Religions’ true purpose if it was understood by the unthinking souls is to shape your life into a more meaningful one. — Noah Te Stroete

Does shooting a visitor of a foreign land, classify as a more "meaningful" life? Unfortunately, this is what happened to the Christian visitor recently, when he attempted to contact a modern science-less/technology-less tribe.

I fail to see how that bolsters your argument and falsifies what I said.

I fail to see how that bolsters your argument and falsifies what I said. — Noah Te Stroete

Care to answer the prior question?

The Christian wasn’t violent. Furthermore, my claim was that knowledge of science is necessary but not sufficient for a good life.

The Christian wasn’t violent. Furthermore, my claim was that knowledge of science is necessary but not sufficient for a good life. — Noah Te Stroete

I wasn't referring to the Christian.
The tribe likely has a religion as well.
The tribe, absent modern science, and probably absent atheism is rather violent.
Also how do you explain highly atheistic countries tending to be the happiest?
How do you explain why american prisons are mostly filled with theists?

I don’t claim to know if the tribe was religious or even if anyone has studied their maybe religion. I attribute the Scandinavian’s happiness to their economic systems foremost. There is low inequality and the population is relatively homogeneous. America has an education and inequality problem with a heterogeneous population. Religion is not a problem as long as ALL religions are tolerated, which unfortunately they are not usually in practice.

Also how do you explain highly atheistic countries tending to be the happiest? — VoidDetector

What is the data for that?

The UN Happiness Report and World Happiness Index indicate this trend, the least religious countries tendung to be the happiest. Correlation doesnt mean causation though, so a grain of swlt might be best.

However, atheistic scientists are scientists that tend to objectively analyse the truth value of things including religion; they precisely align with the scientific endeavour of disregarding religious endeavour. This contrasts non-atheistic scientists on this matter, who disregard or "turn off" scientific endeavour while analyzing religion. — VoidDetector

Well, sure, if that's how you want to define "atheistic scientists" and "non-atheistic scientists." This the layout of your argument:

1. If a scientist objectively analyzes truth values, then they are an atheistic scientist.
2. If a scientist "turns off" scientific endeavor while analyzing truth values, then they are a non-atheistic scientist.
3. Religion has truth values.
4. Therefore, if a scientist objectively analyzes religion, then they are an atheistic scientist.
5. And therefore, if a scientist "turns off" scientific endeavor while analyzing religion, then they are a non-atheist scientist.

Your argument, while valid, it is not sound, because it conflates many definitions that are otherwise by and large agreed upon in philosophy. I'd like to offer these alternative definitions:

scientist-- a person who objectively analyzes truth values of concepts within the scientific realm.
scientific realm-- the plane of existence that includes everything that operates within the known laws of nature; the natural world.
atheistic scientist-- a scientist who concludes that there is no convincing philosophy for believing in the existence of anything outside of the natural world; denies the existence of the supernatural.
non-atheistic scientist-- a person who objectively analyzes truth values of concepts within the scientific realm, and also believes that a convincing philosophy exists that posits the possible existence of the extra-natural (supernatural).

Using these definitions, your first and second premises fail. If a scientist "turns off" scientific endeavor in their search for truth within the natural world, then they are no scientist at all. If a scientist "turns off" scientific endeavor while establishing a personal philosophy regarding the extra-natural (including whether or not it exists), then they are simply someone who is aware of accurate definitions in philosophy.

Your argument begs the question, looking at the disagreement between religious and non-religious scientists and calling religious scientists wrong because you believe the extra-natural doesn't exist. Religious scientists are not those who ignore or "turn off" science, but rather are simply scientists who also hold the belief that someone exists outside of the science that they so diligently study. Science and religion are not mutually exclusive, but are actually two separate studies. Those who conflate the two, on either side, are uninformed about the definitions of their own viewpoints.

Most religions don’t advocate violence. At least not the ones I’ve studied. The dolts who pick out verses from religious texts out of context to justify violent behavior are the problem. Religions’ true purpose if it was understood by the unthinking souls is to shape your life into a more meaningful one. I believe religious studies aren’t sufficient, however necessary, but science and philosophy studies are necessary as well. I’m not denying the value of science. (I have a Bachelor of Science degree.) However, a well rounded education is necessary if one wishes to one day become wise as I hope to. — Noah Te Stroete

Data shows that religion does not provide any sensible well roundness.

