http://tinyurl.com/28ybkl
Former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev made clear this past weekend that he is an atheist after European news agencies last week claimed that he had confirmed his Christian faith during a visit to the tomb of St. Francis of Assisi in Italy.Gorbachev, the last communist leader of the Soviet Union, confronted speculations that he had been a closeted Christian during an interview with the Russian news agency Interfax.”Over the last few days some media have been disseminating fantasies ? I can’t use any other word ? about my secret Catholicism, citing my visit to the Sacro Convento friary, where the remains of St. Francis of Assisi lie,” Gorbachev said, according to an Interfax article posted Friday.”To sum up and avoid any misunderstandings, let me say that I have been and remain an atheist,? he stated.Rumors for decades had circulated that Gorbachev was a Christian after he moved to loosen restrictions on religious worship and expressed to a party congress a year before the communist state dissolved that ?spiritual rebirth is as essential to society as oxygen,? according to the Chicago Tribune.As a result, media agencies had jumped to conclusions when Gorbachev visited St. Francis? tomb last Wednesday and was seen kneeling for half an hour in silence at the tomb.But Gorbachev, who was baptized Russian Orthodox as a child, explained that his visit to the tomb was as a tourist and not a pilgrim. He acknowledged the important role religion plays in society and said he looks forward to visiting Orthodox churches in Russia, Catholic and Protestant churches in the United States and Europe, synagogues in Israel and mosques in the Arab world, according to Interfax.”But all these years, it has never occurred to anyone to list me among followers of any faith on that basis,” Gorbachev noted.Back in Russia, the Russian Orthodox Church seemed unimpressed with Gorbachev?s visit to St. Francis? tomb.”In Italy, he spoke in emotional terms, rather than in terms of faith,” a spokesman for the Russian Orthodox patriarch Alexei II told the Russian media.”He is still on his way to Christianity. If he arrives, we will welcome him.”
Notice how the Christian spokesperson can’t accept what Gorbachev says himself. He’s not an Atheist, he’s “on his way to Christianity”. This is intolerance (AGAIN), and we should not be open to such BS. If you say you’re a Christian, do we say “you’re on your way to Atheism”? No. We ACCEPT your choice, instead of assuming you’re lying.
The anti-islam film “Fitna” has been released on Liveleak.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ee4_1206625795
It is quite strong and could be called propaganda. But so what? Of course the politically correct EU condemns it.
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/03/28/islam.film/index.html
They do so with the same tired argument of “respect”.
“”The European Union and its member states apply the principle of the freedom of speech which is part of our values and traditions. However, it should be exercised in a spirit of respect for religious and other beliefs and convictions,” the Slovenian presidency said in a statement.”
What? Rational people are supposed to respect idiocy, superstition, and religious fascism?
Alatham, not the article I read, but pretty much the same thing (I think the one I read was on the BBC site but I can’t find it)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3577517.ece
Can’t imagine anything worse than being mistaken for a Christian.
justme,
Thank you.
In response to the study, OK, fair enough. I wish they had paid more attention to the difference between agnostics, atheists, and those who are slightly religious instead of lumping us all in one group.
As far as contrary studies go:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/w54q13592vk33038/
This one shows no correlation between religion and happiness amongst German students.
And here’s a good one:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/650q541579041625/
Their conclusion is that the correlation between religion and happiness is quite strong in the USA, but not nearly as strong in Denmark and the Netherlands (i.e. not statistically significant), both of which are far more secular countries.
So it could be that the correlation only appears in the USA because there are more religious people here. In other words, atheists are less happy in the USA because we’re surrounded by idiots, but the same correlation doesn’t show up as much in less religious places.
I wonder what would happen if they did a study like this and compared (for instance) Berkley, CA to Birmingham, AL.
On the other hand, I’m always wary of psychology studies that use self-reported values. How can you define happiness well enough that it can be objectively compared between two different people? I’m not sure that’s even possible.
alatham:
now, I’ve never done a study on this… so its just a hypothesis, but in my private life I’ve seen a tendancy among my christian friends to overstate their happiness.
christian friends who are obviously going through a rough time in their lives (mopey, inactive, complain alot) will still turn around and describe their life in glittery terms at odd intervals (I suspect its a form of “witnessing”/self delusion).
synopsis: if you’ve already deluded yourself into beleiving you’ve got a direct line to an omnipotent best friend who will damn you to hell if you don’t cherish his creation, you’re damn well gonna claim you’re happy.
in fact… most of my christian friends seem to have three settings:
self-righteous anger, glassy-eyed happiness, and absolutely overwhelmed.
what I’m trying to say is that I feel that admitting unhappiness is, to some religious folk, essentially a challenge to their belief that an omnibenevolent god takes a personal interest in their lives.
even in times when their unhappiness is plainly evident to friends and loved ones, they can glaze it over with a simple “well, mysterious ways, praise god, etc”
I guess sometimes ignorance IS bliss.
I think the articles sited support Alatham’s hypothesis:
Flying Weasel also makes an excellent point about the overstated happiness of xians. Where are antidepressants prescribed at the highest rate? Utah! – by a factor of 2. Antidepressant use is certainly an objective measure.
sited -> cited
FlyingWeasel,
Good thoughts. I wonder what psychologists would have to say about the possibility that religious types have simply deluded themselves into happiness.
