the First Church of In-futuro Atheism.
Who's with me?
Why oh why do I have the funny feeling this has already been done?
Because it's already been done. (http://www.churchofreality.org/wisdom/welcome_home/)

[Mulder]

Because it's already been done. (http://www.churchofreality.org/wisdom/welcome_home/)

Scarily like an ordinary religion! I doubt I'll be joining ...

[Fiona]

I do find the origin of religion quite strange. As Cuddles says, if here is even one society which does not have it, then it is not necessary to the individual; and this is confirmed by the existence of atheists too. Yet as people have noted it is very common.

I have been thinking about the explanations put forward here and I am not satisfied, I confess.


Because nearly all cultures grew from a few men wanting to keep all of the power. Whether they're called bishops, shamans or elders.

I am not sure if you are making a distinction between a "culture" and a "social group" so I may have misunderstood your point. However if you are talking about the earliest human communities I cannot see this is likely. It seems to me that we were social before we were human. I imagine that the group is intrinsic to humanity, as it is to dogs and at least some apes. We are at least as essentially cooperative as we are competitive so it occurs to me that the lust for power is secondary to social organisation. I do accept that religion is useful for those who seek to wield power in a community but I cannot see that as cause, but rather as effect.



Habit (always gone to church, "never thought about it really")
Socialising, perhaps a more tribal thing than just Jumble sales and coffee mornings
Never got the hang of thinking for themselves, god(s)\the holy book has the answers
Similar to above: Some people like to be told what to doSimilarly this seems to speak to maintenance rather than to origin, to me at least


FEAR I suspect is the answer. Primitive societies must have been very fearful, anyone who seemed to have answers however ludicrous would get a special place in such societies.

I am not particularly convinced about this either. I think that this is projecting our own imagined response to their imagined situation onto the early community. I am not expert but I have not heard that extant hunter/gatherer societies are particularly fearful. I read somewhere (cant' find the reference now, sorry) that those types of communities in the amazon meet their needs by "working" about 3 days a week. Sounds ok to me ;). It is true that from time to time they are perhaps threatened by predators, but then they are unlikely to get run over. Given that early man was not stupid, it seems reasonable to suppose that they organised to minimise threats: I see no reason to suppose that the fears that they had were more pervasive than ours really. Mortality rates would be higher, but that is the life they knew. I think it likely that people live with the mortality expectations they have and I cannot see this as a source of greater fear really. Sadness, yes, but not fear.

Similarly people talk about the things they did not understand. It is true there were many unexplained events but in reality volcanoes and such are pretty rare: and in truth I do not think that people are afraid of lightening with or without understanding. Children are, because it is new and noisy to them: but an adult has seen it before and we habituate. I cetainly stopped being afraid of this because the adults around me told me it was usual and showed no special alarm: it was not because I got an explanation for it though I did. But that was later and I imagine it would be the same in early times. The response of the adult is the determinant of fear: the story is nice to have but any story will do the job.


So social organisation grows out of having fighting men, competition among these leads to tribes and then lords, kings and governments.

As I said, this does not seem likely to me. Perhaps I am missing something, but I look around the world and I do not see "fighting men" in charge. Even in military regimes the leaders tend to be older generals and such: not the strong fighters they use to enforce their power. We hear much of respect for "elders" and I cannot reconcile that with the idea that fighting men are influential in the way you describe

[DrS]

I agree, Fiona, and in archaic Greece, at least, the situation was the opposite, with fighting men (as a group, not individual warriors) coming after "lords", a development which seems primarily to have been concerned with maintaining their status and protecting the boundaries of "their" land. Their power came from their wealth, which in turn arose from inherited land.

[Pebble]

I agree, Fiona, and in archaic Greece, at least, the situation was the opposite, with fighting men (as a group, not individual warriors) coming after "lords", a development which seems primarily to have been concerned with maintaining their status and protecting the boundaries of "their" land. Their power came from their wealth, which in turn arose from inherited land.

Fiona, you and I are all guessing, so perhaps time for some research. Problem is that the timeframe we need to look at preceeds the Greeks and even the Urbans, so evidence can only be very indirect.

On one point I have an opinion at present: the isolated communities in the Amazon, are distinctly different from tribes in Africa, and I suspect that like the kangaroos in Australia isolation allows groups to develop rather differently than might be the case if competing for scarce resources in the face of intermittent 'evolving' external threats.

