Originally posted by Mindship
Sounds like only one religion to me: that which worships the Almighty Dollar.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Also I'm pretty sure that Jews and Christians and Hindus and the like work in stores on Fridays.
He was referring to the comfortable lives imams, rabbis and priests live, while not really doing anything - the clergy, not the actual people.
I found this video of an interview of actor Stephen Fry. I think he has an excellent showing of himself as an atheist who has legitimate qualms with religion without reverting to anything that would reinforce negative stereotypes about atheists:
http://unfollowingjesus.com/video/stephen-fry-the-importance-of-unbelief/
I can't get the video to embed. 🙁
Not sure about that site as a whole. It seems to be a cheeky endorsement of all things atheist, but I haven't seen enough of it to know if it comes across as condescending or informative.
Yet another interesting article that popped onto my radar today, this one from yahoo:
http://news.yahoo.com/rise-atheism-america-110700315.html
They reiterate a lot of accepted truths about American atheists. Some highlights and comments:
- Atheists are 1.5-4%, while "Nones" are closer to 20%. Nothing new. Those numbers rise slowly, but are consistent with what we've known for about a decade.
- They cite an atheist leader as "claiming" the Nones, which may not be the stance of all atheists, but is a socio-political move to try to garner support. I don't hate the move - Nones need equality representation too - but it's hard for it to seem entirely genuine.
- Without going into too much linguistic detail, they call Hard Atheism "the conviction that no higher power exists." I'm pretty sure "conviction" can be substituted for "belief," so it appears to be using the same definition of atheism that I use when discussing societal trends.
- They unfortunately stereotype Dawkins, who, for all of his occasional bluster, is more than simply a figurehead for "angry" atheists. Nothing new there though, media-wise. He's a pariah in the media, and an often-used one for media sources that have discovered his polarizing affects and how it can drive up interest in an article/book/movie/etc.
- Atheism remains, according to this article, THE most distrusted group in the country. This is consistent with all data available, barring occasional polls where the mistrusted "flavor of the month" (excuse the crude term) passes them temporarily.
I thought this was interesting:
"Why are so many people leaving religion?
It's primarily a backlash against the religious Right, say political scientists Robert Putnam and David Campbell. In their book, American Grace, they argue that the religious Right's politicization of faith in the 1990s turned younger, socially liberal Christians away from churches, even as conservatives became more zealous. The dropouts were turned off by churches' Old Testament condemnation of homosexuals, premarital sex, contraception, and abortion. The Catholic Church's sex scandals also prompted millions to equate religion with moralistic hypocrisy."
No mention of people becoming more scientifically literate as a reason for rejecting religious belief.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
While that surely is one of the reasons, not every scientifically literate person is an atheist. This is kind of a faulty reasoning.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
I know a lot of "atheists" that know as much about science as they do about religion, I.E. next to nothing.
True and true, and it's also basically tautological that there's not one single cause. But there are clear and repeated statistical correlates between intelligence and non-religiosity. So it's also false to say scientific literacy isn't one of the reasons for an increase in atheists and "nones."
Originally posted by Mindship
I thought this was interesting:"Why are so many people leaving religion?
It's primarily a backlash against the religious Right, say political scientists Robert Putnam and David Campbell. In their book, American Grace, they argue that the religious Right's politicization of faith in the 1990s turned younger, socially liberal Christians away from churches, even as conservatives became more zealous. The dropouts were turned off by churches' Old Testament condemnation of homosexuals, premarital sex, contraception, and abortion. The Catholic Church's sex scandals also prompted millions to equate religion with moralistic hypocrisy."No mention of people becoming more scientifically literate as a reason for rejecting religious belief.
The article seemed more slanted toward political implications of the groups, so this makes a certain amount of sense. It also didn't pretend to be comprehensive in its analysis, it was just snippets of facts and opinions. But you're right to point this out.
Originally posted by Digi
- They cite an atheist leader as "claiming" the Nones, which may not be the stance of all atheists, but is a socio-political move to try to garner support. I don't hate the move - Nones need equality representation too - but it's hard for it to seem entirely genuine.
