Now let me just say this - one of those four atheists, "Harris", would have been just plain erroneous if he'd claimed that the scientific rigor of a particle physicist requires a nuance the amount of discipline and cognitive faculties of the mystic who spent years in a cave perfecting his meditative discipline that he compared one to. He never claimed this, and he's right that being obsessed with one tiny small isolated field of science is better for humanity than becoming a "great healer" or "mystic".
Sure, the mystic might not possess a lot of knowledge about science, but science is about simplicity, a scientist adds a minuscule amount of data on top of humanity's vast accumulated scientific understanding in his lifetime. We humans are becoming less intelligent yet humanity's picture of the world is becoming more complete, because of science and technology and the outsourcing of our information.
Technology will one day take our place, and it will have far more "cognitive faculties" than can be comprehended. No large-brained cro-magnum man pushed to the limits of his mind to survive, no larger-brained Neanderthal inventing a leather-like material comparable to tools still necessary and every bit as relevant in today's world, no naturally evolved creature of earth will come close.
No transcendent man will be concerned with religion. Religion is a pre-sceintific way to understand the world, it is a pseudo science. It will never uncover what our remote descendants, this technology, will uncover.
__________________ "Compounding these trickster aspects, the Joker ethos is verbally explicated as such by his psychiatrist, who describes his madness as "super-sanity." Where "sanity" previously suggested acquiescence with cultural codes, the addition of "super" implies that this common "sanity" has been replaced by a superior form, in which perception and processing are completely ungoverned and unconstrained"
Last edited by KillaKassara on Dec 15th, 2013 at 08:25 PM
Are you implying that I have gynecomastia? You motherf*cker.
__________________ Recently Produced and Distributed Young but High-Ranking Political Figure of Royal Ancestry within the Modern American Town Affectionately Referred To as Bel-Air.
In 2008 A series of varied thinkers, both religious and otherwise, were asked the question "Does science make belief in God obsolete?" Christopher Hitchens's answer was "No, but it should." His essay on the topic elaborates on this answer.
Worth a read - both Hitchens's answer and others - on this the anniversary of his death.
Even Cracked is getting in on the act. This isn't news to me, or probably to some of you, but it's a bit of mainstream exposure for something that studies have shown us for decades: atheists aren't trusted. In one of the studies mentioned, they come in neck and neck with rapists in terms of trust (in America, at least).
The twist is that atheists are trusted less even among other atheists, which is surprising. Apparently we believe the stereotypes, even about groups that we're a part of.
This of course is in opposition to studies on morality that actually tend to find an inverse relationship between religious adherence and moral integrity. But stereotypes are hard things to shake.
I just don't get it. The results seem very counter-intuitive. But it is something I have known about for a long time.
Have you ever borrowed money from a Mormon? When you go to pay it back, it magically becomes a gift and they refuse to take it back. I should do my own study. Yeah...I should do that.
I don't know that it's surprising, it just goes against the societal narrative we all absorb at some point.
The study you linked rightly shies away from claiming certainty on the issue. But it's backed by several others of its type. Racism, xenophobia, lying, cheating, etc...all repeatedly shown to correlate with increased religious adherence. Much of it can be attributed to the insular groups many religions tend to create. Entire communities can cut themselves off from other belief systems, even in today's world. And even in less strict areas, if you just avoid religious conversations outside of those who believe the same as you (our brains are partially hardwired for such behavior), you can create the bubble around yourself. It has the eventual tendency to create an us/them mentality that is detrimental to overall morality. Atheists can be angry and combative (as can anyone) but they rarely, if ever, have the luxury of an insular community that doesn't openly challenge their beliefs.
Of course, this is on a statistical level, not a personal one. Most people of any belief system are decent people morally.
And the best studies aren't from religious (or non-religious) groups, because there's the suspicion of motive. Properly analyzed, self-serving studies can be more harmful than helpful to a particular viewpoint.
Gender: Male Location: Southern Oregon,
Looking at you.
I wouldn't distrust someone because they are atheist. I trust no one until they gain my trust. It is just as likely that an atheist will gain my trust as it is for a Christian. However, I never trust Muslims because their teaching allows them to lie to infidels, and I'm an infidel.
I just read an interesting article that takes an empirical approach to assessing the practical validity of religion as it relates to socioeconomic success of a country. The results ended up saying more about economic policy than about religion, but it's still worth summarizing.
So what they did was track societal success via about four dozen measurable variables, everything from incarceration rates, homicides, overall health, divorces, to overall happiness. It's important to note that all countries used in the study are modern industrialized nations, as other factors would skew the data in other countries. And, across the board, there was a correlation with these measures of societal success and a lack of religion.
But the link, it turns out, wasn't exactly with religion. Rather, those that scored higher were those countries with progressive socialist economic policies. And, in turn, it was the countries' economic success that then drove down the religiosity (i.e. people turn to religion in stress/crisis/etc., so a more stable nation will see less of this and an increasing secularization). So the results were less about a lack of religion, and more about societal success leading to a less religious population.
You might think this is me posting this because it's a win for my personal beliefs. But it's not, because I'm actually quite libertarian in my economic opinions. And while I still think there is philosophical merit to more libertarian fiscal policies - which create personal freedom - most of my backing for the opinion is theoretical. Aside from case studies or smaller examples, the empirical justification for the practical benefit of it doesn't exist. So this is more problematic for me than it is affirming. Because what is a noble principle if it doesn't translate to practical benefit?
