[Roundy]

Thork is right about modern atheists.  You can claim that you aren't part of the movement all you want, but when you start quoting Dawkins and Hitchens and (a new favorite, it seems) Krauss in your support of the evils of religion, you are a new atheist like it or not.  And most modern atheists get a hard-on at the mere mention of any one of those names.

Here's something to chew on: statistically, your religious friends who go to church and pay blind allegiance to a God you don't think they should believe exists are going to live several years  longer than you.  So right about the existence of God or not they must be doing something right that you aren't.

[Rama Set]

And Roundy boards the SS Fallacy, destination, nowhere.

[Blanko]

ITT: The vocal minority must be the majority because I don't hear from anyone else!!!!

[Lemon]

Lol at Roundy. You're going to quote people who spent a lot of time fighting religion if a theist starts at you, spewing bullshit from a book written 2000 or so years ago.

[Blanko]

You should write sci-fi.

Perhaps too much sci-fi got me to this point.  I can't deny the elegance, though.

Think of all the simulated recognition and money you will gain.

Lol at Roundy. You're going to quote people who spent a lot of time fighting religion if a theist starts at you, spewing bullshit from a book written 2000 or so years ago.

Dude, very helpful.

[Lemon]

Lol at Roundy. You're going to quote people who spent a lot of time fighting religion if a theist starts at you, spewing bullshit from a book written 2000 or so years ago.

Dude, very helpful.

Uh huh. Blanko. Hah.

[Roundy]

Lol at Roundy. You're going to quote people who spent a lot of time fighting religion if a theist starts at you, spewing bullshit from a book written 2000 or so years ago.

Yes, that's what atheists tend to do, although it seems they're usually the ones starting the arguments.    I just don't agree that religion is something that ought to be fought, if it's something that on an otherwise level playing field is of such benefit.  Admittedly, people like Dawkins represent something of an extreme, but their (and his in particular) influence in shaping the way the modern intellectual thinks is a little scary, given their vicious anti-religious stance.

I know, by the way, that there are people out there who are extremely annoying in pushing their religions.  But if they're that far gone do you really think there will be any benefit in getting into an argument with them and trying to convince them rationally that they're wrong (except perhaps your own smug self-satisfaction, something else Dawkins oozies... I really hate Richard Dawkins)?  We all remember Wardogg.  And apparently, if you do manage to convince them they're wrong, you will personally be shortening their lifespan.  Congratulations for your victory.

[Rushy]

We need more Jewish-like religions that keep to themselves and tell you "even if you join this religion you're still not a chosen one and receive no benefits whatsoever."

[Rama Set]

We need more Jewish-like religions that keep to themselves and tell you "even if you join this religion you're still not a chosen one and receive no benefits whatsoever."

Hopefully all they will do is demand crappy pieces of land that no one really cares about except them.

[Blanko]

Lol at Roundy. You're going to quote people who spent a lot of time fighting religion if a theist starts at you, spewing bullshit from a book written 2000 or so years ago.

Yes, that's what atheists tend to do, although it seems they're usually the ones starting the arguments.    I just don't agree that religion is something that ought to be fought, if it's something that on an otherwise level playing field is of such benefit.  Admittedly, people like Dawkins represent something of an extreme, but their (and his in particular) influence in shaping the way the modern intellectual thinks is a little scary, given their vicious anti-religious stance.

I know, by the way, that there are people out there who are extremely annoying in pushing their religions.  But if they're that far gone do you really think there will be any benefit in getting into an argument with them and trying to convince them rationally that they're wrong (except perhaps your own smug self-satisfaction, something else Dawkins oozies... I really hate Richard Dawkins)?  We all remember Wardogg.  And apparently, if you do manage to convince them they're wrong, you will personally be shortening their lifespan.  Congratulations for your victory.

I don't disagree that anyone caring about or quoting Dawkins or Hitchens is a so-called New Atheist, because those are the people who for some reason need a spokesperson to justify their beliefs for them. That's how you turn a simple belief into a shitty movement.