What data?

The UN Happiness Report and World Happiness Index indicate this trend, the least religious countries tendung to be the happiest. Correlation doesnt mean causation though, so a grain of swlt might be best. — DingoJones

• Saying that Correlation doesn't mean causation doesn't end the story.
  
• As it says on Wikipedia/Correlation does not imply causation, one can extrapolate causality from trends.
  
• And the trend is indicating that religious presence tends to contrast happiness, wealth and prosperity.
  
• I bet the world trade center terrorists quickly correlated their religion, with the cause of their destructive actions.

Simply put, you likely won't hear a person condemning a nation, and threatening to destroy said other nation in the name of nothing.. aka in the name of absence of belief.

Well, sure, if that's how you want to define "atheistic scientists" and "non-atheistic scientists." This the layout of your argument:

1. If a scientist objectively analyzes truth values, then they are an atheistic scientist.
2. If a scientist "turns off" scientific endeavor while analyzing truth values, then they are a non-atheistic scientist.
3. Religion has truth values.
4. Therefore, if a scientist objectively analyzes religion, then they are an atheistic scientist.
5. And therefore, if a scientist "turns off" scientific endeavor while analyzing religion, then they are a non-atheist scientist.

Your argument, while valid, it is not sound, because it conflates many definitions that are otherwise by and large agreed upon in philosophy. I'd like to offer these alternative definitions:

scientist-- a person who objectively analyzes truth values of concepts within the scientific realm.
scientific realm-- the plane of existence that includes everything that operates within the known laws of nature; the natural world.
atheistic scientist-- a scientist who concludes that there is no convincing philosophy for believing in the existence of anything outside of the natural world; denies the existence of the supernatural.
non-atheistic scientist-- a person who objectively analyzes truth values of concepts within the scientific realm, and also believes that a convincing philosophy exists that posits the possible existence of the extra-natural (supernatural).

Using these definitions, your first and second premises fail. If a scientist "turns off" scientific endeavor in their search for truth within the natural world, then they are no scientist at all. If a scientist "turns off" scientific endeavor while establishing a personal philosophy regarding the extra-natural (including whether or not it exists), then they are simply someone who is aware of accurate definitions in philosophy.

Your argument begs the question, looking at the disagreement between religious and non-religious scientists and calling religious scientists wrong because you believe the extra-natural doesn't exist. Religious scientists are not those who ignore or "turn off" science, but rather are simply scientists who also hold the belief that someone exists outside of the science that they so diligently study. Science and religion are not mutually exclusive, but are actually two separate studies. Those who conflate the two, on either side, are uninformed about the definitions of their own viewpoints. — adhomienem

1. Side note: I am an atheist as Wikipedia describes in the broadest meaning, such that I lack belief in the existence of deities, i.e. I don't make any positive claims. Also, Science concerns the natural. To aim to practice otherwise is thus far demonstrably futile, as such "supernatural" aims contrast the pillars of modern Science, that has long dropped deity related models.

1.b. Note how astrology/archaic science was dropped from astronomy/modern science. Note also that astrology concerns deities and other religious endeavour, and note how it is currently regarded as not science, but pseudoscience instead.(See Wikipedia/astrology and astronomy)

2.a. It's not as trivial as you garner; one can quite simply turn on scientific endeavour while doing Science, while turning it off while doing other activities, including analyzing religion. For example, a quite bright medical Doctor may engage in smoking tobacco, somewhat turning of Scientific endeavour, while otherwise turning it on in several other activities.

2.b Simply put, we can roughly apply degrees of scrutiny; it's not merely scrutiny off all the time, or scrutiny on all the time, which your long albeit reasonably invalid expression above commits.

Your argument aims to service a false dilemma.

Well, sure, if that's how you want to define "atheistic scientists" and "non-atheistic scientists." This the layout of your argument:

1. If a scientist objectively analyzes truth values, then they are an atheistic scientist.
2. If a scientist "turns off" scientific endeavor while analyzing truth values, then they are a non-atheistic scientist.
3. Religion has truth values.
4. Therefore, if a scientist objectively analyzes religion, then they are an atheistic scientist.
5. And therefore, if a scientist "turns off" scientific endeavor while analyzing religion, then they are a non-atheist scientist.