I wish that article cited its sources. A lot of people who do not identify as religious still believe in god and could easily put themselves in the Nones category if "spiritual" wasn't offered as an option.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I wish that article cited its sources. A lot of people who do not identify as religious still believe in god and could easily put themselves in the Nones category if "spiritual" wasn't offered as an option.
The line gets really murky. I dislike anything being grouped with atheists, because I'm just as likely to disagree with or be annoyed with people who are agnostic or "spiritual" as I am with overt theists. For example, I dated a girl who wasn't religious but would believe anything paranormal. Her rationale was like an exercise in uncritical thinking. And it's like, if she's "grouped" with me for any socio-political purpose, what's the friggin' point?
But yeah, I'd enjoy some clarification here as well.
Originally posted by Digi
The line gets really murky. I dislike anything being grouped with atheists, because I'm just as likely to disagree with or be annoyed with people who are agnostic or "spiritual" as I am with overt theists. For example, I dated a girl who wasn't religious but would believe anything paranormal. Her rationale was like an exercise in uncritical thinking. And it's like, if she's "grouped" with me for any socio-political purpose, what's the friggin' point?But yeah, I'd enjoy some clarification here as well.
Why do agnostics annoy you? They just claim no knowledge or that there's no way of knowing. I think they're least annoying...maybe.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Why do agnostics annoy you? They just claim no knowledge or that there's no way of knowing. I think they're least annoying...maybe.
Originally posted by Digi
...I'm just as likely to disagree with or be annoyed with people who are agnostic or "spiritual" as I am with overt theists...
I did say "disagree or be annoyed with." The disagree part was more for the agnostics, and the annoyance was more with some (but not all, of course) spiritualists. The ex-girlfriend story was to differentiate and provide an example, but I could've been more clear.
Also, there's various forms of agnosticism. Very few simply stop at "I don't know." There's a "but" in there somewhere and they qualify all the things they believe in, many of them arbitrary or unjustified. A "pure" agnostic is hard to disagree with, but few of those actually exist.
Beyond that, I can be annoyed with any approach to religion, including atheism, if it's not coming from a place of reason.
Originally posted by Digi
But there are clear and repeated statistical correlates between intelligence and non-religiosity. So it's also false to say scientific literacy isn't one of the reasons for an increase in atheists and "nones."
I think you may be making a false or even misplaced assessment for the general population.
Could it be that the rejection of religion is the reason for turning to science? Could it be happening at the same time (meaning, one does not begat the other)?
I am quicker to assume that the rejection of religion has nothing to do with being educated. There are far too many young people that claim to be atheist but are extremely ignorant of science. It isn't until they get older that they start to make sense of their chosen "religion". Once they have more science under their belt, then they become more rational and educated.
I do not think, however, that people reject religion BECAUSE they learned "science". Well, that could be the case for some.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
I know a lot of "atheists" that know as much about science as they do about religion, I.E. next to nothing.
That's pretty much every atheist I personally know minus 2 or 3 of them.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Why do agnostics annoy you? They just claim no knowledge or that there's no way of knowing. I think they're least annoying...maybe.
I find them the least annoying, as well. They are among the most logical and educated of people I personally know. Whereas the atheists and theists I know are generally...dumb/ignorant. There are lots of very rational and highly educated theists in my life which is odd considering I live in Oklahoma. But I just know too many damn idiots for them to make a difference: I think most people are dumb. lol!
Originally posted by dadudemon
I think you may be making a false or even misplaced assessment for the general population.Could it be that the rejection of religion is the reason for turning to science? Could it be happening at the same time (meaning, one does not begat the other)?
I am quicker to assume that the rejection of religion has nothing to do with being educated. There are far too many young people that claim to be atheist but are extremely ignorant of science. It isn't until they get older that they start to make sense of their chosen "religion". Once they have more science under their belt, then they become more rational and educated.
