As a scientist, I should say that the concept of god is a misconception taken by people as they developed as a society. Actually, there is no place for any "god substance" in our world, since it has only 4 interactions (electromagnetic, weak, strong & gravitational), and nothing more! If we choose to believe in some other "god matter", we do lie to ourselves. Unfortunately, people just can't understand it yet, because the level of their scientific education is generally very low. It's intrinsic to the human nature that we need to believe in something in order to support the psychological integrity of our brain. That's why people who are scientifically illiterate try to invent some other ideas (for instance, the concept of god).

Atheism, in itself is not unhealthy, however, having no central absolute moral principles and teachings is definitely unhealthy. It creates the moral relativistic environment, which allows politicians to assume the mantle of God and adjust morality to suit their own godly prescription. The concept of God removes the mortal Gods, the 'false' Gods The mortal gods, therefore find the whole principle of God unacceptable, because it limits their movement, it userps their power. This is why the concept of God is always the first victim in any totalitarian culture. So what is God? The answer is that you know it in yourself. What are the teachings? The answer, they are the ones you can read in most any religeon or moral Philosophy. Will you find a physical model for God? will you find a field theory for God? The concept of finding, involves also the concept of what you are looking for. So clever scientists what is the test? So how advanced is science, what is the mathematical model of love? Or hate? Shall we all wait until the equations are done? Will you bet me that you can model suffereing and pain in my lifetime? So everybody, have your free thoughts, for they are the ones so precious. You will find, what you will look for, so know what you are looking for. Good luck!

Mike, you claim to be a scientist. There is no "truth" in science, only discovery. Nor is there any conflict in having a strong religious faith with allowing for scientific discovery. There will be a time in the not too distant future when the concept of a Creator will be scientifically undeniable. How does something come from nothing without a creative force to begin it? It wasn't that long ago that "scientists" dismissed the big bang theory as crazy. Now no "scientists" say that--it is now the "truth".

