I rephrased this quote as: "the proper response is to examine the reasons for the effects." Do you believe this to be inaccurate? Were you offended to realize that it applies equally to atheists looking upon religion as it does to Catholics looking upon Scientology?

Who ever said atheists should become religious for the better anti-suicide rates? You're arguing with the wall here, Jack - that'd be a silly argument.

But if you want it spelled out - as others have mentioned, the 'religion as child abuse' claim takes on an interesting twist when it comes to studies like those covered here. Maybe atheists should do what I said Catholics would do with scientologists - try to achieve an understanding of what's going on. Maybe accept that, wait for it - there could be something positive in the views, or the actions, or maybe even the attitude. Or even turn around and ask, maybe there are some problems among the atheist proponents - real problems that deserve attention and consideration. Nothing wrong with thinking about the criticisms, after all. I know plenty of religious folks who do it. But, again, they tend to have answers and options available to them. Maybe that just isn't the case here.

You have provided no explanation for the personal judgments you have made toward me. I would suggest that you refrain from ad hominem "hunches" in the future.

Nah, I'll keep it up. You see me and TP? We snipe at each other plenty. And he believes in an afterlife!

Myself: If the same correlations were found among Scientologist teens, what would be the conclusion? Indeed what if Scientologists scored better overall?

nullasalus: The same response as ever, I suppose - examine why that's the case, what influences within scientology were yielding those results.

I rephrased this quote as: "the proper response is to examine the reasons for the effects." Do you believe this to be inaccurate? Were you offended to realize that it applies equally to atheists looking upon religion as it does to Catholics looking upon Scientology?

You have provided no explanation for the personal judgments you have made toward me. I would suggest that you refrain from ad hominem "hunches" in the future.

What words did I put into your mouth?

Is it to suggest that atheists should become religious in order to reap the purported beneficial effects? No, because as nullasalus says, the proper response is to examine the reasons for the effects.

What question?

It's a riddle, hidden in the comments in this thread. How exciting!

What makes you think I am being impatient and sarcastic?

Your tone, of course.

What makes you believe I am not relaxed?

Call it a hunch.

For example, the one that quickly put words in the mouth of that nullasalus fellow,

What words did I put into your mouth?

implied that nothing could be learned from asking the question,

What question?

and an impatient and seemingly sarcastic demand to know 'what the message is'.

What makes you think I am being impatient and sarcastic?

Relax, Jack.

What makes you believe I am not relaxed?

Which responses were self-defensive, which used stretched logic, and which stirred a whole lot of emotion?

For example, the one that quickly put words in the mouth of that nullasalus fellow, implied that nothing could be learned from asking the question, and an impatient and seemingly sarcastic demand to know 'what the message is'.

Relax, Jack. It's just a lil' science. I don't sweat the stats I don't like - I just examine them for believability, then think of ways to address the problems. Then again, I've got the advantage of always seeing possibilities to do that. Your mileage may vary.

Apparently, that if you bring up an apparent link between atheism and negative effects, suicide in particular, atheists will respond with a tremendous amount of self-defensiveness and stretched logic.

Maybe the message is 'this is what the data says, draw your own conclusions'. Though that seems to be stirring a whole lot of emotion. Message enough, I say.

Which responses were self-defensive, which used stretched logic, and which stirred a whole lot of emotion?

You asked…

You aren't talking about those agnostics that Pharyngula-style atheists actually count when the want to pump their own stats. You're talking only of committed and passionate atheists. That would be men like Dawkins, Hitchens, Provine, etc. ?

Don't get me wrong. I am not suggesting this as an active participant. I'm not even sure I would fit in. I might be too vocal about Group Think. That, and I am too old.

I like my independence.

However, if that wasn't your intent, Pez, then there shouldn't be any problem with the idea that maybe Atheism could provide additional cultural benefits if they were more socially active as their religious counter parts.

More coulda shouldas. Maybe atheism could do such a thing. But does it? The studies indicate what is.
Is such pro-active atheism even likely given that, as we're always told, atheism isn't a worldview, or a movement, or ideology, or philosophy, or anything other than "no belief in God"
…

Religious versus non-religious means those without enough will to live to even care about their philosophy will be labeled non-religious.

Ouch to the non-religious.
So you aren't talking about that category of atheists who just are not-theists or just "lack a belief in God". You aren't talking about those agnostics that Pharyngula-style atheists actually count when they want to pump their own stats. You're talking only of committed and passionate atheists. That would be men like Dawkins, Hitchens, Provine, etc. ?

Thanks for the link. We may be working at cross purposes. I am trying to find a study that compares religion verses ATHEISM, not religion verses non-religion.

Note the study you quoted included…
"This study has some limitations. For example, it did not assess religious upbringing, religious practice, or the level of personal devotion. Therefore, it is possible that depressed patients who stated that they were atheists or had no religion had abandoned religion as a consequence of depression or hopelessness. It is notable that hopelessness and depression scores were similar in the religious and nonreligious group but that the two groups differed strongly on perceived reasons for living. This suggests that some positive aspect of religious affiliation overcame the negative effects of depression, stressful life events, and hopelessness. Perhaps this was also manifested in the presence of less suicidal ideation." link

This all gets back to something I am interested in that you aren't.

I am curious about a head-to-head comparison of ideologies.

Healthy, active Atheist zealots verse healthy, active religious zealots.

Religious versus non-religious means those without enough will to live to even care about their philosophy will be labeled non-religious.