As you said, sometimes ignorance is bliss.
What,
Now all we have to do is make sure that Utah doesn’t simply have some bizarre laws about anti-depressants. You might be onto something here.
One more interesting thing:
Here is the “Satisfaction with Life Index”:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisfaction_with_Life_Index
And the results of the Eurobarometer polls:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_europe#Religiosity
Take a look at the happiest european countries. The top 10 are Denmark, Switzerland, Austria, Iceland, Finland, Sweden, Ireland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, and Norway. All of these countries fall within the top 20 in the world (with Norway being #19).
Of all these countries only 4 of them have more religious people than agnostics (Ireland, Luxembourg, Austria, and Switzerland). And if we count both agnostics and atheists together Switzerland and Luxembourg both fall off that list.
If religion were really strongly correlated with happiness, wouldn’t we expect to see Turkey, Poland, Greece, or Italy towards the top of that list? Could it be that religion really doesn’t provide more happiness than irreligion?
“I some of what Salvy is smok’n.”
If you asked a world war II vet coming home from winning Japan in 1945, do you think the US is going to be a marjority hispanic by 2020.
(That’s what we have managed to accomplish is very a little time.)
he would of said.
“I (want) some of what Salvy is smok’n !”
Aztlan will rise. I can assure you of this….
Comment from: alatham
I’m always amazed at the lack of some to follow a post…
That comment was referring to Dave…
Phreedm,
I’m never amazed at your failure to admit even the slightest mistake.
Nowhere in that post did you make any mention of referring to Dave. If you want to assert that that was supposed to be obvious then I have to conclude that you’re either an asshole or incompetent.
After all, your post did start with this:
Which means that your post was directed at the community at large.
Let’s dissect your post a little further, shall we?
Ok, there’s no obvious subject here, but the safest assumption is that you were obliquely commenting about Gorbachev. So far, so good.
Here, the word “he” is obviously referring to Gorbachev.
Again, no unambiguous subject, so we should naturally assume that you were carrying on in the same direction. But this sentence makes no sense since you just made a vague comment that could be taken to mean that you believe that Gorbachev never really was an atheist.
Now you’re trying to say that you were referring to Dave, presumably with this paragraph. But nobody in their right mind would agree with that assessment.
If you want to continue to chastise me for not being able to read your god-addled brain then perhaps you should write less ambiguously.
Though personally I think you’re just lying about referring to Dave in order to save face (not that you have any credibility worth saving).
From Bernarda:
“What? Rational people are supposed to respect idiocy, superstition, and religious fascism?”
I once saw a TV interview with a Muslim scholar who called for suppressing anti-Muslim speech by alleging that the American principle of religious freedom required everybody to “respect” all religions.
He was a visiting scholar at the University of Virginia at the time. Thomas Jefferson must have been spinning in his grave.
This is a really common theist distortion. It’s absurd on its face, but when did that ever stop a religionut?
Freedom of thought, of course, means that everybody is free to think whatever they see fit — Xians can think Muslim are infidels, and vice versa — the respect everybody owes is to everyone else’s rights, including the right not to respect others’ opinions.
Duh.
Salvy
You had better hope that it doesn’t or it will become a shit hole like Mexico.
Comment from: alatham
Speaking of credibility…
ala…you’ve missed the entire source of the conversation. No wonder you’re lost…
Comment from: David Silverman
http://www.atheists.org/nogodblog/index.php/2008/03/24/oh_for_crying_out_loud#comments
So again I ask…why can’t Dave provide a single link? Instead his minnions defend his inaction…
Ala…you’re just proving how blind an individual can be if they choose not to see…
Phreedm Wrings!
Phreedm,
You aren’t making any sense. What do you mean by the “source of the thread”?
The only obvious answer is that the source of this thread is Gorbachev reaffirming his atheism. You’re just trying to confuse me so I forget about it and you don’t have to admit your error. Good luck.
Also, don’t accuse me of defending Dave when I did no such thing. I don’t particularly care for many of his comments. We seem to agree on a relatively small amount of things (at least as far as this blog is concerned).
alatham – good job! Your phreakish analysis was spot on – so much so that phreakshow already has to resort to insulting your credibility instead of discussing your arguements. Typical christian hypocrisy – this phreakish clown never disappoints!
Oh, and speaking of credibility: phreakshow, you have none. Are you ever going to tell anyone why you think you are entitled to question others, when you can never respond to anyone else’s questions to you? Don’t you think that’s just a tad rude – especially for someone who is supposedly living a christian life?
How is it that you dare to claim that others are roving how blind an individual can be if they choose not to see, when you yourself choose not to see or respond to any of the challenges to the accuracy and factual basis of your statements? Who do you think you are to behave in such an uncivilized manner?
At least now it’s on record that blasphemous religiously insane phreakshows are actually so hypocritical that they expect to demand answers that they themselves will refuse to give.
phreedm, you seem to be getting flamed well enough without my help, but let me mention that any good political scholar knows that religion really is the opiate of the masses, and that it’s better for the government if the masses are smiling happy drunken little smiles.
Don’t faultt a politician for practicing good politics.