In my view there is no way to quantify a direct causality between being healthy and a mere disbelief in deities due to a distinct lack of evidence for any of them existing (aka "atheism"). Human physical and mental health can be linked to a combination of social and biological factors that are best summed up by reviewing Maslow's Hierarchy of Human Needs. Social networking is very important along with successful public educational outreach regarding atheism and atheists that corrects common misconceptions perpetuated from the public bully pulpit regarding our morality and value that can lead to dehumanization and ostracism by friends and family when we become vocal and assertive. Being abandoned, exiled, either overtly or covertly by friends, family and community can certainly adversely affect esteem and health issues due to a rejection by those who condition their compassion and love on the issue of "faith" in the religion found in their particular community. That, in my opinion, isn't due to atheism or being an atheist. Rather, it is due to ineffectual and totalitarian religious dogma and coercive ideology. Witness the recent study that shows a common perception that atheists are not valuable to society, inferring (as "Count Cash" has done in this very thread) that atheism suggests no other facet of an atheist can derive a moral or ethical standard that isn't "morally relativistic" or leading to a god of "self" that is repugnant to real values and ethics. That said, the opposite of atheism isn’t “religion” or “morality” or “Christianity”. The opposite of atheism is “theism”. Neither of these words have anything to do with morality or ethics or their perceived “sources”, they are simply defined as either a belief or disbelief in deities respectively. To find out what moral or ethical standards an atheist or a theist abides by requires asking them directly. A “source” of morality is a different issue altogether and applies to everyone equally. All people get their morality from the same place, their own human minds, based upon practical personal experience and the successfully developed human tendency for empathy. The only difference is that religious adherents assert a purported divine right for their perspective in order to promote representative authority for their claims and behavioral standards. This is why we see so many religious adherents making completely differing assessments on what is acceptable moral behavior throughout history to modern day. As for "moral relativism", one need only look at these various and assorted religious ideological conflicts as to what is absolutely "right and wrong" to see that "atheism" isn't the culprit at all. After all, what “makes” religious adherents pick which religious claims and "values" they assert are “moral”? If you are a Christian, what “source of morality” did you tap to determine your personal preference for the Bible over the Tanakh or the Qur’an or the Vedas? Why do Jews and Muslims and Hindus and Zoroastrians, etc. chose otherwise? Are they just told what is moral from the God(s)ess(es) and then abide by it without their own personally derived justifications? It should then be equally valid to ask “Where do the God(s)ess(es) get their morality from?” and why do so many seem to have the same desires of each respective religious adherent, which often conflict with believers of other religious claims regarding what is moral? Just as we can see the evolution of "morality" within religious "interpretations" over time, from primitive and bloody, genocidal deities who crave the smell of burnt offerings to ever newer and newer divine directives and revelations purportedly sent via angels or burning bushes that do not burn through to specially chosen human conduits in private moments with no witnesses, we have come to understand that the survival of our species is dependent upon reciprocity. Each cultural “lesson learned” over time and history brings new views on how we should live and treat others. The relatively recent occurrence of developing nuanced language and the ability to record these lessons has been paramount in the growth of cultural expression, morality and ethics. As we have learned these lessons of death and war and hate and destruction, so too have our witch doctors, our sages, our shaman, our rabbis, priests, monks, preachers and…*most importantly*, our scribes and legislators. Now, for the most part it can be reasonably observed that social and political power is derived from purported direct association with super beings beyond space and time (especially all powerful, invisible and unfalsifiable ones who really, really go for our fancy hats, special voices and brightly colored capes), so human representatives always have to have just the right interpretation and direct knowledge of absolute “morality” to shop out to those who have already used their own minds to decide to “like it” (most often because their folks and neighbors told them so and they seem happy). There certainly have been successful legislative decrees throughout human history that were not associated with the God(s)ess(es) or derived from religious assertions. A most recent example of which is the First Amendment of our secular United States Constitution which is certainly not a precept found anywhere in the commandments ascribed to the god of Abraham or Brahma. So, with all of these factors in mind, my view is that we should keep moving on as a species and learn the important lessons of the flawed divine right of kings and become responsible for our own lives and deep abiding loves and find a balance of reciprocity within the wondrous thermonuclear jewel that is the vast universe in plain view. No deities required. Steve Schlicht Biloxi MS

Bob, Given your query "How does something come from nothing without a creative force to begin it?", can you explain then, what force created your deity? This is the problematic Cosmological argument and if you posit that infinity is not possible using certain rules (there must be a cause for every creation), and then say the first uncaused cause called "God" is the exception, you are merely leaping into special pleading. A even larger leap would then be to assert the first uncaused cause also just happens to be the Judeo-Christian-Muslim-Mormon deity among all of the other claims. In my view, there is a core conflict with "faith" in the absolute claims of the world religions and the scientific method. After all, when was the last time you saw some human representative of divine authority correct the "word of the God(s)ess(es)" based upon some new/additional discovery and empirical evidence? And calling such changed claims "fulfilled" instead of "incorrect" doesn't really count. ;0) Thoughtfully yours, Steve Schlicht Biloxi MS

Bob, There actually might be a conflict between good science and godliness. If you look at some gallup polls from a few years back you'll find that there's a strong correlation between atheism and having a profession in science, a correlation that doesn't exist for Christians. Obviously to make a solid conclusion you'd have to do further and more specific research on the topic, but at this point with what we know Christianity could very well act as a dampener on scientific achievement when applied to a large population (as usual with statistics, trends like this would not be applicable to any single individual).

Many people like to draw inferences because they cannot understand the words themselves. The simple topic of this thread was; is atheism unealthy, as I simply said, I think it is not, provided we have access to moral teachings to evaluate and learn from. Solid, moral teachings, from wherever they come are important, to act as a moral inertia to counter a fluid day to day relativistic political morality, which for instance justifies the utility of torture, because it is said to be solving a contempory problem. I leave it up to each one, to find their source of moral inspiration and its reinforcement, from open and available sources, just be careful it came from you. Not some in vogue politician, because, this is the true lesson to be learn't from history. You need to graze and not be fed. What you feel and call this inspiration is also up to you, and of course me.