But you're way overstating how many of these people there are. Most atheists don't give a crap about Dawkins, or even know who he is. The people who do care come down to just about the userbase of /r/atheism and then some, and the majority of them are Americans. They're mostly people who feel like they're being persecuted for being an atheist, so they think it's only appropriate to persecute religions back.

In reality, most people don't feel the need to state or otherwise let be known their religious affiliations in normal conversation, so maybe in your mind you automatically believe people who don't acts like jerks to be Christian. Don't be a Thork.

[Snupes]

What Blanko said, really. Also, quoting someone because they made a good point does not mean you wholly agree with them. Quoting Dawkins' or Hitchens' points makes you a New Atheist about as much as quoting Tupac makes you a gangbanger. I dislike Dawkins' smugness as much as anyone else, but that doesn't mean all of his points are suddenly unusable.

Also, "religious people live longer" is not much of an argument. Stupid and/or ignorant people are also happier, so...I guess we should shut down schools and promote stupidity?

[Tintagel]

Don't be a Thork.

Sig'd.

[Roundy]

Also, "religious people live longer" is not much of an argument. Stupid and/or ignorant people are also happier, so...I guess we should shut down schools and promote stupidity?

I have to disagree.  It's not much of an argument for belief in God itself, but it's certainly an argument in favor of the existence of religion (or at the very least for leaving the poor deluded sons of bitches alone).  Just remember that the next time you get into an argument with that devout churchgoing Christian you will (essentially) actively be trying to shorten his life.

Also, what studies have been done that show stupid people are happier people?  I have a feeling that's a crock of shit.  Also I bet smart people tend to live longer than stupid people, just because they will be better able to take care of themselves.

[Blanko]

I think you may have to fill us in on your train of thought here. What exactly is it about religion that increases people's lifespans, and how are those lifespans reduced if coming in contact with arguments regarding religion?

This may possibly be the most far-fetched strawman I've ever come across in an atheism vs. religion argument.

[Roundy]

I think you may have to fill us in on your train of thought here. What exactly is it about religion that increases people's lifespans, and how are those lifespans reduced if coming in contact with arguments regarding religion?

This may possibly be the most far-fetched strawman I've ever come across in an atheism vs. religion argument.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201302/do-religious-people-live-longer
http://www.webmd.com/balance/features/spirituality-may-help-people-live-longer
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8044586/Having-faith-helps-patients-live-longer-study-suggests.html

For future reference, google is a wonderfully useful tool.

[Alchemist21]

There are statistics that show higher spirituality increases life span.  I think it has something to do with lower stress levels.  Also, you don't have to have religion to be spiritual.  Just meditate or take some yoga or tai chi.

[Blanko]

So it's not religion itself, but rather some lifestyle choices associated with practice of religion. Got it.

[Roundy]

So it's not religion itself, but rather some lifestyle choices associated with practice of religion. Got it.

Well, yes, that aren't associated with the non-practice of religion.  Participation in a faith-based community is specifically singled out as a strong factor.  If you go to church, you are going to live longer.  I suppose you could be an atheist and go to church anyway and perhaps reap the benefit, but most atheists I know would rather eat pig vomit.

[Rama Set]

There are quite a few atheists who go to church I imagine.  They are just closeted.

[Blanko]

So it's not religion itself, but rather some lifestyle choices associated with practice of religion. Got it.

Well, yes, that aren't associated with the non-practice of religion.  Participation in a faith-based community is specifically singled out as a strong factor.  If you go to church, you are going to live longer.  I suppose you could be an atheist and go to church anyway and perhaps reap the benefit, but most atheists I know would rather eat pig vomit.

What you've linked are statistics, not studies on cause. I don't think anybody is claiming that there's divine blessing involved, so that doesn't really leave much that church-attending in specific would grant that other sources would not. It's pretty much just saying that a religious life is linked with having less anxiety.

Hell, if you're so concerned about a few years of potential lifespan, why are you listening to these guys? Go look at what the Japanese are doing instead, they've got you beat already. Note: it's probably not attending church.