[Pebble]

An interesting link, suggesting that dreaming led early man to conclude that the mind and body were seperate, hence to the notion of persistence after death, hence to ancestor worship and thus religion. Only a theory of course!

http://books.google.com/books?id=PJMpgRXpZWMC&pg=PA13&lpg=PA13&dq=anthropology+religion+origin&source=web&ots=U6IXNlkNZi&sig=2cYDHt2_IUIPk1f7ACKhzNFLKuw#PPA12,M1

[DrS]

Classicists/Ancient Historians see a close relationship between myth and religion, and often consider that an explanation of the origins or function of one will help interpret the other. THIS (http://faculty.gvsu.edu/websterm/ways.htm)offers some of the more frequent ways of interpreting myth.

[Pebble]

Classicists/Ancient Historians see a close relationship between myth and religion, and often consider that an explanation of the origins or function of one will help interpret the other. THIS (http://faculty.gvsu.edu/websterm/ways.htm)offers some of the more frequent ways of interpreting myth.

Odd concept Mythology. The development of theories to facilitate the understanding of stories that we now recognise as fiction possibly mixed with fact, in the absence of any usable methodology to determie which theories are valid and which are wishful thinking.

There is reasonable evidence that 'story telling' was used to pass on accumulated knowledge in societies that did not have access to the written word, and that myths/fabels are used extensively by religions. I suspect this is the equivalent of suggesting that old wives tales and pithy sayings provide us with insights into the origins of norms and mores. These are more likely to be tools for distribution of beliefs rather than explanations of origin.

[DrS]

Odd concept Mythology. The development of theories to facilitate the understanding of stories that we now recognise as fiction possibly mixed with fact, in the absence of any usable methodology to determie which theories are valid and which are wishful thinking.

There is reasonable evidence that 'story telling' was used to pass on accumulated knowledge in societies that did not have access to the written word, and that myths/fabels are used extensively by religions. I suspect this is the equivalent of suggesting that old wives tales and pithy sayings provide us with insights into the origins of norms and mores. These are more likely to be tools for distribution of beliefs rather than explanations of origin.I´m not sure I completely follow the first paragraph. Mythology could be said to be the development of theories to help with understanding the world, but that´s only one of several ideas as to its function. I´m not sure quite what you mean when you refer to methodology: do you mean for us, or early man? If early man, then his belief in his myths would preclude a methodological test. Most classicists, too, would probably tend to see myth itself as the stories, rather than a theoretical tool to explain them ... and if it were so, indeed, what would that make the stories.

With regard to story-telling in pre-literate societies being a mechanism for passing on accumulated knowledge, this is virtually certain, and in verse too for various reasons (e.g. rhythm facilitates memorising). It seems to be far more than the equivalent of old wives tales/axioms, and is at the root, just as one example, of at least one early law code.

With regard to myths being used by religions, there is a vast scholarly field of research into whether they are in fact the same thing, and whether religion (in the form of ritual) came before or after a related myth.

[Pebble]

I´m not sure I completely follow the first paragraph. Mythology could be said to be the development of theories to help with understanding the world, but that´s only one of several ideas as to its function. I´m not sure quite what you mean when you refer to methodology: do you mean for us, or early man? If early man, then his belief in his myths would preclude a methodological test. Most classicists, too, would probably tend to see myth itself as the stories, rather than a theoretical tool to explain them ... and if it were so, indeed, what would that make the stories.

With regard to story-telling in pre-literate societies being a mechanism for passing on accumulated knowledge, this is virtually certain, and in verse too for various reasons (e.g. rhythm facilitates memorising). It seems to be far more than the equivalent of old wives tales/axioms, and is at the root, just as one example, of at least one early law code.

With regard to myths being used by religions, there is a vast scholarly field of research into whether they are in fact the same thing, and whether religion (in the form of ritual) came before or after a related myth.

Not sure we have any disagreement then, just different ways of saying similar things. In respect of methodology I mean now. This makes me wonder as to whether any insights can be gleaned from this source, in essence one ends up studying others opinions with no fixed reference points.
Myhts and religion, asserting which came first does not advance the argument, this only helps if one can in someway show that myths led directly to religion. Facilitating the spread of religious beliefs is not the same.

