More accepting and forgiving and generally open as an atheist. I was a smug little fuck when I was a christian. Of course I was younger then but I think that taking a position in which you are certain of your beliefs has a tendency to make you a bit comfortable with yourself.  A lot of my atheist thought revolves around accepting there are things I don't know and perhaps can't know. This is a challenging business for me. It would be easier to bridge the big questions using god but my doubts were always bigger than my faith. It's a good question, Infidelis. I think generally, involved atheists are going to be more tolerant and less judgmental than christians. Of course, there are some really nice christians out there. Not sure if giving your time in order to secure heavenly reward as a missionary scores the same moral points as unpaid doctors without borders working in an ebola ward in the Congo. Given atheists and theists are people, you'd assume we are all equally capable of being equally nice. 

I'm an asshole because I'm generally aware of my surroundings and conscious of how my actions will effect others while everyone else seems to be on autopilot. I think that thoughtfulness is the root of my bad attitude as well as my unbelief.

Regarding that experiment: did the subjects hold a religious belief? I also want to know if those in the experiment were the type of people that would 'give the shirt on their back' already(with or without a god belief) ~ meaning: was that word scramble necessary? Why not just hand the people the money, ask them to keep or give the money away and proceed with the experiment?

I understand the idea behind the experiment: To find out if the idea of being watched or held accountable for ones actions would determine a specific outcome.. but the word scramble a bit odd, at least without sharing the beliefs held by those that participated.

As for Brook's book 'Gross National Happiness' I find the idea shared, that God-fearing folk are 'nicer' due to their imaginary friend ,a possibility. It actually reminds me of something a boss of mine said once to me years ago: "What you want in your employees is that little voice saying ~ do a great job, renee might be watching" I hated it when she said it and refused to invoke that type of fear into my employees. I believe those with a god-complex may have that exact voice in their head from years of exposure to a similar message from their grandparents, parents and pastors..

I have not read Brook's book but if he indeed used the "atheists donate less blood" argument to back his niceness premise, he is an idiot. I cannot drive to work without seeing "Blood donation" signs on the lawns of churches during certain times of the year. With that much organization(end he himself mentions the enormous amount of christians in america) it isn't a surprise there are more 'god-people' draining their vital fluids. I am not even going to respond to Brook's 'poll' regarding secular people being miserable...

The author of this article writes: "Most Americans who describe themselves as atheists, for instance, nonetheless believe that their souls will survive the death of their bodies." This statement is in parenthesis within the article, as if to say ~Oh by the way, in case you didn't know~ Well, I will have to find some evidence supporting this I guess...just like the opening lines regarding the niceness of god-people.

Wow, this article pisses me off and I think it is because of the author, not the content  LOL

(or maybe because I am out of coffee)

Hmmm, interesting article. I like it.

Huh? I don't get it.

Of course, you read it past the first half of the first page, right?

I don't understand what you don't get. You did read past the first 2 paragraphs of my post, right?

And of course I read the entire article.

I don't care for the author's style. I feel his point would be better made in a much longer article. But he does pimp his book in the article, so if someone were interested in reading more of his material, I suppose they could.

The problem is that most people are stupid.

I don't mean that as a metaphor; I mean it as exactly what it says: They are morons. Idiots. Fucknuts.

Retards. Neanderthals. Slow-to-get-it worthless pieces of shit.

Obviously, the first step on the path towards becoming smart is to admit that you are ignorant.

But they will never do that. Instead, they will talk. They will talk about their ideas. About how they get it.

Next, they will become emotional. They will scream, cry, and growl; just like proper animals do.

And you have to wonder... what is the fucking point of talking to these monkeys?

I've been a "smug little fuck" pretty much all my life, once I realized I was "smarter than the other kids"... and even some (most?!) adults! I'd say it started right after I figured out that my folks couldn't answer every last, gargantuanly-complex question about life or about science/philosophy/spirituality/sociology/birds and the bees/culture/drugs/youf'nnameit. I chose to be somewhere between atheist and agnostic around this period. (Faith disgusted me not because it seemed false, but because it seemed wrong: corrupt to the core, full of "skin-deep-only-believers", whorishness, and sweaty idiots trying to control other's actions.)

Mr. Bloom misses the boat.  Yes, many other countries have a sense of community without a strong belief in invisible friends.  Most of these countries are socialist, with high tax rates, good public health, public infrastructure, and a decent but usually not extravagant living style.  It's because there is a small spread between highest paid and lowest paid.  Yes, it is due to taxing the highest compensated people, yes, it is nasty awful socialism.

I read a book on this - and I can't remember the title for the life of me, if you insist, I will continue to search for it.  It was written by a group of doctors looking for the reasons why the US has so many problems with health - poor people in the US are generally sicker than poor people in other industrialized nations.  No, it isn't race - ask the Brits or French about their immigrant populations.  It isn't access to health care in the sense of number of doctors per thousand people - most industrialized nations are very similar in proportions of health care workers.  No, it isn't glitzy medical technology - if that were the case, the US would be on top since everyone in medicine agrees the US has the best.  So why are there proportionally so many very ill people in the US?

One of the studies the book mentioned was baseball teams.  You want your team to win the pennant?  Reduce the compensation at the top and increase the compensation at the bottom.  This fosters a feeling of teamwork.  There are no stars, there are only team members working together.  Works in business, too.  And apparently, in health.  Those countries with the healthiest population - looking at all the usual suspects, infant mortality, obesity, diabetes, and so on - are countries where the spread between the highest compensated and the lowest compensated people is the smallest.

Yeah, I know, some of you don't like this.  Not my problem.

So it makes sense to me that the atheists in these countries would feel less stressed and more a member of their community.  Everyone in those countries feel that way.

Here in the US, where the studies quoted ran, religion is about the only community where it is easy for most people to gain a feeling of belonging.  You most likely don't have it at work - or at school - and probably not with your family, either.  You don't feel a community with other Americans.  Hell, they may be communists or worse yet, libruls.  So for many, religion is the only connection they have with any community.  It really doesn't matter that the only time they connect is Sunday service.  Or when they give something to someone else - thereby increasing their own feelings of self worth.  Maybe it is the fear of hellfire that causes many of them to give - guilt, not morals, is motivating them.

I don't need to give to anyone or any cause to feel worthy.  I don't have to prove that I am a good person or that I am charitable.  If I have the money, and I believe in the cause, I give.  Otherwise, I don't.

It is very hard - for me, anyway - to give money to someone holding a sign that says "anything will help, god bless".  And so I do give less to the street people because it seems everyone of them is carrying around the same damn sign lately.  I did give a buck to the guy with the sign that said "I need a beer, thanks."

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

As it turns out, that study is designed to study the religious, and is thus quite ill-equipped to deal with the non-religious they catch in such a survey. Basically, non-religious people sampled in such a survey would be ones that are doubters, and so probably are less happy because they feel they lost something, or they are in such a religious environment they feel like outsiders. To draw conclusions about all secular people from that would be unwarranted to say the least. I have found a better article that looks into the godless.

Profiles of the Godless

Results from a survey of the nonreligious

LUKE W. GALEN

http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=galen_29_5