It also leaves us without sweeping empirical research to suggest that religion or non-religiosity is beneficial to society. The only evidence we DO have tends to suggest that those who are less religious tend to be more moral - detailed here - but this is on an individual level, not a societal one. In terms of large-scale empirical research, neither side has much to hang its hat on.
Interestingly, though, one argument that I've heard is that Christian/religious charities do more than non-religious charities. On an absolute basis, this is undoubtedly true because of the volume alone. Many more people are religious than not. On a per capita basis, I don't know what the data says. But the study also points out that there is markedly less charitable giving in more successful nations. This likely isn't from decreasing altruism, but because there is less need for it. When a population's basic needs are taken care of, and things like universal health coverage allow them more leverage in personal and professional realms, less economic stress, and less chance of going bankrupt, there is less need for charity in general.
The name of the article is "The Health of Nations: An Empirical Study on the Effects of Religion and Economic Policy" by Gregory Paul. I don't know of an online link to the study.
Ah, forgot to add, it was published in Skeptic Magazine, Vol. 19, No. 3. The amazing, if unfortunately named Skeptic, is headed by a fellow economic libertarian. So while their articles tend to lean a certain way, their commitment to presenting numerous sides of arguments is laudable. This is one example among many, a list that includes theistic writers as well.
I also had to gloss over some of the methodology of the article, which itself is a layman's presentation of much more analytical research. But it's well worth a look for those who are interested.
The worst part of reading it was, upon completion, my reaction was "F*ck. Am I a complete liberal now?" I'm not sure why that's unsavory to me, but it is. And my liberal leanings on social issues are rather complete, so the economic side was the last major bastion against that label. There remain my philosophical objections, discussed briefly above, but it would be hard to defend the position in light of this. I'll probably try to research this further, but the article made a strong case imo.
__________________ "Compounding these trickster aspects, the Joker ethos is verbally explicated as such by his psychiatrist, who describes his madness as "super-sanity." Where "sanity" previously suggested acquiescence with cultural codes, the addition of "super" implies that this common "sanity" has been replaced by a superior form, in which perception and processing are completely ungoverned and unconstrained"
Sure, sure. They unfairly generalize, agreed. But at the same time, it's an understood system of classification that makes communications easier. I'm not saying there's merit to jumping fences to join one polarizing camp over another. It's probably more destructive than anything. But, by the same token, if this ends up swaying my economic opinions, I will agree with the "liberal" side of things on most large issues. I have to do considerably more research, though. There's always another side to an argument.
I've spent a lot of time thinking about spiritual belief systems and atheism since I first started posting in the religion forum. To me the subject was important then and has stayed a priority in my mind until today. After much thinking on the idea of atheism I realized that it's not the person who calls himself an atheist that brings a negative feeling out of me, because my fellow humans can call themselves anything within their power to call themselves. The word atheist has a meaning that is not up for discussion and though some people may fit that definition, most that say that they do will quickly contradict themselves under scrutiny.
Certain words invoke negative feelings immediately. A molester can be someone who is simply teasing (molesting) someone else. Despite knowing that fact if a person were to use that word rather than teasing, when describing what they do with their kids they would probably be investigated quickly.
Atheism is a rigid position of belief about faith in anything supernatural. I believe most people would agree that a praying atheist is an oxymoron. Anyone who says that there may some truth in faith placed in prayers doesn't meet the base definition of an atheist.
A true atheist KNOWS that all believers unspoken prayers fall on deaf ears. An agnostic may THINK that prayers are not received by any god, but by definition an atheist knows. Uncertainties about god doesn't fit the term atheism any more than slightly flawed fits the term perfect.
A person who describes themselves as perfect can believe it, but it will likely make other people feel that they are arrogant. It's pretty easy to produce evidence that nobody is perfect, so a person that uses that word to describe themselves is going to invoke negative feelings simply by their choice of words. Atheism is similar because an atheist knows ALL spiritual beliefs are incorrect. Negative feelings are invoked as this is impossible to know yet the claim to know lies in the title "atheist". Arrogance is implied to the person calling themselves an atheist whether they truly are an atheist or not. Arrogance invokes negative feelings. No offense is intended in this post but I do believe that the idea of atheism (as it is literally defined) is offensive to me and others who feel that humans have a responsibility to treat others lovingly. In conclusion I say this.. Words can be powerful so choose how you describe yourself carefully.
__________________
Last edited by The MISTER on Nov 14th, 2014 at 12:35 AM
Words only have the power we delve into them. The difference between knowing and thinking, in an arena that is based in uncertainties, is so subtle and so thin that it's barely a distance at all. The atheist believes there is no god in the same way the one with fath believes there is a god, but just not any god. These are beliefs and no matter how firmly they are stated, they are never certain, there is no possible proof to either camp, there is no "knowing" in the strict sense of the term.
I guess, you could argue that a man of faith could experience the divine, while an atheist can never experience the "lack of divine", but in most cases such clarity is a subjective thing that cannot be used as a generalization. The idea of a human brain being able to unequivocally experience God poses a certain number of problems.
KMC Community Forums
Dec 15th, 2013 08:12 PM