As for issue of wives tales, just a comparator, not a suggestion of equivalence. Sclolarly interest of itself does not change the nature of the relationship. I could equally have argued that the existence of myths did not lead to the legal framework, but may well have provided a mechanism for passing on beleifs that gradually became codified into law.

[DrS]

I think you´ve misunderstood me slightly (understandable given my phrasing ... I´ve just re-read what I wrote!): the transmission of codified written laws was facilitated by the use of verse, not myth. Not important though, really.

I would say, however, that most investigation of the ancient world, including the development of religion, will rely on academic debate (studying the opinions of others, as you say) with no fixed reference points. It´s difficult to see how it could be otherwise in such an enquiry. Methodology does exist, though.

There´s a brief but useful bibliography HERE (http://perswww.kuleuven.be/%7Eu0013314/pinaxonline.html#Mythologie%20en%20religie), perhaps THIS (http://www.kchanson.com/CLASSIFIEDBIB/grrit.html)one is particularly useful since it is a bibliography in its own right. And a general but masterly treatment HERE (http://www.amazon.com/Myth-Meaning-Functions-Ancient-Cultures/dp/0521098025).

[Pebble]

There´s a brief but useful bibliography HERE (http://perswww.kuleuven.be/%7Eu0013314/pinaxonline.html#Mythologie%20en%20religie), perhaps THIS (http://www.kchanson.com/CLASSIFIEDBIB/grrit.html)one is particularly useful since it is a bibliography in its own right. And a general but masterly treatment HERE (http://www.amazon.com/Myth-Meaning-Functions-Ancient-Cultures/dp/0521098025).

Thanks, new area for me, will get the book and reply when I have a broader base for comment

[Sarama]

Because it's already been done. (http://www.churchofreality.org/wisdom/welcome_home/)

Thanks Matt! You just made my day!
That said I doubt I'll be joining either any time soon.
I'm far too "skeptical", one might venture to suggest that I am religiously so...::)

[Mulder]

So what is the difference between myth and religion? The only difference I can see is that some myths are supposedly true, whereas others are not. So who decides?

[Janot]

So what is the difference between myth and religion? The only difference I can see is that some myths are supposedly true, whereas others are not. So who decides?If I can start with Greek religion and myth, which we know quite a bit about, books have been written about the complex interchange between myth, ritual and religion. The best is Greek Religion by Walter Burkert, who has this to say in the introduction:

Ritual and myth are the two forms in which Greek religion presents itself to the historian of religion… The religion finds legitimation as tradition by proving itself a formative force of continuity from generation to generation. Ritual, in its outward aspect, is a programme of demonstrative acts to be performed in set sequence and often at a set place and time….Sacred ritual involves the invocation of invisible powers which are addressed as a personal opposite: they are called Gods, theoi, as soon as we have texts. Myth, a complex of traditional tales, has more to say of these gods, but among the Greeks these tales are always taken with a pinch of salt: the truth of the myth is never guaranteed and does not have to be believed. But quite apart from the fact that mythology is at first the sole explicit form of intellectual activity and the sole mode of coming to terms with reality, the importance of the myth of the gods lies in their connection with the sacred rituals for which they frequently provide a reason, an aetiology, which is often playfully elaborated. The art of poetry then gave individul myths a fixed and memorable form, and the recitation of this poetry became in turn an essential part of every festival. Greek myth, complex in essence and actuality, therefore eludes all one-dimensional classifications and analyses


Need I say more? :cheesy:

[Mulder]

Nope, I'm still don't see the difference between myth and religion. Why don't people worship Greek or Roman gods any more?

[Janot]

Nope, I'm still don't see the difference between myth and religion. Why don't people worship Greek or Roman gods any more?OK - myths are stories about the past, which may or may not involve gods, and may or may not be true. A religion is about the present and future, involving gods which are certainly 'true' for believers.

Perhaps the problem is a shift in the meaning of myth, which can also take on the meaning of something present or future which is just not true (the weather forecast of a hurricane is a myth). Thus for an atheist, the difference between religion and myth remains unclear.

As to why the ancient gods are no longer worshipped, I have no idea other than the Christian church had a better sales pitch, and promised an eternal bliss in exchange for the pile of shite on earth. A unique selling point.

