drugs and prostitution

[Guest]

Dustin T and StahleyP,

All you have said may be true but it doesn't change the fact that religion is nothing more than superstition.

 

That is inaccurate. I decided to look up the definition for "superstition" to be sure. According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary:

 

a belief or way of behaving that is based on fear of the unknown and faith in magic or luck : a belief that certain events or things will bring good or bad luck

 

I don't believe what I believe based on fear. I either believe what I believe based on my evolutionary instincts or a greater power we don't understand - just because we don't understand something doesn't mean it's magic or luck. There is no fear in either of those premises. I still feel my logic is sound as far as the morality argument goes. If God doesn't exist, we should all take the "love machine" option I described previously. That way we would maximize the good chemicals and have the most fulfilling life. Or that, properly trained and rationalized away, we could do away with guilt. Living as if "morality" is "good" is faulty logic if God doesn't exist. It's simply one set of evolutionary instincts vs another. Let's lot act like "Buffett is good" and "Madoff is bad." They're just wired differently.

 

If we look at their version of full definition we have:

 

a :  a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation

 

The only way God would fall into this is "a false conception of causation." We could say that about almost anything in the world though. We don't really understand a lot of things that we do.

 

b :  an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition

Well, I don't really think my attitude is irrational. Take the "love machine" idea for a moment. The only irrational position, if one is an atheist, is to not take the option for the love machine. Otherwise, that person's emotions  are overriding the rational choice.

 

2: a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary

 

Well, I also fail to see how Dustin or myself fall into this one. Do you have any evidence, to the contrary, that the universe blew up on it's own or that life sprung up from nothing?

[rkbabang]

rk,

 

I sense a lot of arrogance in your statements. Perhaps you don't mean it that way but comes across like that. I can admire that you've actually done a good amount of research. Have you ever read CS Lewis' work?

 

A couple examples though as far as the arrogance: as a 10 year old, you realized that everyone in the church was stupid and primitive.

 

Or, perhaps if you were a bit more modest you'd realize that God can use people for great things. For instance those "superstitious tribesmen and sheepherders" changed the world. In fact, the initial group did it without help from a government, business or trade organization...all while being hunted down and persecuted.  Not bad for a bunch of superstitious sheepherders!

 

I do agree with you though that we should continue to find answers. I don't particular like the mindset of "God did it so I can stop looking", either.

 

yeah, I'm hoping to keep her around. This one seems like a keeper! Yeah, and this lasts, I'll be sure to be the financial advisor. haha

 

Believe it or not you are not the first person to call me arrogant, and religion isn't the only topic being discussed in which I've been called arrogant.  I tend to sound that way even when I don't mean to.  I call it honesty.  I do remember thinking those things when I was a child and in my last post I was simply telling the story as I remember it.  If it was arrogant, then, well, yes I was an arrogant 10 year old.  Yeah, I probably was and still am.  I did think that I was smarter than the adults around me at the time.  And more than 30 years later I still think that I was correct to believe so.

 

I've never read C.S. Lewis.  Mere Christianity has been on my ever growing "to-read" list forever, but I've haven't yet acquired a copy. I will get around to reading it eventually.  I agree with you about Christopher Hitchens, btw.  Even thought I agree with him, he isn't a very good writer.  I wouldn't recommend "God is not great" to anyone.  I do enjoy reading Dawkins however, I've read all of his books.  On this topic, "The God Delusion" was a pretty good summary of the atheist position.

 

[ERICOPOLY]

I've got no issues with whether someone believes or does not believe but I worry that atheists are getting more militant. Yesterday I had Jehovah Witnesses knock on my door and while I'm sure others have had other experiences, all these gentlemen did was hand me a flyer. The modern Richard Dawkins style Atheist is pushier then any Jehovah witness I've ever met.

 

I'm the same way in that I don't care who believes what.  I don't even tell my kids what to believe.  I sent my son to a pre-school down the road ("All Saints By The Sea") and he came home talking about the baby Jesus.  I didn't correct him, I don't want him to not fit in with his group.  I just let it be.  I don't want him over at a friends house rudely telling them that Jesus stories might not be real.  He will be old enough one day to make up his mind.

 

Interestingly, I was walking around the yard at that school and came across a tile mosaic in the garden with donors names inscribed on the tiles.  There was Charlie Mungers name -- just a bit unexpected to see when you are standing around waiting to pick up your kid from his preschool.

 

Regarding what you said about the relatively polite Jehovah Witnesses though.  Have you ever had an atheist come to your door in an attempt to convert you?

 

They may seem polite and soft-spoken, but I feel like they've no place walking up to private homes trying to convert others to their beliefs.  Put an ad in the newspaper and be more respectful of our privacy.

 

I've never seen a Bitcoin -- do we finally have a hope for a currency that doesn't explicitly proclaim we trust in God?  There are a few obvious ways in which the devout could take the lead on being respectful to others.

[Liberty]

Regarding what you said about the relatively polite Jehovah Witnesses though.  Have you ever had an atheist come to your door in an attempt to convert you?

 

The whole argument about militant atheists is ridiculous. For centuries your life would be ruined for just saying that you didn't believe in the supernatural. Basically all kids were indoctrinated from a young age, if not by their parents, by the schools. Wars were fought on religious grounds and all world leaders had to repeatedly proclaim their allegiance to the right religion (which varied depending on where they were). Pretty much all religions have a strong foundation of proselytism and of public demonstrations (putting recognizable buildings in the most visible places, having their members wearing some kind of uniform and putting various distinguishing symbols everywhere, etc).

 

But now that a few atheists finally can speak out publicly and try to explain their logic with people rather than threaten them with eternal torture or indoctrinating them when they are too young to reason, oh boy, it's a problem!  :-X

 

It's a framing technique; if you can't argue with the ideas, you attack the bearer of the ideas. Trying to paint atheists as "shrill", "militant", "radicals", etc... It's basically conceding defeat that if the world was really full of the supernatural, real convincing evidence for it wouldn't be so impossible to find and we could talk about that instead, and the old texts wouldn't have to be constantly reinterpreted and parts of them dropped over time as we learn better because that's not what a divine revelation is supposed to be.

[Dustin T]

I've got no issues with whether someone believes or does not believe but I worry that atheists are getting more militant. Yesterday I had Jehovah Witnesses knock on my door and while I'm sure others have had other experiences, all these gentlemen did was hand me a flyer. The modern Richard Dawkins style Atheist is pushier then any Jehovah witness I've ever met.

 

I'm the same way in that I don't care who believes what.  I don't even tell my kids what to believe.  I sent my son to a pre-school down the road ("All Saints By The Sea") and he came home talking about the baby Jesus.  I didn't correct him, I don't want him to not fit in with his group.  I just let it be.  I don't want him over at a friends house rudely telling them that Jesus stories might not be real.  He will be old enough one day to make up his mind.

 

Interestingly, I was walking around the yard at that school and came across a tile mosaic in the garden with donors names inscribed on the tiles.  There was Charlie Mungers name -- just a bit unexpected to see when you are standing around waiting to pick up your kid from his preschool.

 

Regarding what you said about the relatively polite Jehovah Witnesses though.  Have you ever had an atheist come to your door in an attempt to convert you?

 

They may seem polite and soft-spoken, but I feel like they've no place walking up to private homes trying to convert others to their beliefs.  Put an ad in the newspaper and be more respectful of our privacy.

 

I've never seen a Bitcoin -- do we finally have a hope for a currency that doesn't explicitly proclaim we trust in God?  There are a few obvious ways in which the devout could take the lead on being respectful to others.

 

I have not ever had an atheist come to my door to preach, I doubt many have, but I fear religion is on the wane. I think there are some atheists out there who are trying very hard to spread their own gospel and it honestly wouldn't surprise me if it happens in another 15 years.  I believe this is a bad thing and it worries me as some atheists are very disrespectful towards believers. I think on whole, despite the fundamentalist crazies, religion brings more good than bad. There are certainly many evil men who have used religion for evil purposes, but there are also the Stalin’s and Hitler’s who opposed religion and caused their own evil. I think when bad people come to power bad things happen and they will use religion, nationalism, atheism or any other tool that helps them control people.

 

I think your view is a healthy one and if there is a higher power my money says he'll judge you by your life and works not by your faith. Towards that end I don't see much point in trying to "convert" anyone. I also believe a healthy faith in something greater than yourself makes for a healthier and more peaceful life. I believe being humble and trying to serve a greater good leads to happiness, something that can be accomplished with or without religion, but religion provides an excellent framework for just that.

 

[ERICOPOLY]

I think on whole, despite the fundamentalist crazies, religion brings more good than bad.

 

I agree.  They try to include everyone.  Even the annoying person who doesn't have any friends.  Or the most socially awkward.  They will include him.

 

Inclusion therapy is an important thing. 

 

My belief is that a person only has a moral framework (reinforced by guilt) if they are socially attached to a group.  So the risk of not having religion is that we'll have more loners shooting up schools.

 

Given that their rules are generally civilized (don't lie/cheat/steal/kill), I then certainly benefit by having the million of people that surround me feel guilty if they violate the rules of their church group.

 

Many of these rules are simply doubled-down by the rules of the government.  The difference though is that the churches genuinely try to find a place for the loners to belong.  I believe that's the key thing -- Church groups are like a government that offers inclusion therapy to loners.

 

[Dustin T]

Regarding what you said about the relatively polite Jehovah Witnesses though.  Have you ever had an atheist come to your door in an attempt to convert you?

 

The whole argument about militant atheists is ridiculous. For centuries your life would be ruined for just saying that you didn't believe in the supernatural. Basically all kids were indoctrinated from a young age, if not by their parents, by the schools. Wars were fought on religious grounds and all world leaders had to repeatedly proclaim their allegiance to the right religion (which varied depending on where they were). Pretty much all religions have a strong foundation of proselytism and of public demonstrations (putting recognizable buildings in the most visible places, having their members wearing some kind of uniform and putting various distinguishing symbols everywhere, etc).

 

But now that a few atheists finally can speak out publicly and try to explain their logic with people rather than threaten them with eternal torture or indoctrinating them when they are too young to reason, oh boy, it's a problem!  :-X

 

It's a framing technique; if you can't argue with the ideas, you attack the bearer of the ideas. Trying to paint atheists as "shrill", "militant", "radicals", etc... It's basically conceding defeat that if the world was really full of the supernatural, real convincing evidence for it wouldn't be so impossible to find and we could talk about that instead, and the old texts wouldn't have to be constantly reinterpreted and parts of them dropped over time as we learn better because that's not what a divine revelation is supposed to be.

 

What you said is true about religious people persecuting basically anyone who didn't agree with them. Sunni's and Shiite's still kill each other over what appear to be petty differences. I don't think this is the nature of religion but a reflection of the nature of man. The communist's did plenty of persecuting sans religion.

 

I don't have a problem with atheist's speaking out as long as they respect the other side viewpoint. I've watched Richard Dawkin's debates with John Lennox and they are generally respectful. They both make good points and I believe an intelligent party can respect the merit of each of them.

 

I think most atheists are far from militant. I think of the ones that are bent on removing religion and mocking those who believe as militant. I find those type of people generally distasteful whether they peddle politics, religions, or a local sports team.

 

[Liberty]

http://www.skepticink.com/tippling/2014/03/03/a-great-myth-about-atheism-hitlerstalinpol-pot-atheism-atrocity/

 

http://freethoughtnation.com/were-stalin-hitler-and-pol-pot-atheists/

 

http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/hitlerstalin.html

 

http://atheistwiki.wikispaces.com/Hitler+was+an+atheist!+So+was+Stalin!

 

Most of the regimes that claimed to be atheistic just wanted to remove the power of the church so they didn't have to share, and they replaced that with a cult of personality around the dictator/regime (another kind of religion). They weren't exactly promoters of rational free-thinking and trying to win by reasoned argument (what matters is what you do, not how you call it). It was about power games, and when you dig you find that they - and almost all of their followers and predecessors - were religious, like the population in general...

 

On top of this, I'd say it's an interesting double-standard by religious people to discount all the atrocities committed by religious people but try to highlight those committed by supposedly non-believers.

 

Anyway..

 

I often hear the argument that "religion does more good than harm". I think that's arguable; maybe today it does less harm in parts of the world where it is less powerful (in other words, it didn't choose to be defanged) and still does a lot of harm where it is very powerful (the middle-east is a good example). I think that if religious leaders really had their way everywhere, we're live in theocracies, dissenters would be crushed (most scientists), and we'd be much worst off. They don't call the medieval period the dark ages for nothing...

 

But even if for the sake of argument we say that religion does more good than harm, that, in no way, does make it any more true. The myth of Santa Claus or the tooth fairy might do more good than harm, but that's not an argument you can use in favor of them being true. If people get benefits from belonging to shared-interest groups and talking about ethics, it's very possible to create groups that do this without having to talk about the holy ghost. In fact, that's one of the great thing about the internet; people can find each other when they couldn't before (this forum is an example).

 

 

“We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. [Vishnu, Thor, Zeus, etc] Some of us just go one god further.”

[Dorsia1]

The fact that there is an argument in the year 2014 over an omnipotent being that you can communicate through telepathy and this same being can implant thoughts and feelings of guilt in one's brain is rather disconcerting.

 

[cobafdek]

There are certainly many evil men who have used religion for evil purposes, but there are also the Stalins and Hitlers who opposed religion and caused their own evil. I think when bad people come to power bad things happen and they will use religion, nationalism, atheism or any other tool that helps them control people.

 

http://www.skepticink.com/tippling/2014/03/03/a-great-myth-about-atheism-hitlerstalinpol-pot-atheism-atrocity/

 

http://freethoughtnation.com/were-stalin-hitler-and-pol-pot-atheists/

 

http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/hitlerstalin.html

 

http://atheistwiki.wikispaces.com/Hitler+was+an+atheist!+So+was+Stalin!

 

I've been patiently monitoring this thread like a Mike Godwin, fascinated by its length despite it being off-topic.  But my faith is

restored:  Godwin's Law is fulfilled.

[Liberty]

http://www.skepticink.com/tippling/2014/03/03/a-great-myth-about-atheism-hitlerstalinpol-pot-atheism-atrocity/

 

http://freethoughtnation.com/were-stalin-hitler-and-pol-pot-atheists/

 

http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/hitlerstalin.html

 

http://atheistwiki.wikispaces.com/Hitler+was+an+atheist!+So+was+Stalin!

 

I've been patiently monitoring this thread like a Mike Godwin, fascinated by its length despite it being off-topic.  But my faith is

restored:  Godwin's Law is fulfilled.

 

You missed the source, though:

 

http://www.cornerofberkshireandfairfax.ca/forum/general-discussion/drugs-and-prostitution/msg183926/#msg183926

[rkbabang]

http://www.skepticink.com/tippling/2014/03/03/a-great-myth-about-atheism-hitlerstalinpol-pot-atheism-atrocity/

 

http://freethoughtnation.com/were-stalin-hitler-and-pol-pot-atheists/

 

http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/hitlerstalin.html

 

http://atheistwiki.wikispaces.com/Hitler+was+an+atheist!+So+was+Stalin!

 

I've been patiently monitoring this thread like a Mike Godwin, fascinated by its length despite it being off-topic.  But my faith is

restored:  Godwin's Law is fulfilled.

 

You missed the source, though:

 

http://www.cornerofberkshireandfairfax.ca/forum/general-discussion/drugs-and-prostitution/msg183926/#msg183926

 

Yes Godwin's law was fulfilled, only a few posts earlier.  It was an important point to bring up Hitler, because any day now Richard Dawkins is going to start rounding up Jews and loading them onto boxcars.  Heil Dawkins!

 

[cobafdek]

http://www.skepticink.com/tippling/2014/03/03/a-great-myth-about-atheism-hitlerstalinpol-pot-atheism-atrocity/

 

http://freethoughtnation.com/were-stalin-hitler-and-pol-pot-atheists/

 

http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/hitlerstalin.html

 

http://atheistwiki.wikispaces.com/Hitler+was+an+atheist!+So+was+Stalin!

 

I've been patiently monitoring this thread like a Mike Godwin, fascinated by its length despite it being off-topic.  But my faith is

restored:  Godwin's Law is fulfilled.

 

You missed the source, though:

 

http://www.cornerofberkshireandfairfax.ca/forum/general-discussion/drugs-and-prostitution/msg183926/#msg183926

 

Corrected.  Must have fallen asleep.  Taking no sides in this thread.  Just having fun.

[ERICOPOLY]

Both Hitler and Stalin were poorly attached socially.  Loners.

 

The young guys who shoot up schools in recent history.  Loners.

 

The part of religion that benefits all of society is the "inclusion therapy" aspect of it.

 

It's what the school psychologists focus on at our heavily funded public elementary school here in Montecito.  These employees are "inclusion specialists".

 

We need those employees at all schools more than we need the armed guards.  Make sure everyone grows up with a sense of belonging, else their behavior will never properly be governed by the anticipation of guilt.

 

Don't leave it up to the church groups to pick up the slack -- their grip is on the wane... we'll keep seeing more of this violence if we don't fund it as part of the public schooling.

 

Once you view people as pack animals, rule #1 is that they must belong to the pack if they are to adhere to the pack's rules.  Otherwise, they are a "lone wolf" -- and the lone wolf by definition is not bound to the rules of the pack. The lone wolf can engage in remorseless behavior as he does not suffer emotional feedback from violating pack rules.  This is the root of "evil".

 

But you need to debate religion to get people to understand this... otherwise no progress will be made because they will claim that morality is infused in our brains by God, and refute the idea that it's based on social pack behavior.

 

[Liberty]

Both Hitler and Stalin were poorly attached socially.  Loners.

 

The young guys who shoot up schools in recent history.  Loners.

 

I can't tell if you're joking or not, Eric.

 

You could also find a bunch of greats who were loners, and a bunch of horrible people/world leaders who were enthusiastic social animals (in fact, I'd say that to be at the head of a state, it's pretty hard to be a real loner - Stalin and Hitler had to weave a great social web around them to grab and keep power and spent their time at rallies, doing speeches, in meetings with ministers and generals, etc. Not exactly loners.). Street gangs and the mafia are very social, apparently (very religious too).

 

What does make a difference is teaching people to think for themselves and not blindly follow authority, and to stop persecuting people because they are different.

[ERICOPOLY]

Both Hitler and Stalin were poorly attached socially.  Loners.

 

The young guys who shoot up schools in recent history.  Loners.

 

I can't tell if you're joking or not, Eric.

 

I'm not joking. 

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1303804/Adolf-Hitler-loner-rear-area-pig-according-WWI-regiment.html

 

 

[Liberty]

Both Hitler and Stalin were poorly attached socially.  Loners.

 

The young guys who shoot up schools in recent history.  Loners.

 

I can't tell if you're joking or not, Eric.

 

I'm not joking. 

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1303804/Adolf-Hitler-loner-rear-area-pig-according-WWI-regiment.html

 

That's not the part that I wasn't sure about. I wasn't sure if you really think that that's the root of the problem.

 

ie. Make a psychopath go to church to be part of a group, and things will turn out fine (let's forget for now all the psychopaths with delusions of being instruments of god).

[ERICOPOLY]

ie. Make a psychopath go to church to be part of a group, and things will turn out fine (let's forget for now all the psychopaths with delusions of being instruments of god).

 

People feel guilt if they violate the rules of their social group.  If somebody if firmly socially integrated into a social group, that is the case.  Yes, there will be people with attachment disorders that will never socially integrate -- they will just take ideas from the church and wind up with the god delusions that you mention.

 

Your example about street gangs and mafia... same thing, they will experience guilt if they rat out one of their own.  They have different rules, and thus different morality -- compared to something like a church group.

 

My example previously clarified my viewpoint -- an army works hard to integrate the soldier into the "band of brothers" social unit, and can have a set of rules that would make him feel guilty for fleeing order to commit murder on people he has never met before.  Yet this "morality" is different from that of the church group.

 

 

Many groups with bad morality easily recruit loners, or the disenfranchised.  So, if we are to try to protect ourselves from such groups, it's not a bad policy to try our best to ensure that everyone feels included by a group with generally civilized morals/rules/

[Liberty]

I just don't understand the focus on loners here. As I said, you could make a list just as long of very social people, part of groups, who did things just as bad as loners.

 

What I'm saying is that this is not the important variable. It's just a more visible variable because the media will point it out when someone is a loner, but they won't when he isn't because that's not out of the ordinary.

 

In fact, maybe if more people were better able to be comfortable by themselves a bit more, we'd get less peer pressure horrors and "I was just following the herd".

[rkbabang]

I just don't understand the focus on loners here. As I said, you could make a list just as long of very social people, part of groups, who did things just as bad as loners.

 

What I'm saying is that this is not the important variable. It's just a more visible variable because the media will point it out when someone is a loner, but they won't when he isn't because that's not out of the ordinary.

 

In fact, maybe if more people were better able to be comfortable by themselves a bit more, we'd get less peer pressure horrors and "I was just following the herd".

 

Exactly Hitler may have been a loner, but the people with the boots on the ground who committed the atrocities were doing it as patriotic members of the fatherland.  A loner can't kill millions. For that you need patriotism and government, or faith and religion.  School shootings may be the work of loners, but real mass-murder requires groups with devoted members.

[ERICOPOLY]

I just don't understand the focus on loners here.

 

It's just a special case so it is interesting.

 

"Evil" is basically when somebody witnesses the act of another that doesn't fit into "morality".  But not all social groups have the same rules (evil to some is not evil to others).

 

A loner would not belong to a social group of any sort, and thus would not experience "guilt". 

 

Perhaps the examples of Hitler and Stalin and the school shooters who acted together were not really loners at all.  Perhaps they had just invented new social groups with new rules that were "immoral" from the standpoint of pretty much every other social group in existence.

[ERICOPOLY]

I tend to believe that...

 

Being an outcast makes you susceptible to toss that social group and it's rules on the rubbish heap, and if you are driven by instincts to live within a group you will then go and join or create a new one.  From there, you can grow your new social group by recruiting the disenfranchised.

 

This might be the Hitler angle.  Had he felt included early in life, where would the motivation be?

 

[Liberty]

A loner would not belong to a social group of any sort, and thus would not experience "guilt". 

 

Perhaps the examples of Hitler and Stalin and the school shooters were not really loners at all.  Perhaps they had just invented new social groups with new rules that were "immoral" from the standpoint of pretty much every other social group in existence.

 

I think you can be a loner and still be very much part of society, even if in a more intellectualized way. Even loners usually have families, and they can read and be part of the world through the arts and such. I might not spend my evenings at church or in a crowded pub, but I certainly don't feel outside of society and its rules.

 

In fact, on average, introverted people are probably a lot less dangerous than extroverts...

 

I think other factors are more determinant for whether someone will turn out to be a danger to society. In Hitler's case, he didn't do it all himself, he needed a receptive society and a very special context. There are a bunch of Hitler disciples all over the world today trying to convince people to start a new reich, but they aren't getting anywhere because the soil isn't fertile. Hitler wasn't supernatural, though he was certainly the wrong person at the wrong time.

[ERICOPOLY]

I think you can be a loner and still be very much part of society, even if in a more intellectualized way.

 

I think so too about introverts or the relatively less outgoing.

 

"loner" was a bad term for what I'm thinking about, because the term "loner" conjured images of quiet, introverted, yet happy well adjusted people in your mind.  So it didn't communicate the idea that I had in mind -- thus, a bad term.

 

 

So let's not call them "loners" anymore.  I don't know what the term is, so here is how I'll phrase it instead of using a term:

 

There is a subcategory of people who have attachment disorders -- if you have trouble attaching to a group, you will not really properly internalize it's morals.  Thus you would feel less guilt if you violate it's rules.  You might try and try and try to belong to the group, and thereby appear to be social, perhaps even hyper-social, but if you can't really get close to the group emotionally, then perhaps the guilt will affect you to a far lesser degree.

 

[leftcoast]

People feel guilt if they violate the rules of their social group.

 

Normal people do, but psychopaths and sociopaths don't. Psychopaths don't feel guilt or remorse at all, as they are unable to form emotional attachments or feel empathy with others. And while sociopaths are capable of empathy with individuals in certain limited circumstances, they have no attachment to any social groups or their rules.

 

There is a subcategory of people who have attachment disorders -- if you have trouble attaching to a group, you will not really properly internalize it's morals.  Thus you would feel less guilt if you violate it's rules.  You might try and try and try to belong to the group, and thereby appear to be social, perhaps even hyper-social, but if you can't really get close to the group emotionally, then perhaps the guilt will affect you to a far lesser degree.

 

Unfortunately, religion wouldn't help those people form attachments.