Your argument, while valid, it is not sound, because it conflates many definitions that are otherwise by and large agreed upon in philosophy. I'd like to offer these alternative definitions:

scientist-- a person who objectively analyzes truth values of concepts within the scientific realm.
scientific realm-- the plane of existence that includes everything that operates within the known laws of nature; the natural world.
atheistic scientist-- a scientist who concludes that there is no convincing philosophy for believing in the existence of anything outside of the natural world; denies the existence of the supernatural.
non-atheistic scientist-- a person who objectively analyzes truth values of concepts within the scientific realm, and also believes that a convincing philosophy exists that posits the possible existence of the extra-natural (supernatural).

Using these definitions, your first and second premises fail. If a scientist "turns off" scientific endeavor in their search for truth within the natural world, then they are no scientist at all. If a scientist "turns off" scientific endeavor while establishing a personal philosophy regarding the extra-natural (including whether or not it exists), then they are simply someone who is aware of accurate definitions in philosophy.

Your argument begs the question, looking at the disagreement between religious and non-religious scientists and calling religious scientists wrong because you believe the extra-natural doesn't exist. Religious scientists are not those who ignore or "turn off" science, but rather are simply scientists who also hold the belief that someone exists outside of the science that they so diligently study. Science and religion are not mutually exclusive, but are actually two separate studies. Those who conflate the two, on either side, are uninformed about the definitions of their own viewpoints. — adhomienem

1. Side note: I am an atheist as Wikipedia/atheism describes in the broadest meaning, such that I lack belief in the existence of deities, i.e. I don't make any positive claims. Also, Science concerns the natural. To aim to practice otherwise is thus far demonstrably futile, as such "supernatural" aims contrast the pillars of modern Science, that has long dropped deity related models.

1.b. Note how "astrology/archaic science" was dropped from "astronomy/modern science". Note also that astrology concerns deities and other religious endeavour, and note how it is currently regarded as not science, but pseudoscience instead.(See Wikipedia/astrology and astronomy )

2.a. Secondly, my argument is not as trivial as you garner; one can quite simply turn on scientific endeavour while doing scientific experiments, while turning it off while doing other activities, including analyzing religion. For example, a quite bright medical Doctor may engage in smoking tobacco, somewhat turning of Scientific endeavour, while otherwise turning it on in several other activities.

2.b Simply put, we can roughly apply degrees of scrutiny; it's not merely scrutiny off all the time, or scrutiny on all the time, which your long albeit reasonably invalid expression above commits.

Your argument aims to service a false dilemma.

Simply put, you likely won't hear a person condemning a nation, and threatening to destroy said other nation in the name of nothing.. aka in the name of absence of belief. — VoidDetector

Didn’t you learn the world’s religions in your high school World History class? I know I did at my public high school. It enriched my education rather than being a detriment to it. I doubt the Islamic fundamentalists in Saudi Arabia had such a class.

Didn’t you learn the world’s religions in your high school World History class? I know I did at my public high school. It enriched my education rather than being a detriment to it. I doubt the Islamic fundamentalists in Saudi Arabia had such a class. — Noah Te Stroete

I did learn them. In fact, atheists tend to know more about religious texts, than theists.

I thought I had it all figured out, too, when I was an atheist for twenty years. I learned a little humility. Now I am open to different world views without thinking that I must always be right.

Saying that Correlation doesn't mean causation doesn't end the story.
As it says on Wikipedia/Correlation does not imply causation, one can extrapolate causality from trends.
And the trend is indicating that religious presence tends to contrast happiness, wealth and prosperity.
I bet the world trade center terrorists quickly correlated their religion, with the cause of their destructive actions.

Simply put, you likely won't hear a person condemning a nation, and threatening to destroy said other nation in the name of nothing.. aka in the name of absence of belief.[/

In this instance, the countries could very well have other reasons for being happy. The Scandinavian countries for example have economic and social considerations, so a case could be made either way and the data I pointed out is not conclusive.
Thats all I was commenting on.
In general I think its foolish to think religion doesnt cause certain behaviours. Im not one of these people who thinks you cannot trace the root cause of plently of terrorism or other horrors directly to religion. — VoidDetector

Im not one of these people who thinks you cannot trace the root cause of plently of terrorism or other horrors directly to religion. — VoidDetector

I believe terrorism stems from nihilism, not true religious beliefs.