[Mulder]

OK - myths are stories about the past, which may or may not involve gods, and may or may not be true. A religion is about the present and future, involving gods which are certainly 'true' for believers.

How is a religion about the present and future? Christianity is based on events that supposedly took place 2000 years ago. Other religions are even older. They're just stories that have little or no relevance today. Seriously, who cares about some miracle that was supposed to have happened (and almost certainly didn't) two millenia ago? It's far too long ago for anyone to say with certainty what happened so how can it possibly affect the future?

[Fiona]

Once again, I have no inside knowledge of religion, so I may be wrong. But so far as I can tell Christians believe that religion informs how to we should live now, to achieve paradise in the future.

[Civilised Worm]

So what is the difference between myth and religion? The only difference I can see is that some myths are supposedly true, whereas others are not. So who decides?


The Mythbusters?

[DrS]

How is a religion about the present and future? Christianity is based on events that supposedly took place 2000 years ago. Other religions are even older. They're just stories that have little or no relevance today. Seriously, who cares about some miracle that was supposed to have happened (and almost certainly didn't) two millenia ago? It's far too long ago for anyone to say with certainty what happened so how can it possibly affect the future?
Christianity is a good example of what Janot means, I think. The story is mythic (in several senses), even though there is possibly an historical nugget: believers see the story as entirely historical. It is, either way, concerned with the past. The religion of Christianity, however, is focused wholly on the future: our afterlife.

[Mulder]

Christianity is a good example of what Janot means, I think. The story is mythic (in several senses), even though there is possibly an historical nugget: believers see the story as entirely historical. It is, either way, concerned with the past. The religion of Christianity, however, is focused wholly on the future: our afterlife.

I see that religion is concerned with an afterlife. However, it is BASED in supposed historical events. If those events are no more historical than other myths then the religion and its afterlife become irrelevant. So, I still want to know why one myth becomes a religion and another is just a quaint story. I just don't get it!

[Fiona]

That is because you lack faith, Mulder ;D

[Cuddles]

I see that religion is concerned with an afterlife. However, it is BASED in supposed historical events. If those events are no more historical than other myths then the religion and its afterlife become irrelevant. So, I still want to know why one myth becomes a religion and another is just a quaint story. I just don't get it!

Because religion is more than just the stories. A myth is just a story, religion is a way of life based on a story. Can you really not see the difference between telling a story and spending hours every day talking to an imaginary friend?

[Mulder]

OK, I can accept that a religion is an accident of history. In the case of Christianity, if it hadn't been for the charismatic St Paul, it would have remained an obscure Jewish cult and almost certainly have vanished. The fact remains, if you attempt to deconstruct religions it's difficult to see what makes one myth religious and another just a story.

It is possible that religions are like chaos. One person influences a few others nearby to believe in a tiny cult and they pass it on to others and, centuries later it's a major worldwide religion (like butterflies starting hurricanes, in case you don't see the chaos connection). Like chaos, you need a large system to influence for the thing to work. In the case of religion, it is the almost universal need to believe.

[DrS]

The fact remains, if you attempt to deconstruct religions it's difficult to see what makes one myth religious and another just a story.I understand what you are saying, Mulder. I would contend, though, that myths are an integral part of (or form the basis of) most if not all religions, just not book religions. This is a major difference for me, since book religions tend not to evolve, and in order to avoid modifying the base myth of the religion itself, increase the number of rituals to accommodate cultural changes. Religions with a primarily oral base can evolve by adding more stories, hence the proliferation, I would argue, of myths in the ancient world's non-book religions.

[Janot]

How is a religion about the present and future? Christianity is based on events that supposedly took place 2000 years ago. But this is just historical background to support the belief in the present. Some more enlightened Christians argue that the accuracy of this history/myth or whatever is irrelevant.


But so far as I can tell Christians believe that religion informs how to we should live now, to achieve paradise in the future.Exactly

[Mulder]

But this is just historical background to support the belief in the present. Some more enlightened Christians argue that the accuracy of this history/myth or whatever is irrelevant.

Eh? So, if you take away the whole JC myth, you can still have Christianity today? I don't understand that at all! In this context, is 'enlightened' another word for 'nuts'?