I do not think, however, that people reject religion BECAUSE they learned "science". Well, that could be the case for some.
I should have been more clear. The data says very little about scientific literacy. It has to do with intelligence levels. The percentage of atheists and non-religious goes up as intelligence does. There is a statistically significant correlation.
It would probably be reasonable to assume that scientific literacy often accompanies general intelligence, but that isn't necessarily the case, nor do we have data for it.
Originally posted by Digi
It would probably be reasonable to assume that scientific literacy often accompanies general intelligence, but that isn't necessarily the case, nor do we have data for it.
more education is associated with more belief in ghosts in the general population and distrust of science in conservatives.
not exactly what you were saying, but relevant I think.
Originally posted by inimalist
more education is associated with more belief in ghosts in the general population and distrust of science in conservatives.not exactly what you were saying, but relevant I think.
Woah, really?
That's like...the exact opposite of what you would expect...even from "conservatives".
Originally posted by Digi
I should have been more clear. The data says very little about scientific literacy. It has to do with intelligence levels. The percentage of atheists and non-religious goes up as intelligence does. There is a statistically significant correlation.It would probably be reasonable to assume that scientific literacy often accompanies general intelligence, but that isn't necessarily the case, nor do we have data for it.
Again, I disagree. You're making a jump there that may not be the case.
The intelligence you refer to is "crystallized intelligence"...the intelligence you gain from getting an education and being socialized/indoctrinated. It doesn't measure...hmmm...genetic based intelligence? Additionally, is it the chicken or the egg?
Meaning, Did they become atheist and then get an education as a by product? One study showed that "not religious" kids had slightly higher IQs than their "very religious" counterparts.
IQ does increase with more education.
This is not to say that "man, atheists are so enlightened because they are so smart." The marginal differences in the averages are just that: marginal.
However, one thing always sticks out as the dumbest group: Christian Evangelicals.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Again, I disagree. You're making a jump there that may not be the case.The intelligence you refer to is "crystallized intelligence"...the intelligence you gain from getting an education and being socialized/indoctrinated. It doesn't measure...hmmm...genetic based intelligence? Additionally, is it the chicken or the egg?
And this is why intelligence tests are terrible. They're relatively consistent but determining if they're valid (if they're measuing what they say they are) is virtually impossible since there are so few independent ways to measure intelligence. Lets not even get into the vagaries of "intelligence" as a variable to measure and the additional roadblocks that come from compressing everything into a test.
Originally posted by dadudemon
However, one thing always sticks out as the dumbest group: Christian Evangelicals.
That's actually sort of surprising. I'd expect them to be at least middle of the road.
Originally posted by dadudemon
However, one thing always sticks out as the dumbest group: Christian Evangelicals.
lol
Whether or not your chicken or egg comes first - and I have little reason to care outside of personal curiosity - it's undeniable that you're more likely to be non-religious at higher levels of intelligence. Whether or not it causes the atheism or is a byproduct of it is interesting in an academic sense, but the answer won't change the data that when one happens, the other follows.
This is my personal opinion now, but it seems much more likely to me that you're more likely to become non-religious because you're intelligent. That's because the other scenario is "become an atheist, then decide to improve intellectually." That could certainly happen, but if you've become an atheist for non-intellectual reasons, there is no need to then become more intelligent to remain one. And the idea that something has to "replace" religion, as some sort of personal void, and/or that the replacement has to be science, is largely a false construct of theists who can't grasp how relatively easy it is to find meaning outside of religion.
Again, personal opinion beyond the statistical correlation. And, as a standard disclaimer, we're dealing with averages and data, not individuals....individuals who can be hopelessly dumb on any side. Sym's qualms with intelligence tests are also valid to a point. Intelligence tests measure something relating to intelligence, just not necessarily all aspects of it.
I hate this topic though. it's impossible to deal with without somehow sounding elitist, despite knowing that I'd be just as analytical and honest about this if it were the opposite and atheists were, on average, dumb-dumbs who ate paste as a replacement for Jesus.