I didn't easily find the actual questionnaire online. Do you know where the questionnaire is, plus the data re exactly how many people they polled and how they selected the people they polled?

I thought I had it all figured out, too, when I was an atheist for twenty years. I learned a little humility. Now I am open to different world views without thinking that I must always be right. — Noah Te Stroete

• Science by definition, is about minimizing errors, in how we describe the cosmos, i.e. Science is evolving. Science seeks to find the conclusion, while observing facts. Atheists tend to think in this manner.
  
• Religion on the other hand, is quite literally stuck in archaic ways of describing the cosmos, and already presumes to know the answer, without any shred of scientific evidence.Religion tends to want to find facts to fit their already presumably correct conclusion.

Which group above seems to think they're literally always right? ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

Your claim about religion is wrong. Religion should be thought of as dealing with the normative, i.e. what people ought to do or how they should behave. It should not be thought of as an explanatory framework for the cosmos. That is fundamentalism. Science does the job with that. Science, however, can say nothing about what we ought to do (the normative).

This continues to be the case. But it does not mean that science is atheistic; rather, that science is agnostic.
— Herg

Wikipedia/atheism describes atheism to broadly mean lack of belief in deities. It's only when you get to the narrow definition where there is a positive claim about deities' inexistence.

The OP concerns the broad definition of atheism, and as science grew, it had long assumed or ignored belief in deities. — VoidDetector

I'm making an early New Year resolution, which is to avoid the use of the word 'atheist' altogether, on the grounds that it's hopelessly ambiguous. Henceforth I shall try to restrict myself to the two words 'anti-theist' and 'agnostic', which are unambiguous and jointly exhaust the possible meanings of 'atheist'.

I didn't easily find the actual questionnaire online. Do you know where the questionnaire is, plus the data re exactly how many people they polled and how they selected the people they polled? — Terrapin Station

No, Ive never read the questionnaire, just the results and some data breakdown. I remember articles stating the study “concluded” that high atheism countries are happier but the actual study data I read didnt seem quite that strong.

I'm making an early New Year resolution, which is to avoid the use of the word 'atheist' altogether, on the grounds that it's hopelessly ambiguous. Henceforth I shall try to restrict myself to the two words 'anti-theist' and 'agnostic', which are unambiguous and jointly exhaust the possible meanings of 'atheist'. — Herg

Its not ambiguous in the least, its actually quite simple. Also, neither agnostic or anti-thiest cover what the word atheist means, they each are distinct and necessary.
If the answer to do you “believe in god?” is anything other than “yes”, you are an atheist. You can also be an antitheist and/or agnostic. They are not mutually exclusive. Atheism means “without belief”, anti-theism is when you are against religion(s) and agnostic is a stance on whether or not the existence of god can be known. If you are just the classic fence sitting agnostic, you are also an atheist.
Obviously people can obscure and misuse the terms for their own ends, but these are the classic definitions.

Your claim about religion is wrong. Religion should be thought of as dealing with the normative, i.e. what people ought to do or how they should behave. It should not be thought of as an explanatory framework for the cosmos. That is fundamentalism. Science does the job with that. Science, however, can say nothing about what we ought to do (the normative). — Noah Te Stroete

Are you saying highly atheistic countries, who happen to tend to be the happiest, wealthiest, least violent etc, can't deal with how people should behave? ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

I'm not seeing where the data indicates that religion is necessary for the properties you describe. Please enlighten me, or at least try?

I’m saying they probably borrow from religion’s normative teachings, e.g. the Golden Rule or Buddha’s moderation, without being theists or religious.

I’m saying they probably borrow from religion’s normative teachings, e.g. the Golden Rule or Buddha’s moderation, without being theists or religious. — Noah Te Stroete

I'm referring to highly atheistic, non-religious countries, with no Buddhism etc. How is it possible for them to know how to behave? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Hint: Religion is not required.

They have remnants from their religious pasts.

They have remnants from their religious pasts. — Noah Te Stroete

Any data there?

And I hope you're not referring to Bibles when it comes to behaviour lessons, because murder, rape, slavery etc are all endorsed/condoned by bibles.

• Rape a woman? No problem in the bible, just marry them as "punishment".
  
• Commit adultery, go ahead and get put to death according to the bible.
  
  ....