[Fiona]

I was rather flippant earlier when I said this is because you lack faith, Mulder, but there is a serious point underlying that, I think. I was brought up atheist but religion is an interesting subject and when I have had the opportunity I have tried to learn about it a little. What I have noticed is that one can learn about the particular beliefs and how they fit together, the same way you can learn about anything else: by reading, asking questions etc. All well and good. But I have come to the conclusion that that just doesn't get you very far. It does not seem to me to be the core of what religious belief is all about.

I find it quite hard to articulate this: but a religious outlook is utterly different from a non-religious one. Things which I take to be self-evidently relevant, such as doubt about the validity of what claims to be knowledge in given areas, really are not very important to the truly religious. It is more as if the religious outlook is an approach, in much the same way as scepticism is. You come to a lot of different subjects with the sceptical approach and the questions you ask and the things you accept as answers are founded on that approach. I suggest that you seldom question the approach itself, because for you it is almost synonymous with thought. Well the religious approach the world with a wholly different set of assumptions: and the questions they ask and what they accept as answers are equally founded on that. For them, that is what thought is.

For example; What we, as sceptics, hear is that Christians base their beliefs on the teachings of this supposedly historical figure who founded his right to teach on his divine nature and demonstrated that nature through the performance of miracles etc. You naturally conclude that the facts of Jesus' life and work is fundamental to Christianity: and this is inevitable from your mindset, perhaps. Take it away and the theory falls. Makes sense to a sceptic. But not to at least some Christians ( I am generalising, I know). For them, the historical facts are very very interesting and they spend time and effort in historical research and such. But it is a side issue really. If they found he never existed it would not make a lot of difference to this kind of Christian. They do not start there: they start with the existence of God. That is the irreducible premise.

Both sceptics and the religious are human and they have the same kinds of brain: so in many ways they will think about things in the same way (using logic and some irrationality and influenced by emotion and all those kinds of thngs, I mean): but they will build on different foundations. Apart from fundies, most religious people will accept the same facts as you or I: so that mainstream christians do accept evolution, for example. But the significance of those facts depends on the core premise and so the implications which you see as inevitable just do not follow for them

I am not sure if this is very clear, or even if it is right. Just my tuppence worth :smiley:

[Mulder]

For example; What we, as sceptics, hear is that Christians base their beliefs on the teachings of this supposedly historical figure who founded his right to teach on his divine nature and demonstrated that nature through the performance of miracles etc. You naturally conclude that the facts of Jesus' life and work is fundamental to Christianity: and this is inevitable from your mindset, perhaps. Take it away and the theory falls. Makes sense to a sceptic. But not to at least some Christians ( I am generalising, I know). For them, the historical facts are very very interesting and they spend time and effort in historical research and such. But it is a side issue really. If they found he never existed it would not make a lot of difference to this kind of Christian. They do not start there: they start with the existence of God. That is the irreducible premise.

I realise that if you take away the supposed life of JC, many Christians would still believe in SOME KIND of god. However, what you would be left with would not be Christianity. In those circumstances I suspect some people would lose their faith and others would simply switch to another religion. Some people will always be religious, whatever happens. They are only in a particular faith because it was the one they were brought up with. But Christianity itself simply doesn't make any sense, and would cease to exist, without people believing in a historical JC.

[Janot]

But Christianity itself simply doesn't make any sense, and would cease to exist, without people believing in a historical JC.I'm not so sure about that. If somehow the historical JC was somehow debunked, there would be those who claim a validity to a mythical JC on the grounds that god spread the myth as a means of persuading the masses to follow Christianity, or something like that.

Ultimately most people believe what they want to believe, irrespective of facts or historical truths.

[DrS]

The problem is that the existence of an historical Jesus cannot be debunked. The evidence is hardly there for his existence, let alone the opposite!

I had a staunch Christian friend once with whom I discussed the problem of the significant shortage of evidence for an historical Jesus. She didn't see it as a problem. The Bible says he existed. That's enough.

I suspect Fiona is very near the truth of the different approaches, based on different foundations, between the religious-minded and the sane.

[Janot]

... between the religious-minded and the sane.I must admit I might have a problem with this, depending on what you mean by religious-minded. If you mean the ones who say, for example, the bible is true, I have no problem. But if you mean anyone with a belief in some kind of ill-defined deity whilst recognizing there is no evidence for it, I don't see why this should be contrasted with the sane.

[DrS]

Yes, OK ... maybe I should have said "between the religious-minded and the rational" :undecided:

[SKIRRID5]

This discussion seems to have strayed a long way from the original point about atheists being miserable gits (or not). Never mind all these daft believers, let's talk about US!
People for whom religion is vastly important have to believe that we are miserable without it, because if we are not, it must seem like an attack on their deep need.
On a more trivial level, folks can't see how anyone can do without something they take for granted. I don't watch TV, but I imagine most of the population would not understand how I could live without it. Indeed, there are sometimes media stunts where people have to go for a period without telly, and it's clearly supposed to be an ordeal.

[Mulder]

I find being an atheist liberating! Not having to believe or justify stuff for which there is no evidence is a great weight off my shoulders. It's the believers who should be miserable.

[Pebble]

Presumably believing or not believing doesn't affect one's level of happiness one way or the other. Being overly concerned what others think, as say fundamentalists and evangelists, could certainly affect one's mood. Now if mood affects longevity, do fundamentalists live longer than evangelists? Assumption: Fundamentalists aggregate with like minded people providing mutual support, reinforcing each others belief but also helping out those in need (provided deemed deserving i.e fundamentalist enough, also if die despite best efforts can't really believe so excluded from analysis of survival). Whereas Evangelists presumably spend much of their time trying to convert heathens, often a thankless task, so all other factors being equal (I know thats not the case) they should die earlier!

[Janot]

It's the believers who should be miserable.Not if they are guaranteed 72 virgins in the afterlife. :cheesy:

[Mulder]

Presumably believing or not believing doesn't affect one's level of happiness one way or the other...

I know this is going to sound weird but I've always had an obsession with knowing the truth. Don't ask me why - just a personality thing, I suppose. Although I'm happy to watch a film, knowing it's just a story, I get really annoyed when someone tries to tell me nonsense. I avoid salesmen, customer care people, politicians and Jehovah's Witnesses because there is always the danger it will end up in a row! I will put down a newspaper article as soon as I realise the author knows less about the subject they are writing about than me.

So not having to believe in nonsense really was a great relief to me.

[Janot]

I know this is going to sound weird but I've always had an obsession with knowing the truth. Don't ask me why - just a personality thing, I suppose. It doesn't sound wierd to me, but I suspect you (and I) are in a minority. Most people do not want truth. They want to win the lottery and/or wait for Father Christmas.
On a different level, there are degrees of truth and in my opinion a clear distinction between the truth perceived by men and by women. For example, truth is irrelevant in the answer to the question 'do I look fat in this?' or 'are you having an affair?' On another issue, I believe that if I were terminally ill with cancer, I would want to know the truth. Yet a GP friend of mine tells me that in 25 years of practice, not one single terminally ill patient has ever asked him for a diagnosis or prognosis. People are usually ready to embrace a lie if it makes them feel good.

I'm happy to watch a film, knowing it's just a story, ..But any film worth watching, or any book worth reading, in my opinion, contains some truth on some level. Presumably this is why you suspend disbelief and why you do not condemn it.

[Mulder]

But any film worth watching, or any book worth reading, in my opinion, contains some truth on some level.

Absolutely! Most authors go to great lengths to make the details of their novels accurate. The only fictional bits are usually the events and characters, and sometimes not even those.

On another level, fiction is often the best way to convey a truth that people might not want to hear.

[Pebble]

Yet a GP friend of mine tells me that in 25 years of practice, not one single terminally ill patient has ever asked him for a diagnosis or prognosis. People are usually ready to embrace a lie if it makes them feel good.


In any heart failure clinic or oncology clinic, the attitude is very different. When facing a specialist, people will rarely not bring up he question of diagnosis and prognosis. I suspect this has more to do with the way doctors talk to their patients, if it is clear that the doctor is managing the situation according to the presumed diagnosis and it's impact on both quality and quantity of life this 'allows' the person to raise the issue of their future. If the doctor is clearly avoiding such issues, the patient will too. Same issue with impotence etc.

[Cuddles]

Absolutely! Most authors go to great lengths to make the details of their novels accurate. The only fictional bits are usually the events and characters, and sometimes not even those.

I get the feeling we're reading very different books.:smiley: