There is no shortage of people who accuse any atheist that speaks out as a militant jerk. This is not surprising - intolerance and bigotry always goes through a stage like this; when the first homosexuals finally found the courage to speak up they too were accused of rubbing it in everyone's faces and trying to "recruit", when all they were doing was trying to be accepted and understood, and no longer cowering in the shadows.
Every time one of these bigots starts ranting about how aggressive or pugnacious or nasty someone like Dawkins is, i roll my eyes and try to explain that if they would actually bother to read Dawkins (what a concept!), they would realize that he is actually quite measured - the man is as vicious as you would expect a stuffy British academic to be, which is to say, not very bloody vicious at all. The same is true for most other atheist writers (although people like Hitchens are a shitload more pugnacious than Dawkins). What i've always really wished for was an example of a really aggressive atheist writer - not just one that ignorant people call aggressive because the writer is so effective and the ignoramuses can't think of any other criticism to level against them - so that i could show people what it might look like if a really good atheist writer really took off the gloves.
Well, i haven't found one yet, but here's something close - a taste of what atheist responses might look like if the atheist had just had enough.
Some of them are more clever than others (personally, though, i chuckled at "Well, evolution's only a theory." "So's your old man."). By the way, they come from the website http://www.iamanatheist.com/index.html - which, by the way, that whole site is a bit of an ****** move in and of itself. ^_^; If you go there... you'll see. ^____^
But if you do go there, let me know who you atheize (you'll understand if you go there).
Quote:
The Bible says that atheism is wrong.
"The Bible also says some guy's donkey talked."
If you believe in God and are wrong, then it's no big deal, but if you don't believe in God and are wrong, you'll be punished eternally, so it's not a good idea to be an atheist.
"What if you're wrong that God prefers unthinking self-righteous toadies to honest people who try and live a good life?"
Deep down you really believe in God.
"Deep down, you really don't believe that."
You're only saying you're an atheist to rebel against authority.
"And if the Beatles grew long hair to rebel against authority, then they really had no hair -- is that what you're saying?"
You probably are an atheist because you had a bad experience as a child.
"You probably worship God because you hate your real father."
There are no atheists in foxholes.
"Probably because we have less excuses to start wars."
If you don't believe in God, you'll go to Hell!
"If you don't stop believing in God right now, I'll punch you in the face."
Why are you mad at God?
"Because he's supposed to be all good but he doesn't even have the common decency to exist."
Atheists are Satanic.
"Just like theists are agnostic?"
Without God there is no morality.
"Are we talking about the God that ordered Moses to kill babies and asked people to set animals on fire because he liked the smell?"
God is perfect, and He couldn't be perfect if He didn't exist, which proves that He exists.
"No, it just proves he isn't perfect."
People who follow Jesus are good, so you should follow Jesus.
"Chemotherapy can cure cancer, so everyone should have chemotherapy."
Jesus was either a liar, a crazy person, or the son of God. He spoke against liars, and his behavior wasn't crazy, so the only remaining possibility is that he was the son of God.
"So you're telling me that if a polite, honest-looking, well-spoken, nicely dressed man walked up to you on the street and introduced himself as the earthly incarnation of God, you'd figure he probably is? Have you considered the possibility that you're the one who is crazy?"
There were eye witnesses that Jesus worked miracles.
"There are eye witnesses that Bigfoot exists, Uri Geller works miracles, and aliens abduct people."
Most people who know about Jesus believe in Him.
"If most people jumped off a bridge..."
I know from personal experience that God exists.
"No he doesn't. He told me so himself."
God wants you to believe in him without rational proof.
"Then he's certainly doing a fine job of not tempting me with evidence."
You say you don't believe that God exists, but the word "God" is meaningless if there is no such thing, so you are admitting that God exists even as you deny his existence.
"That reminds me, I don't believe you owe me $100."
Hitler was an atheist.
"I don't know about Hitler's religion, but I do know that he was heterosexual, so can I assume you're against that, too?"
Einstein believed in God. Do you think you're smarter than Einstein?
"If he believed in God, yes."
The founding fathers intended the United States to be a Christian nation. Atheists aren't welcome.
"Are you sticking with the whole 'slavery' thing, too?"
The universe is so complex that someone must have designed it.
"I don't know -- that sentence was fairly complex but there was obviously not much thought behind it."
Atheists believe in evolution, but if we teach our children evolution in public school they will believe that they are no better than animals and will grow up immoral.
"I've met public school children. Most of them aren't any better than animals."
Evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics.
"No, but God does."
Well, evolution's only a theory.
"So's your old man."
How can you not believe in Jesus Christ when the evidence is overwhelming?
"Well, Jesus's divinity is only a theory."
There's proof that God exists, like the Bible and miracles.
"If your twenty-year-old son still believes in Santa Claus because he read a book about Santa visiting and presents magically appeared on Christmas morning when he was a child, would you praise him for having faith in the face of overwhelming evidence or call him an idiot?"
My parents raised me to believe in God. Are you calling my parents liars?
"Can we talk about the Tooth Fairy for a minute?"
There are so many wonderful things in the world, how can you say there is no God?
"It's really pretty easy: 'There is no god.' See?"
There is so much beauty in the world that only God could have created it.
"My wife's beautiful, and my mother-in-law made her."
If there is no Heaven, then where do you go when you die?
"The same place you were before you were conceived, I assume."
You can't prove God doesn't exist.
"So?"
You don't know everything.
"Do you?"
You can't see air, but you believe in it.
"I can't see ignorance, but I can smell it. Right now, in fact."
You can't see love, but you believe in it.
"And I agree that god, like love, is just a concept."
God made His image appear in this tortilla!
(Eats tortilla)
You call yourself an atheist but you have faith. Everyone has faith in something.
"I have faith that this conversation isn't going anywhere. Bye!"
truespeed
<sarcasm>Our leader</sarcasm> speaking at the Protest the Pope march rally in London last week,where 20.000 are believed to have attended.
I didn't really follow "pope week" on the news,i know he got some decent sized crowds,but not on the scale of 1982,there was a lot of opposition this time,though i am not sure how much of this got reported on the news as every time i was flicking channels it just seemed like a Pope love in,with the Pope meeting the Queen,the Pope meeting David Cameron.
Reasons for the protest.
Quote:
"opposing the distribution of condoms and so increasing large families in poor countries and the spread of Aids"
"promoting segregated education"
"denying abortion to even the most vulnerable women"
"opposing Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender rights, including universal decriminalisation of homosexuality"
"failing to address the many cases of abuse of children within its own organisation"
But even this speech is not particularly aggressive. Aside from his criticism of original sin, Dawkins isn't saying anything that any honest and moral Catholic shouldn't be saying, too.
But even this speech is not particularly aggressive. Aside from his criticism of original sin, Dawkins isn't saying anything that any honest and moral Catholic shouldn't be saying, too.
I agree it wasn't aggressive,i just thought i would post it in this thread as it hasn't been mentioned yet on these forums and also because the Pope made a speech about ""atheist extremism" and "aggressive secularism" comparing the rise of atheism to the rise of Nazism.
Quote:
He said: "Even in our own lifetimes we can recall how Britain and her leaders stood against a Nazi tyranny that wished to eradicate God from society and denied our common humanity to many, especially the Jews, who were thought unfit to live.
"As we reflect on the sobering lessons of atheist extremism of the 20th century, let us never forget how the exclusion of God, religion and virtue from public life leads ultimately to a truncated vision of man and of society and thus a reductive vision of a person and his destiny."
I think the Catholic Church view all Atheists as "Aggressive",not because they are (Most are indifferent),but because they see atheism as a threat.
deanhills
truespeed wrote:
I think the Catholic Church view all Atheists as "Aggressive",not because they are (Most are indifferent),but because they see atheism as a threat.
I can only go by the atheists who are posting in this thread. I don't see their views as indifferent, do you?
I definitely agree however that the Catholic Church would view all Atheists, and all those who hold different beliefs than their own as a threat. Atheists would probably feature on top of the list though. Would be interesting to know what their definition of an atheist would be, probably neatly written up somewhere in the Vatican in Latin no doubt?
truespeed
But to call someone like Indi an agressive atheist is like calling the Pope an agressive Catholic,its just a negative label that religious people like to put on athiests that are vocal against religion in the same way that like likes of the Pope are vocal in favour of Catholicism.
jmi256
truespeed wrote:
But to call someone like Indi an agressive atheist is like calling the Pope an agressive Catholic,its just a negative label that religious people like to put on athiests that are vocal against religion in the same way that like likes of the Pope are vocal in favour of Catholicism.
And why wouldn't you call the Pope an aggressive Catholic? I would expect the Pope to be the most aggressive Catholic. At the same time I think there are some atheists who are aggressive about their own opinions, just as there are some theists who are aggressive about theirs. (I don’t browse this forum often, so I can’t comment on whether Indi is “aggressive.”)
Bikerman
Aggressive? Yes sure...why not. In the sense of assertive, bold, confident, energetic...yep, guilty as charged.
Aggressive in the sense of offering violence? nope. Aggressive in the sense of tolerating no dissent? nope. Aggressive in the sense of condemning those who disagree? nope.
Indi
truespeed wrote:
But to call someone like Indi an agressive atheist is like calling the Pope an agressive Catholic,its just a negative label that religious people like to put on athiests that are vocal against religion in the same way that like likes of the Pope are vocal in favour of Catholicism.
Mmmm... i admit the definition of "aggressive" is a little vague, but i'm not sure you could apply it to the Pope. He's certainly an unflinching Catholic, and he's certainly a ****** ******, but he's not really that aggressive. You might argue that that's only because he has henchmen and underlings to be aggressive for him. Perhaps. But the point is that i don't think it's reasonable to call the Pope an aggressive Catholic.
i would say an aggressive Catholic (to use Catholicism as an example) would have to be someone that does not simply defend Catholicism against attacks... they go on the offence. A regular Catholic would - rightly or wrongly - try to defend Catholicism when someone accuses it of being medieval, or of being a haven for child molesters, or of being sympathizers to dictators and totalitarians throughout history. Those are attacks on Catholicism, and any decent Catholic who is not ashamed of being Catholic should be expected to defend Catholicism from those attacks (unless the person making the attacks isn't even worth responding to). But a Catholic who actively goes after other groups - atheists, or whatever - chasing them down, baiting them, calling them out for a fight... that would be an aggressive Catholic.
Yes, the Pope did insult atheists, but i don't really believe he is calling us out. (i mean, i wish he would... oh, man, how i wish he would... i would just love it if that little Nazi pederast were to pick a fight with us. Holy shit, that would be amazing. Can you just imagine what would happen if the Pope started a fight with atheists, and every atheist writer in the whole world banded together to respond? It would be beautiful.) No, i think he was just stupid, tactless and bigoted when he made those comments. His patterns haven't indicated an interest in locking horns with atheists. His patterns have indicated that he's a fascist dolt. Never assume malice when stupidity will suffice.
Bikerman
I have to disagree Indi.
Stick with the child abuse. Now look at the Vatican reaction. Immediately they went on the offensive. It was described initially as the ranting of an anti-catholic media (in the US) egged on by shyster lawyers trying to make a buck from the Church.
In Ireland complainants were ostracised from their local communities and branded liars and fantacists.
Even now the Pope is travelling around attacking aggressive atheism and completely refusing to acknowledge his own complicity in the scandal for over 20 years.
The Catholic church has a set reaction to serious challenge, born of 2 millenia of experience.
Isolate and silence the challenger if possible.
If not possible then go on the offensive and find something to attack them with. That is a Jesuit speciality.
Whilst the offensive rages, retrench and if necessary tactically retreat to a more defensible line, preferrably one which allows the claim that there was never any issue to start with, and ideally one which allows the claim that the challenge is actually Catholic dogma rather than a direct challenge to it.
Keep on breeding and wait it out.
This can be observed from before Galileo to the present day.....
The Catholic Church has a window of opportunity after the death of Pope JohnPaul 1. He was gernerally regarded as a reforming Pope. Some say he would have even softened the stance on contraception - though that is debatable. He introduced a 1% wealth transfer from each church in the west to poor congregations in the third world, and he was vocal on human rights - particularly speaking out against Argentina's 'dirty war'.
His very short reign (and I still think that this may be one occasion when conspiracy theory is worth a serious look, regarding Mafiosi and internal conspiracy) left the Church at a juncture. It could either carry on with reform and progressive changes or not.
The decision was very firmly NOT. The Polish successor - Karol Wojtyła (John Paul 2) was a conservative reactionary who went straight back to basics, retrenched the position on 'Humanae Vitae' (abortion and contraception) and launched an attack on Liberation theology. He is credited with ending communism in Eastern Europe (largely because of his links with Lech Wałęsa, in Poland, but I think that is simply right place right time. He also accepted evolution as factual and consistent with catholic theology, before spoiling it by chucking more gobbledygook in:
Quote:
“If the human body has its origin in living material which pre-exists it, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God”
He was followed by the current guy - Ratzinger. Hard to imagine a more deliberate statement of intent. Ratzinger was the 'fixer' - staunch conservative and unseen muscle keeping the various countries in line and covering up anything potentially embarrasing. This guy is so reactionary he is actually moving back to the Tridentine Mass (mostly Latin - it was replaced officially in the 60s but Ratzinger thinks it should be more prominent).
No, aggressive sounds about right to me......I don't think he is tactless or stupid, I think he knows exactly what he is doing. Europe is pretty much a write-off for Catholicism. Church numbers keep dropping, secularity is increasing (he is right about that) and so his growth markets are Africa, Asia and South America (and, interestingly, the US).
Africa and many parts of Asia like their Christianity old-school - plenty of fire and brimstone and none of this modern nonsense with women, gays and agnostics. Evangelical fundamentalism is what seems to play well, and the Pope is positioning the Church to take on Anglicanism which already has a strong foothold, through the old empire and collonial ties...
Contintent..% Catholic..No.2004..est.2025........est 2050..........% change
Africa........................17.9%...................139,157,160.................219,171,850..............342,023,230..........145.8%
Asia............................4.3%...................127,125,410.................171,916,360..............207,086,560............62.9%
Europe......................36.4%...................270,765,647.................272,495,186..............255,744,426............-5.5%
Latin America..............83.3%..................454,541,400.................568,040,560..............646,912,570............42.3%
North America............25.1%......................82,000,000..................97,000,000................113,000,000............37.8%
Oceania.......................26.8%.....................9,000,000...................11,000,000................13,000,000............44.4%
I think (and hope) that the above figures are wildly optimistic, but you can see where the movement is, and I think that explains a great deal....
Indi
Oh, i know all about JP2. ^_^; His old chauffeur was a friend of mine. Yeah, JP2 was an enemy of communism but... there's a but there, because he's Polish. i'm not going to go into the details here, because it's more of a political/cultural/historical thing, but basically JP2 was against communism because he was Polish, not because he was good, and not because he was Catholic.
No, i get that Benedict 16 is reactionary and conservative, and anti-anything reasonable. But that's not the hallmark of an aggressive person. Yes, he is taking potshots at atheism, but you can't deny that atheism has been rather effectively taking the piss out of him and Catholicism recently. His comments make perfect sense as defensiveness, not antagonism. i don't think that he really wants to pick a fight with atheists. i think he wants to beat them, but that's not the same thing; there's a difference between "i want to be the winner" and "i want a fight". i don't think Benedict 16 wants a fight. i think he just doesn't want to surrender - either to atheists or the child molestation charges.
If you want a textbook example of how to be aggressive even while defending yourself against nasty charges, you should look up Chicago governor Rod Blagojevich. When this dude was accused of extortion and corruption and a whole host of other nasty things, he didn't just deny the charges... the dude went on a media blitz, accusing everyone who had laid the charges - the FBI, the Chicago police, etc. - of conspiring against him. He even tried to do reality shows! The man did everything he could to get out there, call out his accusers, and ****** DARE them to come and take him on man-to-man, either in open court or on the media. THAT is aggressive.
Compare that to B16? B16 is trying to put the child abuse charges down - he denies them when they come up, but clearly he would just rather see them go away. Blagojevich, on the other hand, wants people to call him corrupt... just so he can fight them, refute the charges, and destroy the person who accused him. THAT is aggression. THAT is going out looking for a fight. B16 is reacting, he's not going out trying to get people to fight him. The only people he's "going after" are people who went after him to begin with. He is retaliating, punishing anyone that takes a swipe at him. He is like a mob boss who has been slandered - he has taken all the names of people who slandered him, and he is going after them in revenge. Blagojevish, by comparison, is more like an angry bull: he's going after everyone... anyone who will take him on. That's the difference.
ocalhoun
Bikerman wrote:
Aggressive in the sense of condemning those who disagree? nope.
That one I will disagree with.
I've seen several examples of Atheists condemning any believer as hopelessly stupid and ignorant, combined with a healthy level of 'intellectually-superior-to-thou' snobbery.
Is this justified? Sometimes, yes... Doesn't change the fact that it happens though.
Afaceinthematrix
Indi wrote:
i would say an aggressive Catholic (to use Catholicism as an example) would have to be someone that does not simply defend Catholicism against attacks... they go on the offence. A regular Catholic would - rightly or wrongly - try to defend Catholicism when someone accuses it of being medieval, or of being a haven for child molesters, or of being sympathizers to dictators and totalitarians throughout history. Those are attacks on Catholicism, and any decent Catholic who is not ashamed of being Catholic should be expected to defend Catholicism from those attacks (unless the person making the attacks isn't even worth responding to). But a Catholic who actively goes after other groups - atheists, or whatever - chasing them down, baiting them, calling them out for a fight... that would be an aggressive Catholic.
I find it interesting that many Catholics that I find today seem to have this idea that Protestants are non-traditional and therefore sacrilegious. They tend to think that every since they broke away from Catholicism, they've been doing everything wrong. Despite all of this, however, I find that Protestants are really the most common "militant" Christian... However, I think it mainly has to do with there being more Protestants than Catholics in the hot stops (Bible belt of U.S. for one).
I come across these militant Christians left and right. I used to see them a lot on campus (although right now we're going through a heat wave - it was 113 degrees F in LA today and so many people are avoiding the outdoors right now...) and I still see them various places (work, for one). And I very, very rarely see any "militant" atheists responding to them.
For instance, the other day, somebody tried approaching me about it at my job (I work in a very public area with the general pubic) and I politely said, "No thank you. Save your flier for someone who will go to church. I won't go." When she told me that there were also bible verses on her flier, I said, "No thank you. I will just throw it away. I've read the bible and didn't like it. Give the flier to someone who will actually read it and I appreciate your concern over my soul." How "militant" is that?
Another example of my response (which was a little more militant) was last month. However, I still do not think I was very militant. I responded in a way where I actually agreed with the person's viewpoints (although I suppose I was lying because I don't actually agree) but completely undermined them. I wouldn't usually do this but I was irritated at the two men. I was at a Slayer/Megadeth/Testament show and, as usual, there were protesters (I have never been to a Slayer, Marilyn Manson, or Iron Maiden show without protesters...). Now I was a little more harsh because protesters at shows really get on my nerves. I'm paying good money that I spent a significant amount of time saving up for so that I could buy pit tickets and have the opportunity to mosh and crowd surf to the legendary Slayer. Meanwhile, there are people who come there (with what they feel as a noble reason) with the intentions of trying to ruin my, and the other metalheads', experiences. I don't buy tickets for my second favorite band (and I like Megadeth and Testament too; just not as much) so that I can listen to these people bug me as I'm drinking beer in line.
So after they said the usual crap that these protesters say, "Why would you pay to see a bunch of old guys (and maybe they have a point; Tom Araya is 49 which is older than most of the people in the metal bands I listen too with the exception of Sabbath and Maiden)? I've been down that road before and it's not good (every Christian in the world out there wants you to think that they've been where you are no matter what their life has been like so that they can build credibility in your eyes). You'll end up in Hell... Etc." So after he said that I'd end up in Hell, I just looked at him and said, "You're right that I'll end up in Hell. But at least the devil, Kerry King, and I can headbang while listening to South of Heaven... and it will be f**king awesome!"
So that's about the most militant that I get... I usually am somewhat polite. However, people that try to get bands banned/canceled (Marilyn Manson, Maiden, Sabbath, and many other bands have been banned from playing in venues in the past... even after people had already paid money to see them) or ruin the shows that people paid to see just piss me off. And as these people were getting closer and closer to me in line, bugging people they were passing, I was thinking of what I would say to these people. I was thinking of how I could insult them. And then it hit me... Agree with them but undermine their position; they'll never expect it (and therefore won't know how to respond)...
LittleBlackKitten
I'm not getting in on this one at all, I just wanted to point -one- thing out:
[quote=Indi]Atheists are Satanic.[/quote]
To be "satanic" is a reference to being a "satanist". Most christians get this wrong and say everything and everyone is "satanic". I argue them and remind them of this too, and it's better to call it "evil" rather than "satanic" and "pagan". That's just an insult on other religions.
As a matter of fact, satanists DO believe in Jesus, God, and the Holy Spirit as well as EVERYTHING in God's bible; the difference is, they revere Satan and believe they THEMSELVES are gods. So, no; by that very principle, Athiests ARE NOT satanic. Athiests are Athiestic, SATANISTS are Satanic.
Afaceinthematrix
Quote:
LittleBlackKitten wrote:
I'm not getting in on this one at all, I just wanted to point -one- thing out:
[quote=Indi]Atheists are Satanic.
To be "satanic" is a reference to being a "satanist". Most christians get this wrong and say everything and everyone is "satanic". I argue them and remind them of this too, and it's better to call it "evil" rather than "satanic" and "pagan". That's just an insult on other religions.
As a matter of fact, satanists DO believe in Jesus, God, and the Holy Spirit as well as EVERYTHING in God's bible; the difference is, they revere Satan and believe they THEMSELVES are gods. So, no; by that very principle, Athiests ARE NOT satanic. Athiests are Athiestic, SATANISTS are Satanic.
In Old Testament mythology, Satan was seen as someone who was against God. People who view Christians as slaves to God view Satan as the liberator. So to many atheists, they'll follow a form of Satanism that is atheistic because they want to liberate themselves from the church and stand as adversaries to the church. Satan stands as a symbol to this.
That is a video interviewing many people involved in the "Satanic" Norwegian black metal who consider themselves Satanists and Atheists and who want to challenge the church using Satan as their symbol. You can even hear Gaahl's response to "What fuels Gorgoroth's music" with a simple "Satan." Furthermore, he also clearly states that Satan represents freedom.
tingkagol
I don't really know what to think about bands who like to bathe in sheep blood whilst performing on a stage with sheep heads on stakes + mock crucifixions.
Reminds me of Marilyn Manson who was once upon a time all in with the 'satanic' thing for the shock value and nothing else.
deanhills
@tingkagol. Interesting photos but are you sure this kind of macabre type behaviour is limited to religion? If I look at some of the bloodthirsty movies that are on the movie circuit right now, I would say quite a large number of people like this kind of stuff for entertainment. I can't get why they do, but then I guess different horses for different courses. Although maybe that is insulting horses now.
tingkagol
Didn't say it was limited to religion. But in relation to the topic though, they are indeed aggressive atheists (Gorgoroth/Mayhem/etc), although they're the kind that I find idiotic- mostly for supporting the arsonists who burn churches (then there's the quality of the music among other things... but that's purely subjective).
c'tair
^ There's a big difference between an atheist and an anti-clerical person. I think this is the most common misconception about atheism, apart from the misconception of labeling it as a religion or organized movement
Bikerman
ocalhoun wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
Aggressive in the sense of condemning those who disagree? nope.
That one I will disagree with.
I've seen several examples of Atheists condemning any believer as hopelessly stupid and ignorant, combined with a healthy level of 'intellectually-superior-to-thou' snobbery.
Is this justified? Sometimes, yes... Doesn't change the fact that it happens though.
I think you are conflating the general with the specific.
Yes, I myself have said that certain beliefs are ignorant. That would be specific to the belief in question. If you believe that mankind was created, as is, 6000 years or so in the past, then that belief is ignorant. There is no point shilly-shallying around.
That is not the same as stating that all believers or beliefs are ignorant.
I also think you need to distinguish between comment about a belief and comment about a person. I try to avoid any personal comment, but comments on a belief are fair game, since that is the whole point of the board...
Afaceinthematrix
tingkagol wrote:
I don't really know what to think about bands who like to bathe in sheep blood whilst performing on a stage with sheep heads on stakes + mock crucifixions.
Well some bands do it simply because it's cool. Venom was probably the first band (besides Alice Cooper - but he's different) to do stuff like that. And then, of course, some do it just to piss people off. Even Catholics who aren't serious about their religion will do stuff like that just to piss people off.
You see Tom Araya, Catholic and frontman of Slayer, responding to how "God Hates Us All" (title of an album and chorus of the song 'Disciple'" fits in to his philosophy. His response, in case you don't want to watch the video is, "God doesn't hate. It's a great f***king title. When they wanted to make that an album title I was thinking, 'Goddamn that's a great f***king title. It's going to piss a lot of people off.'"
Quote:
Didn't say it was limited to religion. But in relation to the topic though, they are indeed aggressive atheists (Gorgoroth/Mayhem/etc), although they're the kind that I find idiotic- mostly for supporting the arsonists who burn churches (then there's the quality of the music among other things... but that's purely subjective).
Well Mayhem definitely supports the church burnings because Varg Vikerness (Count Grishnackh), who was also part of his one man band Berzum, burned a church. But Mayhem is just weird. After their frontman, Dead, committed suicide by shooting himself in the head with a shotgun, the rest of the band took pieces of his skulls to make neckleces.
And Gorgoroth definitely has some aggressive atheists in it. I already posted a video of Gaahl (although he has since left the band) saying that Satan inspires their music. However, I don't think that that is very aggressive. The aggressiveness comes from the church burnings that they did support.
ocalhoun
Bikerman wrote:
I also think you need to distinguish between comment about a belief and comment about a person.
I certainly wouldn't accuse you of being the demeaning type; you're always careful to make this distinction...
I've met other atheists who do not make that distinction though... And they'll readily claim that believers are stupid, ignorant, uneducated, et cetera.
(Now, this may be statistically accurate, but it is also condemning, hurtful stereotyping.)
... The "I would believe in God, but my IQ is in the triple digits" type.
Bikerman
Well, this illustrates the problem of trying to define atheists as a group when the only common 'element' is a lack of belief in God(s). Atheists don't necessarily have anything in common apart from that lack of belief, so it is easy to attribute just about any behaviour found in man to atheists.
The-Nisk
I have often found people on my side of the debate that I wish were on the other.
I could be considered a prime example of an agressive atheist, since I highly disprove and object with every chance I get regards religion of any kind. I would defend a persons right to have an opinion, but I would even quicker point out the flaws of their opinion - have an opinion, but if it's ridiculous don't get mad if people laugh at it. As for beliefs, in all vagueness they are just silly and childish.
The problem is atheists' tool of "agression" is logic, while theists, lacking such are known to resolve to violence and other dirty tactics. We've went through this sharade before. And I don't want to hear how general/vague/stereotypical the above is, it's the price for having a short post.
That's just my take on it.
c'tair
Bikerman wrote:
Well, this illustrates the problem of trying to define atheists as a group when the only common 'element' is a lack of belief in God(s). Atheists don't necessarily have anything in common apart from that lack of belief, so it is easy to attribute just about any behaviour found in man to atheists.
Yup. That's why it always gets me when someone says atheism is a religion or a movement and Dawkins is the anti-pope .
I could be considered a militant atheist. I don't revoke a person's right to believe in whatever they want, hell, they can believe in faeries as long as they keep it to themselves. Im sick and tired of religion being pushed into schools, of religion being pushed down our throats in everyday life and in politics. Freedom of religion doesn't entail harassing other people with your religion.
Indi
ocalhoun wrote:
I've met other atheists who do not make that distinction though... And they'll readily claim that believers are stupid, ignorant, uneducated, et cetera.
(Now, this may be statistically accurate, but it is also condemning, hurtful stereotyping.)
... The "I would believe in God, but my IQ is in the triple digits" type.
i wouldn't call these people aggressive atheists either. Arrogant, sure, and maybe rude, but not necessarily aggressive. This is the equivalent of a Catholic saying all atheists are afraid of dying, or just angry at God. It's a rude thing to say, and an arrogant thing to believe, but it's not "attacking" anyone else unless they're overly sensitive. Saying i'm afraid of dying or angry at God is an ignorant thing to say to me, but it's not attacking atheism with the intention of ending it.
c'tair wrote:
I could be considered a militant atheist. I don't revoke a person's right to believe in whatever they want, hell, they can believe in faeries as long as they keep it to themselves. Im sick and tired of religion being pushed into schools, of religion being pushed down our throats in everyday life and in politics. Freedom of religion doesn't entail harassing other people with your religion.
If merely demanding your freedom from religious tyranny makes you militant, then Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr. were militant.
Merely asserting your atheism doesn't make you militant, no matter what the bigots claim. Also, pointing out real injustices does not make you militant.
Indi
i don't know if anyone has been keeping up with the news, but it turns out that research done by a religious group... didn't quite turn out the way they expected. They did a study to find out about the level of religious knowledge, figuring that the more religious people were, the more they would know about religion.
The results should come as no surprise to anyone who hangs out around here. Atheists scored highest. Gotta love this quote by the new American Atheists president:
Quote:
“I have heard many times that atheists know more about religion than religious people,” Mr. Silverman said. “Atheism is an effect of that knowledge, not a lack of knowledge. I gave a Bible to my daughter. That’s how you make atheists.”
If you want to take the test yourself, go for it. i got 100%, but i admit i was very unsure about the last question (narrowed it down to two, but wasn't confident of my answer).
liljp617
13/15 here Not bad. I think I missed one of the questions about some specific person in the Bible and I know I missed the one about teachers reading from the Bible as an example of literature. Wasn't aware they could do that, but I suppose that condition at the end is the important aspect.
Seemed pretty easy to be honest, but I'm not surprised at all that people in the US wouldn't know about Buddhism, Hinduism, Joseph Smith, and so on. Eastern religions are almost non-existent in the school system (at least the system I attended) and the average person doesn't seem to know the history of much of anything so they probably have little idea of what Mormon history looks like or knowledge that the Great Awakening even occurred (much less have an idea of what it was all about). I would venture to say only a small minority of the population has an inkling of an idea of who Joseph Smith or Jonathan Edwards were and what they are known for.
Granted, I probably wouldn't know much of anything about Joseph Smith had I not read Under The Banner of Heaven by Jon Krakauer (good read by the way).
Bikerman
I got one wrong.....hadn't really come across much on the 'great awakening' before so I guessed at Finney - wrong awakening
tingkagol
I got 11/15. lol
First wrong answer: I do not know much about Jewish traditions and that includes when they celebrate their sabbath.
2nd wrong answer: Answered "yes" to teacher being permitted by US supreme court to lead a class in prayer. I'm not an American and I assumed the US gov't was a bit outdated with regards to teacher-led prayers in a public school.
Actually, my score should be 10/15, but I was lucky with Joseph Smith's religion- which was a toss-up between Mormon and Jewish for me. I did not know him and I haven't read about him.
3rd wrong answer: Randomly chose the other answers besides Martin Luther for the Protestant reformation. Again, like Mormonism, I do not know much about protestantism/Martin Luther either.
4th wrong answer: Chose "Charles Finney" for the first great awakening question. Had absolutely no idea.
Seems I'm the most ignorant person on here yet.
truespeed
I only got 8/15,i think its a bit of a bogus claim to say atheists know more about religion based on that quiz as it covers lots of different religions,why would a catholic know more about hinduism than an atheist,they believe in their God and as such won't go out of their way to learn about another.
If for instance a quiz was made up about the catholic faith and practising catholics and atheists took the same test, i have no doubt the practising catholics would score higher than the majority of atheists.
The-Nisk
truespeed wrote:
I only got 8/15,i think its a bit of a bogus claim to say atheists know more about religion based on that quiz as it covers lots of different religions,why would a catholic know more about hinduism than an atheist,they believe in their God and as such won't go out of their way to learn about another.
If for instance a quiz was made up about the catholic faith and practising catholics and atheists took the same test, i have no doubt the practising catholics would score higher than the majority of atheists.
cop-out denied.
The quiz also stated that a great deal of catholics scored poorly on questions regards their own silly beliefs.
truespeed
The-Nisk wrote:
truespeed wrote:
I only got 8/15,i think its a bit of a bogus claim to say atheists know more about religion based on that quiz as it covers lots of different religions,why would a catholic know more about hinduism than an atheist,they believe in their God and as such won't go out of their way to learn about another.
If for instance a quiz was made up about the catholic faith and practising catholics and atheists took the same test, i have no doubt the practising catholics would score higher than the majority of atheists.
cop-out denied.
The quiz also stated that a great deal of catholics scored poorly on questions regards their own silly beliefs.
Its not a cop out,how many questions of the 15 were about the bible/christianity? not many.
The thing with people of faith is they go to faith schools,they learn all about their faiths and have no interest in other faiths,so why would you assume they would score higher than an atheist in a multi faith quiz.
Bikerman
But religious people like to claim that they have something in common. They also like to claim that their religion is more than something they were born into. This would seem to say that both those assumptions are wrong. Clearly people get their religion from their parents in nearly all cases and remain ignorant of other religions - even though they are based on the same, or similar, scriptural texts (as in Islam, Judaism and Christianity).
Afaceinthematrix
I personally got 14/15. I didn't know one question. The question that I got wrong was that I thought the Jewish Sabbath began on Saturday - given that it's the seventh day of the week. Apparently I was wrong. However, it did boost my ego knowing that I was superior than about 99% of the population and that I am less religious than most of the population.
And it's quite obvious that atheists will know about religions than religious people because it's kind of difficult to read a book with talking snakes and not convert to atheism. I think that the bible has probably created more atheists than any other book.
And was anyone thrown off by the Joseph Smith question? I got it correct but I think I over-analyzed it. It asked for his religion - not the religion that he was responsible for creating. So I wasn't sure if I should choose some for of Protestant Christian since I think that was his religion beforehand. I don't know if he actually followed his own Mormonism or if he just started it for whatever reason (to feel powerful, cool, etc.). That would be like somebody asking what religion Jesus was. He was a Jew although he started Christianity. I guess it all comes down to the fact that you can't follow/worship yourself and that's what Jesus based his religion on whereas I don't think Mormons actually worship Joseph Smith....
Bikerman
I know what you mean about the J.Smith question - it caused me pause for a moment too. There again, there was only the one possible answer on a closer look, even though the question was perhaps not phrased very well.
Whenever anyone tells me that Christianity and other religions are based in some sort of truth, otherwise people would not follow them, I simply point to J. Smith and say 'you sure about that ? '
c'tair
Indi wrote:
If merely demanding your freedom from religious tyranny makes you militant, then Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr. were militant.
Merely asserting your atheism doesn't make you militant, no matter what the bigots claim. Also, pointing out real injustices does not make you militant.
Well, I though I'd be militant because I actually stand up for secularist values and usually act against religious fanatics ie. I don't keep my atheism to myself, but I actively try to change the world so it's more equal ie. no swearing on the bible or 'in god we trust' or some other bs like that.
And I got a 13/15 on that test, I missed the question about the blood and body of jesus actually becoming the body and blood of christ (thought it was just symbolic) and got the last question wrong, the one about the first big awakening - I was pretty surprised because I never even heard of that term.
The whole result of the study isn't really surprising because most religious people fall into one of two groups:
1) religious people just by name, because they were baptized so they keep to that tradition but never go further
2) religious fanatics who don't even study scripture because they're too busy hitting other people with the bible
Bikerman
Quote:
I missed the question about the blood and body of jesus actually becoming the body and blood of christ (thought it was just symbolic)
Catholics call it 'transubstantiation' (at least the ones who actually know about it do )
It is one of the completely bonkers items of dogma that you are expected to go along with as a Catholic.
liljp617
truespeed wrote:
I only got 8/15,i think its a bit of a bogus claim to say atheists know more about religion based on that quiz as it covers lots of different religions,why would a catholic know more about hinduism than an atheist,they believe in their God and as such won't go out of their way to learn about another.
If for instance a quiz was made up about the catholic faith and practising catholics and atheists took the same test, i have no doubt the practising catholics would score higher than the majority of atheists.
If I read the summary correctly, it showed Atheists/Agnostics scored the highest in terms of knowledge of world religions (ie religions as a whole). I believe it showed Evangelists and Mormons had the highest knowledge of Christianity...albeit they really weren't that far ahead of anybody.
I don't see how it's "bogus" to say atheists and agnostics know more about religion...after they average the highest on a quiz that asks questions specifically about...many religions. How is that a "bogus claim?" The research speaks for itself -- in a quiz that asks questions involving the religions of the world, atheists and agnostics scored the highest. How are you disputing that? The numbers seem to disagree.
Now you say Catholics have their religious beliefs, so they shouldn't have a desire to know about other religions. What about an atheist? A person who doesn't hold any religious beliefs (generally speaking) and is typically indifferent or opposed to religion. If it's reasonable to say Catholics shouldn't find interest in other religions because they already have their beliefs, would logic dictate that it's also reasonable to say an atheist shouldn't find any interest in religions? Then why do atheists score at the highest marks? Basically the idea that, since you already have a religious belief, you shouldn't be expected to learn of other belief systems is pretty nonsensical. If that's the case, then atheists shouldn't know anything about religions...and yet here they are exhibiting the most knowledge of the world religions.
As for your hypothetical scenario, I wouldn't be so sure of your claim. The Catholic Church has a way of churning out atheists -- I would venture to say a significant number of atheists used to be practicing Catholics, or at the very least were raised in a Catholic environment.
c'tair wrote:
And I got a 13/15 on that test, I missed the question about the blood and body of jesus actually becoming the body and blood of christ (thought it was just symbolic) and got the last question wrong, the one about the first big awakening - I was pretty surprised because I never even heard of that term.
It's one of the trickier ones. Catholic dogma claims the Eucharist actually becomes the physical body and blood of Jesus, whereas Protestant denominations treat it more symbolically. I believe it was one of the many details surrounding the Protestant Reformation.
The Great Awakening tends to get lost in history classes. I'm not really sure why I remember it so well, because I don't remember ever spending that much time on it. It's basically what the label sounds like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Awakening
Indi
Bikerman wrote:
I got one wrong.....hadn't really come across much on the 'great awakening' before so I guessed at Finney - wrong awakening
i know, eh, that was a tough one.
truespeed wrote:
The-Nisk wrote:
truespeed wrote:
I only got 8/15,i think its a bit of a bogus claim to say atheists know more about religion based on that quiz as it covers lots of different religions,why would a catholic know more about hinduism than an atheist,they believe in their God and as such won't go out of their way to learn about another.
If for instance a quiz was made up about the catholic faith and practising catholics and atheists took the same test, i have no doubt the practising catholics would score higher than the majority of atheists.
cop-out denied.
The quiz also stated that a great deal of catholics scored poorly on questions regards their own silly beliefs.
Its not a cop out,how many questions of the 15 were about the bible/christianity? not many.
The thing with people of faith is they go to faith schools,they learn all about their faiths and have no interest in other faiths,so why would you assume they would score higher than an atheist in a multi faith quiz.
It is a cop out, because the whole point of the exercise was to find out how well people know RELIGION, not THEIR religion. If this were a geography test being done the way you think it should be done, then an American student could know every last detail about America, but have no clue whatsoever about the rest of the world, and you would call them knowledgeable about geography. You can't say you're knowledgeable about geography if you can't name three countries in Europe and don't even know whether or not Australia is a continent, even if you were able to list every US state capital in alphabetical order.
Furthermore, it's a particularly lame cop out, as you would see if you actually read the article, because you're actually quite wrong. People of faith may go to faith schools and not learn about other faiths... but the evidence is that they apparently don't learn about their own religion very well either! These are real results from the study:
Quote:
¶ Fifty-three percent of Protestants could not identify Martin Luther as the man who started the Protestant Reformation.
¶ Forty-five percent of Catholics did not know that their church teaches that the consecrated bread and wine in holy communion are not merely symbols, but actually become the body and blood of Christ.
¶ Forty-three percent of Jews did not know that Maimonides, one of the foremost rabbinical authorities and philosophers, was Jewish.
In other words, atheists don't only know about religion in general better than religious people, they know more about the religious peoples' own religions, which is not going to be shocking news to anyone around here, i think.
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
I personally got 14/15. I didn't know one question. The question that I got wrong was that I thought the Jewish Sabbath began on Saturday - given that it's the seventh day of the week. Apparently I was wrong.
Actually, that's a tricky little question, and i wouldn't be surprised if it nailed a lot of people. The Jewish Sabbath is Saturday... but it BEGINS at sunset on the Friday.
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
And was anyone thrown off by the Joseph Smith question? I got it correct but I think I over-analyzed it. It asked for his religion - not the religion that he was responsible for creating. So I wasn't sure if I should choose some for of Protestant Christian since I think that was his religion beforehand. I don't know if he actually followed his own Mormonism or if he just started it for whatever reason (to feel powerful, cool, etc.). That would be like somebody asking what religion Jesus was. He was a Jew although he started Christianity. I guess it all comes down to the fact that you can't follow/worship yourself and that's what Jesus based his religion on whereas I don't think Mormons actually worship Joseph Smith....
Actually, it's not as tricky as it appears: you just have to realize that Mormonism doesn't mean worshipping Smith, any more than Islam means worshipping Muhammad or Scientology means worshipping Hubbard. Smith (like Hubbard and Muhammad) was just a prophet, not a deity (like Jesus (in Christianity, anyway)).
No, Smith explicitly flipped off Christianity proper when he was just a teenager, when he started having his visions. It would be categorically false to say that Smith was ever a vanilla Protestant. He was always "his own thing", and "his own thing" became Mormonism, so he was always a Mormon. (Whether or not he was faking it... that's debatable. But certainly he was never a plain old Christian.)
By the way, Jesus was not a Jew, either in the racial sense or the religious sense, if you are using the Christian interpretation of Jesus (although, the racial thing is a bit tricky, and requires going into really wacky theology, so i wouldn't bother to argue it). Jesus was a deity in human form. If Jesus were a Jew (in the religious sense), he would be worshipping himself, which is absurd. Asking what religion Jesus was is a non-sequitur, just like asking what religion God is. (Now, if you're talking about Jesus from the point of view of other religions, it varies. i - as an atheist, and nominally impartial observer - would say he was Jewish. A Jew might say he wasn't, depending on who you ask, and depending on whether they believe that he made some of the claims attributed to him. A Muslim would say he was a Muslim, in that curious retroactive way they have of claiming people they like as Muslim, like Alexander 3 of Macedon. Mormons also claim him as their own, as do a smattering of other religions (like Scientology). Most others will be neutral, and will probably consider him a Jew.)
Bikerman wrote:
Quote:
I missed the question about the blood and body of jesus actually becoming the body and blood of christ (thought it was just symbolic)
Catholics call it 'transubstantiation' (at least the ones who actually know about it do )
It is one of the completely bonkers items of dogma that you are expected to go along with as a Catholic.
i would have got that one wrong if it hadn't been for you and Crackergate. i had always been told... BY CATHOLICS... that it is a symbolic gesture.
Bikerman
Yep - I have been told by PRIESTS that it is symbolic. One even argued with me when I put him straight and I had to tell him to go and get his catechism from the Presbytery (this was the Priest who married me). He STILL tried to weasel-word his way out of it until I said that I might have to ask his Bishop
Afaceinthematrix
Indi wrote:
Actually, it's not as tricky as it appears: you just have to realize that Mormonism doesn't mean worshipping Smith, any more than Islam means worshipping Muhammad or Scientology means worshipping Hubbard. Smith (like Hubbard and Muhammad) was just a prophet, not a deity (like Jesus (in Christianity, anyway)).
No, Smith explicitly flipped off Christianity proper when he was just a teenager, when he started having his visions. It would be categorically false to say that Smith was ever a vanilla Protestant. He was always "his own thing", and "his own thing" became Mormonism, so he was always a Mormon. (Whether or not he was faking it... that's debatable. But certainly he was never a plain old Christian.)
By the way, Jesus was not a Jew, either in the racial sense or the religious sense, if you are using the Christian interpretation of Jesus (although, the racial thing is a bit tricky, and requires going into really wacky theology, so i wouldn't bother to argue it). Jesus was a deity in human form. If Jesus were a Jew (in the religious sense), he would be worshipping himself, which is absurd. Asking what religion Jesus was is a non-sequitur, just like asking what religion God is. (Now, if you're talking about Jesus from the point of view of other religions, it varies. i - as an atheist, and nominally impartial observer - would say he was Jewish. A Jew might say he wasn't, depending on who you ask, and depending on whether they believe that he made some of the claims attributed to him. A Muslim would say he was a Muslim, in that curious retroactive way they have of claiming people they like as Muslim, like Alexander 3 of Macedon. Mormons also claim him as their own, as do a smattering of other religions (like Scientology). Most others will be neutral, and will probably consider him a Jew.)
Oh, I know that Joseph isn't worshiped in his religion. I even mentioned that in my post. That's why I said that at the end you can't really compare him to Christianity which is what I was doing when I was trying to think of the answer to the question. You see, I wouldn't call Jesus a Christian because Christians worship Jesus and try to be more like him. But if you are Jesus, you can't exactly be more like him because you are him and most people don't worship themselves unless they are narcissistic. That's why I ended up choosing Mormonism because I realized that Mormons do not worship him - he is just a prophet. And as long as a prophet truly believes that what he says is true then he can be in the religion. That's why I said in my post that he differs from Jesus so in retrospect I shouldn't have thought too hard about the question.
But then it comes down to the question that absolutely no one can answer for sure (although we can all provide evidence). Did Joseph Smith actually believe in his golden plates crap? Was he seriously that ill? Were there actually golden plates (which I, obviously, highly doubt given that I'm not a Mormon)? Or was he just lying for some reason (being famous, starting his own religion for self-importance, etc.)? If it is the latter (which I guess it is - no matter how much he sounded genuine... because since I doubt he actually received a prophecy and if he wouldn't produce the plates then I doubt they existed) is true then he actually WASN'T a Mormon.... Just a liar. That's why I felt that it was a trick question...
Edit: I just retook the test so that I could view the statistics at the end. What was interesting was that people who attended church more often did better (which makes sense) but that atheists did better than everyone except Jews! There are several explanations to this that make sense but I will neglect from posting them now because I am not sure which is the most likely...
truespeed
liljp617 wrote:
If I read the summary correctly, it showed Atheists/Agnostics scored the highest in terms of knowledge of world religions (ie religions as a whole). I believe it showed Evangelists and Mormons had the highest knowledge of Christianity...albeit they really weren't that far ahead of anybody.
I don't see how it's "bogus" to say atheists and agnostics know more about religion...after they average the highest on a quiz that asks questions specifically about...many religions. How is that a "bogus claim?" The research speaks for itself -- in a quiz that asks questions involving the religions of the world, atheists and agnostics scored the highest. How are you disputing that? The numbers seem to disagree.
Research? ,cold calling people with 32 questions about different faiths,when i say faiths,just because someone for example says they are catholic on the phone,doesn't mean they go to church or have read the bible,hardly a scientific study that confirms anything one way or the other,a fact i am sure Atheists would be pointing out if the "research" would of painted a very different picture.
liljp617 wrote:
Now you say Catholics have their religious beliefs, so they shouldn't have a desire to know about other religions. What about an atheist? A person who doesn't hold any religious beliefs (generally speaking) and is typically indifferent or opposed to religion. If it's reasonable to say Catholics shouldn't find interest in other religions because they already have their beliefs, would logic dictate that it's also reasonable to say an atheist shouldn't find any interest in religions?
People are rarely brought up Atheist,i was christened,so was Bikerman,in the UK most people go to one faith school or other,the fact that they grow up and say they are atheist doesn't mean they haven't come into contact with religion at school on a daily basis for 12 years of their early life,so those Atheists you talk about have had about as much religion in their lives as the so called religious folk.
liljp617 wrote:
Then why do atheists score at the highest marks? Basically the idea that, since you already have a religious belief, you shouldn't be expected to learn of other belief systems is pretty nonsensical. If that's the case, then atheists shouldn't know anything about religions...and yet here they are exhibiting the most knowledge of the world religions.
Because i don't believe that people of faith want to know about other religions,they are happy with their worldview,to look into other faiths may mean they have to question that particular view.
liljp617 wrote:
As for your hypothetical scenario, I wouldn't be so sure of your claim. The Catholic Church has a way of churning out atheists -- I would venture to say a significant number of atheists used to be practicing Catholics, or at the very least were raised in a Catholic environment.
Everyone i knew growing up was christened either a catholic or protestant,everyone i knew went to either a catholic or protestant school,so as far as the UK is concerned i would say a very high percentage in the 90%s of Atheists are ex-catholics/protestants.
truespeed
Indi wrote:
It is a cop out, because the whole point of the exercise was to find out how well people know RELIGION, not THEIR religion. If this were a geography test being done the way you think it should be done, then an American student could know every last detail about America, but have no clue whatsoever about the rest of the world, and you would call them knowledgeable about geography. You can't say you're knowledgeable about geography if you can't name three countries in Europe and don't even know whether or not Australia is a continent, even if you were able to list every US state capital in alphabetical order.
Again,why would someone of one faith want to know about another,the fact they don't doesn't really have any relevence,the fact that the Atheists questioned know more about muslims than catholics means nothing,it seems like some kind of importance is being attached where there is none.
Indi wrote:
Furthermore, it's a particularly lame cop out, as you would see if you actually read the article, because you're actually quite wrong. People of faith may go to faith schools and not learn about other faiths... but the evidence is that they apparently don't learn about their own religion very well either! These are real results from the study:
Quote:
¶ Fifty-three percent of Protestants could not identify Martin Luther as the man who started the Protestant Reformation.
¶ Forty-five percent of Catholics did not know that their church teaches that the consecrated bread and wine in holy communion are not merely symbols, but actually become the body and blood of Christ.
¶ Forty-three percent of Jews did not know that Maimonides, one of the foremost rabbinical authorities and philosophers, was Jewish.
I notice they don't give the percentages of right answers for Atheists for those particular questions.
If they phoned me up 5 years ago, asked me my religion, i would of said Protestant,something which i have put on every form i have filled in since i left school,technically i was,still am,even though i didn't believe in God,or go to church,yet my poor score would of counted against one of the religions.
I am sure they phoned many people who like me have no interest in Church or religion,but because they were brought up under a particular denomination,gave that as their religion.
Indi wrote:
In other words, atheists don't only know about religion in general better than religious people, they know more about the religious peoples' own religions, which is not going to be shocking news to anyone around here, i think.
I doubt that to be true,and this survey of 32 questions that you seem to be putting so much faith in doesn't confirm it for me. I think regular Church going people of faith would know more about their religion than most Atheists.
Edit: This is actually backed up by the survey where it says that Mormons and Evangelicals top the poll for knowledge of Christianity.
On the main site it doesn't break down how many of each religion and Atheists were questioned,so not really that scientific in terms of numbers and the approach. (cold calling strangers with no way of confirming their religious status) doesn't add weight to their findings.
So if the outcome of their "research" is only that Atheists know more about all world religions than say someone who follows a particular faith,i would say,so what.
Bikerman
truespeed wrote:
I think regular Church going people of faith would know more about their religion than most Atheists.
Edit: This is actually backed up by the survey where it says that Mormons and Evangelicals top the poll for knowledge of Christianity.
Link
No it isn't.
Christians as a whole averaged 6.2 on questions about Christianity and the Bible. Atheists averaged 6.7.
You are simply cherry picking two Christian groups who scored well and ignoring the ones who scored badly. On average the atheists knew more about Christianity than the Christians - that is the clear conclusion of the survey.
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
truespeed wrote:
I think regular Church going people of faith would know more about their religion than most Atheists.
Edit: This is actually backed up by the survey where it says that Mormons and Evangelicals top the poll for knowledge of Christianity.
Link
No it isn't.
Christians as a whole averaged 6.2 on questions about Christianity and the Bible. Atheists averaged 6.7.
You are simply cherry picking two Christian groups who scored well and ignoring the ones who scored badly. On average the atheists knew more about Christianity than the Christians - that is the clear conclusion of the survey.
I can't believe the survey. It just does not make any sense to me. How were the atheists selected for the survey, and how were those who are religious selected for the survey, and what were the questions?
Also, how do you define an atheist in the context of the survey, to represent the cross average of all atheists, a large majority of course of whom would be TOTALLY disinterested in the Bible?
Bikerman
Typical Deanhills response. The survey doesn't fit my preconceptions therefore it must be wrong.
Laughable.
The details of the methodology and sampling are included in the article and the source is referenced in the footnotes - you just haven't read it, as usual.
truespeed
Bikerman wrote:
The survey doesn't fit my preconceptions therefore it must be wrong.
Laughable.
.
As opposed to the survey does fit my preconceptions therefore it must be right.
Bikerman
truespeed wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
The survey doesn't fit my preconceptions therefore it must be wrong.
Laughable.
.
As opposed to the survey does fit my preconceptions therefore it must be right.
Not at all. I have read the details and understand the methodology and range of the survey. I have said nothing which is not both factual and verifiable - if you think otherwise then please let me know what.
truespeed
Bikerman wrote:
Not at all. I have read the details and understand the methodology and range of the survey. I have said nothing which is not both factual and verifiable - if you think otherwise then please let me know what.
I don't think you personally have been banging the Atheists drum regarding the results of the survey,indi however..
Quote:
Indi wrote:
In other words, atheists don't only know about religion in general better than religious people, they know more about the religious peoples' own religions, which is not going to be shocking news to anyone around here, i think.
If a similar survey using those methods had been done that discredited Atheists in some way,the Atheists on this forum would be picking holes in it,but because it suits their agenda,they are treating the results as gospel.
Bikerman
But theists are free to pick holes in it - the point is that nobody has done so. What there has been is untrue statements and 'I don't believe it'. That is not how you attack the credibility of a piece of evidence.
Do you really expect us to do the work for you?
truespeed
Bikerman wrote:
But theists are free to pick holes in it - the point is that nobody has done so. What there has been is untrue statements and 'I don't believe it'. That is not how you attack the credibility of a piece of evidence.
Do you really expect us to do the work for you?
If you think that survey isn't flawed and the results are an accurate reflection of the facts then ok,i personally think its a nonsense survey,i will post later if i get chance with more detail as to why as i don't have te time at the moment and i don't want to be accused again of not reading the full article properly and cherry picking details.
Bikerman
truespeed wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
But theists are free to pick holes in it - the point is that nobody has done so. What there has been is untrue statements and 'I don't believe it'. That is not how you attack the credibility of a piece of evidence.
Do you really expect us to do the work for you?
If you think that survey isn't flawed and the results are an accurate reflection of the facts then ok,i personally think its a nonsense survey,i will post later if i get chance with more detail as to why as i don't have te time at the moment and i don't want to be accused again of not reading the full article properly and cherry picking details.
It depends what you mean by flawed. It appears to have a reasonable sampling selection methodology. It appears to have used a statistically significant sample size. There appears to have been no deliberate bias in the design and no data-shaping or cherry picking of results.
As far as surveys go it looks to me to be properly conducted....
As far as whether I believe it represents the general case or not - as I said that is a difficult call. My own experience tells me that I know FAR more about Christianity than nearly every Christian I have debated as an adult* (I think there are possibly 5 or 6 exceptions** out of possibly thousands and certainly hundreds, and two of those are/were Jesuit Monks highly trained in Catholic theology as well as rhetoric). Now, I cannot extrapolate my own experience because I was educated in Christianity by experts for all of my school life from 5-18 yrs old, but I certainly know from experience that most catholics don't know catholic doctrine at all well. I can set 5 questions here and now, on basic catechism - no trick questions, central items of Catholic dogma - and I will GUARANTEE that the majority of ANY fairly chosen group of Catholics would get either most or all of them wrong.
* I'm not talking about being able to quote chunks from the bible - there are certainly many I have met who can trounce me at that. I'm talking about being able to relate and explain dogma, distinguish the different beliefs and dogmas of the different sects of Christianity, relate and explain the history of Christianity from Jesus's time to the present, and critically analyse and evaluate the meaning of scriptural sources.
** And the other 3 or 4 exceptions would not include anyone on these forums. The only one who I think would run me close would be Indi, and I think I would edge it...That isn't to say that there is nobody on the forums who knows more about Christianity than me, but it is to say that I haven't yet met him or her....
truespeed
Just another thing to throw in, the site which did the survey, pewforum.org has had a 25.000% increase in page views in the last 7 days according to Alexa,after 2 years of consistent steady traffic,so maybe,perhaps,possibly they have an agenda,any outcome other than the one they published wouldn't have raised an eyebrow.
Bikerman
But come on - that is just unsupported assertion.
a) What possible motivations could they have ?
b) what evidence is there ?
c) what is the history and mission statement of the organisation ?
I wouldn't have tried to attack motive without at least trying to answer those 3 with some credible data....
I will attack a question from the survey for you, if you like.
One question reads: Where, according to the bible, was Jesus born. The answer is given in the following sentence:
71 percent of Christians --but only 65 percent of Catholics knew it was Bethlehem.
That is wrong. The correct answer is Bethlehem (Matthew 2:16. Micah 5:2). And Nazareth (Mark 6:1). And Galilee (John 7:42)
truespeed
Quote:
Too few Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists took the survey for those religions to be scored.
I haven't read the full article yet,but this comment could possibly mean that they left out certain data that may of affected the overall results,if so, did they leave out this data because as they said there wasn't enough Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists surveyed to make it fair/accurate,in which case why not just survey more from those religions until you have the required numbers,or did they leave out this data deliberately because the added data favoured the religious over the Atheists.
Bikerman
Well it couldn't have changed the two under discussion - whether Christians or Atheists scored best on knowledge of Christianity. The only variables there are the two sample groups and the questions.
deanhills
truespeed wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
The survey doesn't fit my preconceptions therefore it must be wrong.
Laughable.
.
As opposed to the survey does fit my preconceptions therefore it must be right.
Right on Truespeed, well said!
liljp617
deanhills wrote:
truespeed wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
The survey doesn't fit my preconceptions therefore it must be wrong.
Laughable.
.
As opposed to the survey does fit my preconceptions therefore it must be right.
Right on Truespeed, well said!
If the survey is flawed, you must have an idea of specifically where it is flawed. If your issue is specifically with how the sample was selected, then address that, and tell why it is a flawed method relative to the way other similar surveys select their samples. If you're not willing to do that, what's the point in saying anything about the "flaws?" You disagree with the results? Fine. That doesn't invalidate results. You'll need more than that to invalidate the research -- studies showing opposite conclusions would be a great start.
Until then we have research in our faces that paints a picture of observation. The method in which the survey was carried out seems to be no different than most studies I see. The sampling methods seem fairly generic. The questions, by and large, don't seem to be "traps" nor do they seem to hold bias. So what is the problem?
truespeed
Why leave out the scores for these groups..
Quote:
Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists.
It must be easier to find people of these groups to survey than it is to find Atheists,also they say they oversampled Atheists as it is such a small group,why would they need to over sample certain groups?
From the quick browse i have just had,they don't even give a break down of the numbers from each group they did survey.
Why not survey each religion with the same x amount of people ,and then survey the same x amount of Atheists,and then contrast and compare.
It looks on the surface like they did everything they could to get the result they wanted.
ocalhoun
Indi wrote:
i wouldn't call these people aggressive atheists either. Arrogant, sure, and maybe rude, but not necessarily aggressive.
Quite true.
"Just keepin it real" though... A few of the claims about how nice atheists usually are were a bit exaggerated.
Bikerman
truespeed wrote:
Why leave out the scores for these groups..
Quote:
Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists.
It must be easier to find people of these groups to survey than it is to find Atheists,also they say they oversampled Atheists as it is such a small group,why would they need to over sample certain groups?
From the quick browse i have just had,they don't even give a break down of the numbers from each group they did survey.
Why not survey each religion with the same x amount of people ,and then survey the same x amount of Atheists,and then contrast and compare.
It looks on the surface like they did everything they could to get the result they wanted.
You haven't understood the methodology.
The basic method is to select a sample group randomly - that is to provide a good analogy to the population as a whole and is the only way to avoid selection bias.
Thus a number of phone numbers are selected using a random algorithm - in this case 3412.
There is no way to predict in advance whether those answering will be Muslim, atheist or Christian. Oversampling is used because people who classify themselves as atheists are only about 4% of the population and it can therefore be predicted that you will not get enough answers to be statistically significant. The methodology for oversampling was simple and valid - they simply used previous poll data to select a group of households which they knew, from the previous polls, to contain at least 1 self-declared atheist. That avoids any selection bias.
All of this is standard polling methodology and there is no 'funny business' as far as I can tell.
If they did as you suggest then there would be immediate questions over how the groups were seected. How would you decide which atheists, which christians and which of other faiths to include in the poll? Any group you selected would potentially introduce a selection bias - which is why random selection is important.
http://www.pewforum.org/U-S-Religious-Knowledge-Survey-Appendix-A-Survey-Methodology.aspx
truespeed
I think if i picked up a phone book,i could find 500 muslims before i found 500 Atheists.
Yet somehow they managed to get their quota of Atheists.
Bikerman
truespeed wrote:
I think if i picked up a phone book,i could find 500 muslims before i found 500 Atheists.
Yet somehow they managed to get their quota of Atheists.
The point of the study was, in part, to compare atheist/agnostic responses with those of theists. Therefore they had to ensure a statistically valid number of that group. Since there was no specific goal to measure Muslims then they didn't have to include an oversampling of that group..
truespeed
If you believe the addition of Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists. wouldn't of swayed in the theists favour then fair enough.
If its just a theist v atheist faith knowledge test then there was no reason to leave out the data regardless of the numbers invloved.
Muslims count for a very small percentage of Americans,if they only needed 130 atheists for the poll at 4% (Upped to 212 with the dubious decision to oversample) then they would of needed very few muslims to survey to include them in the stats as according to pewforum they only account for 0.6 of the population. Hindu 0.4 and Buddhists 0.7. You see they wouldn't of needed to interview many to include them in the survey,so no justifiable reason to leave them out.
Bikerman
The reason is statistical. If the population is less than a certain size then any possible results for that population do not fall within the 95% confidence rate and should not be included in any overall result.
The results for those groups are available, the study is simply saying that it cannot properly attach significance to them.
As I said before, this has no relevance to the question of whether Atheists know christianity better than Christians.
Indi
ocalhoun wrote:
Indi wrote:
i wouldn't call these people aggressive atheists either. Arrogant, sure, and maybe rude, but not necessarily aggressive.
Quite true.
"Just keepin it real" though... A few of the claims about how nice atheists usually are were a bit exaggerated.
You have to keep the comparisons fair, though. Certainly there are ****** atheists along with the nice ones... but think in terms of the scale.
The ****** who talk rudely and sneer are the worst of the atheists. Compare them to the worst of the theists. You know, the ones who, when they're not actively murdering atheists just for being atheists and nothing else (Appoo or Shelton), are saying that atheists don't deserve to be considered fully human (too many to name), and that they don't deserve the same rights or freedoms as theists (or that they should just be locked up or killed).
Take the worst of the atheists and compare them to the worst of the theists, and take the best of the atheists and compare them to the best of the theists. It's no contest.
That is the basis for the atheist smugness about moral superiority.
Why is this the case? It could be because theism naturally tolerates much more hatred than atheism, just by the nature of what they are. Or it could be because the major ****** are all theist just because that's just the easy road to take; atheists are the most hated minority in most cultures, so it would be stupid to make your situation worse by being an evil bastard on top of being hated for being an atheist. Or it could be a combination of those and many other factors. Whatever the reasons, the fact remains.
deanhills
Indi, when I read through your posting, I can't help getting confused again. I've just been "lectured" again that atheism is not a belief, it is something that stands outside all belief systems and religions. But here you describe a group of individuals who share the same "belief" about standing outside religion, and you compare atheists as a "class of individuals" with theists? Why do they have to be measured with theists if they are supposed to stand outside all religion and belief systems? Why would any comparison be necessary? And when there is a need for comparison, does atheism really stand outside all religion and belief systems? Does it not create itself into the same class as religion, along anti-religion lines? If one reads your posting, that is exactly the impression I get. "Us" (Atheists") versus "them" (theists).
Bikerman
deanhills wrote:
Indi, when I read through your posting, I can't help getting confused again. I've just been "lectured" again that atheism is not a belief, it is something that stands outside all belief systems and religions. But here you describe a group of individuals who share the same "belief" about standing outside religion, and you compare atheists as a "class of individuals" with theists? Why do they have to be measured with theists if they are supposed to stand outside all religion and belief systems? Why would any comparison be necessary? And when there is a need for comparison, does atheism really stand outside all religion and belief systems? Does it not create itself into the same class as religion, along anti-religion lines? If one reads your posting, that is exactly the impression I get. "Us" (Atheists") versus "them" (theists).
He never said anything of the sort and nobody else did, unless they were having a very bad day.
Atheism is lack of belief in god(s). Atheists can believe whatever else they choose/wish/desire.
ocalhoun
Most of that made perfect sense, but...
Indi wrote:
atheists are the most hated minority in most cultures
[citation needed]
A hated minority, perhaps... But I have a hard time believing 'the most hated minority'... Perhaps in a few cultures, but surely not most cultures.
(Especially when you have competition like 'teh gheys', illegal immigrants, and Arabs)
(I know, persecution complex is fun -- just ask the theists -- but really?)
Afaceinthematrix
ocalhoun wrote:
Most of that made perfect sense, but...
Indi wrote:
atheists are the most hated minority in most cultures
[citation needed]
A hated minority, perhaps... But I have a hard time believing 'the most hated minority'... Perhaps in a few cultures, but surely not most cultures.
(Especially when you have competition like 'teh gheys', illegal immigrants, and Arabs)
(I know, persecution complex is fun -- just ask the theists -- but really?)
Well there is a bit of evidence to support Indi's claim that atheists are the most hated minority in most cultures. It isn't like that in the U.S., however. While I have gotten a lot of shit for being an atheist here, I do not think that I am hated nearly as much as illegal immigrants. Actually, in California, atheists are more of scoffed at and misunderstood (as being devil worshipers, products of Satan, etc.) than hated because of all of the "illegals" here. However, if you go to many other places (such as Oklahoma where much of my family is then it's a different story).
Quote:
"Americans rate atheists below Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians and other minority groups in 'sharing their vision of American society.' Atheists are also the minority group most Americans are least willing to allow their children to marry."
Well I guess I do fit in that category somewhat because most people have a vision of American society as being a place where it's "In God We Trust" and I scratch that off of every single bill that I get. While it is illegal, I'll argue that having it on there is also illegal and that since we have a separation of church and state that I'll cross it out if the U.S. government is going to put it on (especially when it is a semi-recent addition to the note).
Of course atheists still aren't very hated here... But he did say most of the world and we rank up there with homosexuals (who are seen as just as bad because they go "against god") in many parts of Africa, Asia, and especially the Middle East (which is in Asia but I am separating it from the rest of Asia...)
Bikerman
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
Well there is a bit of evidence to support Indi's claim that atheists are the most hated minority in most cultures. It isn't like that in the U.S., however.
You reckon?
Here's a study by the University of Minnesota: (note this is AFTER 9/11) - this, I think, is the one referred to in previous postings.
This group does not at all agree with my vision of American society...
Result:
Atheist: 39.6%
Muslims: 26.3%
Homosexuals: 22.6%
Hispanics: 20%
Conservative Christians: 13.5%
Recent Immigrants: 12.5%
Jews: 7.6%
I would disapprove if my child wanted to marry a member of this group....
Result
Atheist: 47.6%
Muslim: 33.5%
African-American 27.2%
Asian-Americans: 18.5%
Hispanics: 18.5%
Jews: 11.8%
Conservative Christians: 6.9%
Whites: 2.3%
Quote:
Lead researcher Penny Edgell said that she was surprised by this: "We thought that in the wake of 9/11, people would target Muslims. Frankly, we expected atheists to be a throwaway group." Nevertheless, the numbers are so extreme that she was led to conclude that they are "a glaring exception to the rule of increasing tolerance over the last 30 years." It's not that bigotry and discrimination against Muslims is appropriate, but at least it's not hard to understand where such attitudes would come from.
Every group except atheists is being shown much greater tolerance and acceptance than 30 years ago. "Our analysis shows that attitudes about atheists have not followed the same historical pattern as that for previously marginalized religious groups. It is possible that the increasing tolerance for religious diversity may have heightened awareness of religion itself as the basis for solidarity in American life and sharpened the boundary between believers and nonbelievers in our collective imagination."
PS - I'm not cherry picking questions - this is across the board - see for yourself:
The reason is statistical. If the population is less than a certain size then any possible results for that population do not fall within the 95% confidence rate and should not be included in any overall result.
The results for those groups are available, the study is simply saying that it cannot properly attach significance to them.
I get the method now,the percentage of people surveyed is comparative to the the numbers in percentage terms of the groups within the population of the USA.
What i do find strange is they weren't happy with 130 (4%) being enough of a sample for Atheists,so they over sampled to the tune of 212,they also over sampled the Jewish group,which according to their site only accounts for 1.7% of the population,again to 212,so looking at that you would think that 212 is the lowest credible source sample,yet 117 people surveyed was deemed enough of a sample for hispanic catholics to be included in the survey.
Personally i think the method is flawed,i don't agree with the percentage v population method,i think the only fair way of doing the survey would be to survey equal numbers from the different groups.
Can i also just point out that the smaller groups weren't randomly chanced upon by random phone calls using some area codes.
Quote:
SSRS recontacted households it had reached in the preceding six months that contained at least one adult who reported being Jewish, Mormon or having no religion. Adults reached in those households were asked to confirm whether they were Jewish, Mormon, or atheist or agnostic and then the interview proceeded.
All of these groups scored high in the survey,it could be argued they scored high because so few were surveyed in numbers terms,or they surveyed high because they are either known to be very religious,or very anti religious (Sort of career atheists)
Bikerman wrote:
As I said before, this has no relevance to the question of whether Atheists know christianity better than Christians.
2528 Christians were surveyed,only 212 Atheists,there is a huge margin for error in those numbers alone.
Why don't you and Indi do a similar survey targeting just Christians and Atheists,using same number groups,it would be a good way of driving traffic to your new site.
Bikerman
The reason for oversampling atheists is because they specifically wanted a result for that group.
The calls WERE random. Oversampling requires that you know in advance that the target is correct - but the first contact with the Jewish and Atheists oversampled was itself random. This is standard practice.
Quote:
All of these groups scored high in the survey,it could be argued they scored high because so few were surveyed in numbers terms,or they surveyed high because they are either known to be very religious,or very anti religious (Sort of career atheists)
Only if the survey authors are crooks. The method used was random sampling plus targetted random oversampling. ie the oversampling was done using the results of a previous poll to select just Atheists or Jews but those Atheists and Jews were selected randomly on the previous poll. I repeat this is standard practice.
Quote:
Personally i think the method is flawed,i don't agree with the percentage v population method,i think the only fair way of doing the survey would be to survey equal numbers from the different groups.
The method is standard and is used for all kinds of polls of this nature. The chances of an outlier in the results is carefully calculated statistically.
You cannot survey known groups because it introduces a selection bias. Who choses the groups? On what basis? You are bound to introduce bias of some type - whether it is geographical, unconscious personal bias or association bias (asking people you associate with immediately introduces selection bias). Conducting this sort of poll is quite a complex undertaking and there are very good reasons for the methods used. I appreciate that you are probably not familiar with sampling and survey techniques - I am and I can say that I see nothing unusual or worrying in any of the methodology/sample selection. And please don't think 'he would say that wouldn't he' because no, I wouldn't. If I thought the survey had methodological errors I would say so - regardless of the result.
If you want that confirmed then ask any friend or acquaintance who is familiar with statistics and sampling - they will confirm what I have said.
Quote:
2528 Christians were surveyed,only 212 Atheists,there is a huge margin for error in those numbers alone.
No there isn't.
A sample of 212 against a target population of about 1.6 million gives a confidence level of around 6.7% (in other words you can be 95% certain that the result is correct plus or minus 6 percent).
Now that is using only the information I have - I am pretty sure they will have used other statistical techniques to narrow that confidence margin down further.
Again this is all textbook stats and there is no funny stuff going on.
sample size = [Z^2*p*(1-p)]/c^2
Where Z is certainty level, p is decimal number selecting yes, 1-p is fraction selecting no,* and c is confidence interval.
*obviously it could be any two answers such as true false. The point is that where a big majority go for one answer or another then the sample size can be smaller with the same confidence level.
Quote:
Why don't you and Indi do a similar survey targeting just Christians and Atheists,using same number groups,it would be a good way of driving traffic to your new site.
Yes, I think I will....good idea.
Afaceinthematrix
Bikerman wrote:
You reckon?
Yes. I do. And I actually referred to those surveys in my posting and I tried making my point come across but I failed at doing it. So instead I will just explicitly say it myself.
Those questions were not a good indicator at who is the most hated in society. They are just a good indicator of who isn't approved of. If you look at the first question it is asking which group doesn't follow their particular "American vision." To many Americans, their vision for the country is a country in which "In God we trust." If you're an atheist, you don't follow that vision. End of story. The second one asks which you would be disappointed with if your child married... Well personally I would much rather have my child (if I had one) marry a college graduate than to marry a high school dropout. However I do not hate high school dropouts...
Many people wouldn't want their child to marry an atheist because then they would fear that their grandchildren would become atheists and go to hell... Or even the child might be converted by their spouse and then they'll end up in hell! They probably won't hate the person (the atheist), they'll just hate the atheism and hell risk... Most people will try to convert the atheist and that's it... I'm not going to be silly and say that there's never forms of hatred towards atheists; I have seen and read some of it. But it's far less than many other minorities. People find out all of the time that I'm an atheist. All they do is try to convert me. They don't hate me. However, they do highly disapprove of my beliefs (or lack of)....
However, you should see the way other minorities are actually treated. Hispanics and homosexuals are probably treated the worst right now... I see people with bumper stickers or picketing at street corners or running their mouths on the television about all of these "illegals" and Hispanics need to get the hell out of the country. Some of the things said about them are terrible. People may disapprove of my atheism but they aren't trying to kick me out of the country - which is what they are literally trying to do to Hispanics right now...
People do the same with homosexuals - especially teenagers. If you're in high school and you out yourself that you're gay when you're in high school then you can count on getting beaten up and/or picked on nonstop until the day you're out of high school... There was actually a news story about a week ago where someone committed suicide because people found out that he was gay and he was constantly tortured for it. You know how many atheists (and I knew plenty) got beat up and picked on when I was in high school for their atheism? None. How many atheists had to commit suicide for it? None.
After 9/11, people of Middle Eastern descent were getting beat up for it... I'm in my early 20's so I was still a kid when that happened and was in school... So I can tell you from witnessing it that it happened... How many atheists got beaten up for being atheists? None that I know of...
So I am not saying that atheists aren't disapproved of or even hated... I'm not saying that they're never victims of violence (and we're talking about hated minorities right now... or maybe within the past few years... not many years ago... ) but it is not as bad as other minorities. You can't just look at who people say they disapprove of. People would look at the list, see atheist, and then think, "I don't want my daughter to go to Hell!" and then instantly choose it... They may disapprove of us but they don't really hate us all that much... All they're going to do is try to preach to us. They won't (in general; I'm sure it happens but not too often) beat us up, tell us to leave the country, or pick on us... You shouldn't just look at who polls the worst... You need to actually look at how people are treated.
Bikerman
I disagree.
The reason atheists aren't treated with the same violence that other minorities are is easy to explain. They are white, predominantly well educated and middle class, with money, social contacts, a good lawyer and enough balls not to take shit. OK - I generalise, but I'll stick by it as a first approximation.
It takes a bigot with a lot of balls to start picking on bright and socially aware, connected and legally savvy people like that. You might just get your ass kicked or you might just find yourself hauled up in court quicktime.
I'm not talking about street gang violence or messed up kids picking fights with athests - though that does happen. I'm talking Mr and Mrs Average with 2 kids. That is where the hate is and the bigotry. It's just more obvious with the young no-brains and they probably can't spell atheist and don't really care as long as there is someone to hate.
People don't behave in such sophisticated ways with their dislikes. They don't rationalise it as you have done. If you don't like someone then you don't rationalise that they have another system of belief that, whilst in itself may be valid, is not one that one wishes for oneself, therefore better not vote the chappy in for president. It ain't like that at all. The hatred is visceral and red. Most atheists have met it - if you haven't then you will. Once the veneer of respectable white folk politely disagreeing is damaged and falls away you see the real frightened hatred behind. Even in the UK it is not completely OK - you still get some suspicious looks and parents who would rather someone else taught their child. That is nothing to what I've endured from Americans, Spanish and Italians though - not even worth a mention.
Here's just the first example I came across : concerning an atheist Student in Torronto who got attacked for putting up posters advertising an event called God: 'The Failed Hypothesis'. OK - provokative, sure. But remember, I'm going to quote the comments of the Students at the Uni, not the local crap-heads. So someone comes along to stop him putting up his posters (which he has a permit for). Words are exchanged and he is punched and headbutted to the floor.
This is what the student campus newspaper made of it:
“In order to really be a martyr…you have to have a religion first....Justin Trottier says he’s a victim, too. He insists we should feel indignant over his story of woe. But should we?... We’ll give him a word or two of advice: if you’re going to crack wise to just anybody on the street in the dead of night, start working on your left hook, and leave the Charter defense to the real victims.”
Students? For chrissake.....
So yes, of course most US atheists don't suffer the overt physical and social humiliations heaped on other groups, but that doesn't mean they are not hated just as much or even more. It just means they are much harder targets.
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Indi, when I read through your posting, I can't help getting confused again. I've just been "lectured" again that atheism is not a belief, it is something that stands outside all belief systems and religions. But here you describe a group of individuals who share the same "belief" about standing outside religion, and you compare atheists as a "class of individuals" with theists? Why do they have to be measured with theists if they are supposed to stand outside all religion and belief systems? Why would any comparison be necessary? And when there is a need for comparison, does atheism really stand outside all religion and belief systems? Does it not create itself into the same class as religion, along anti-religion lines? If one reads your posting, that is exactly the impression I get. "Us" (Atheists") versus "them" (theists).
He never said anything of the sort and nobody else did, unless they were having a very bad day.
Atheism is lack of belief in god(s). Atheists can believe whatever else they choose/wish/desire.
No problem with that Bikerman, and that covers one part of my posting. I also asked why atheists are comparing themselves with theists? Why this overly focus on theism? Does that not make them more of anti-theists, than atheists?
Bikerman
Which atheists? Us? The board is religion and philosophy, and you want to know why atheists are talking about theism?
I'm sure that individual atheists can answer for themselves and I have no intention of doing so. As far as my own thoughts - I can see why Hitchens says he is an anti-theist and I find his argument quite convincing. He takes a different stance on the term - rather than anti-god worshipper he takes it as anti-God. He actually makes much sense. I would not be happy to think the God of the Old Testament were actually 'up there' - that prospect is a horrifying one for anyone who thinks about it for a bit. That is Hitchens position - simply put he says 'if he DOES exist then he is a monster and I am morally bound to be against him'....it is a principled position and I see both the logic and ethics in it.
In fact I too would have to be against any God who resembled the OT Yaweh, since Yaweh is ethically repugnant to me.
(Obviously you can't beat a God, so the outcome is assured, but if he isn't omnipotent then you can at least try to spit in his eye if you get the chance).
So tempting and logical, yes, but no, I'm not an anti-theist for the simple reason that I find the evidence to be very persuasive for the non-existence of God - so I really honestly don't think there is a God. There is no need, therefore, to be against him on the chance he does exist - that would be like being against nasty green dragons that eat people - right in principle but not a profitable use of energy or time.
truespeed
I think any hatred/distrust of Atheists is an American thing.....
Ed Miliband the new labour leader and possible next Prmie Minister,is an Atheist,whether or not he does eventually become Prime Minister won't be decided by his Atheism as people in the UK couldn't care less.
Bikerman
Oh yes, I did say that the situation is much different here in Europe. In fact it is much different in some of the US. I doubt atheism is noteworthy in New York and I know it wasn't a big issue in the bits of California I have been in. I also know that if I walked into some parts of many southern states - Mississippi or Virginia for example, then I would significant risk of serious harm.
The situation is nearly normal here - there is still some suspicion but the critical number was reached some time ago - that number which lies at the point where things become social norms, with the attendent tutting, clucking, disapproval and shunning. Christianity is no longer a social norm and hasn't been for a few decades,, and despite the recent efforts of the Carey/Williams offensive on atheists it is too late for them to claw back their power.
truespeed
If a large part of the USA is like those polls suggest,i wonder how it will play out with the Americans if we do have an Atheist Prime Minister,will we become a mistrusted country by proxy.
Afaceinthematrix
Ok, then Bikerman. If you're going to believe that, then are a few questions that you must be able to answer.
1. What about all of the crimes committed towards white, upper/middle class, education homosexuals? Or what about the upper/middle class educated people of Middle Eastern descent? This is especially important in high school where class and education make very little difference in if you're going to get picked on or beat up. No bully is going to go after the atheist; they care about the "fag" and "Arab." Note: I never use the offensive word that I just used that started with an "f," but I felt that it was justified this time because I was using the terminology that the bully would use towards the homosexual kid.
2. If 39.6% or 47.6% (depending on survey) of people truly hated atheists (versus just disapproved of their situation), then wouldn't that percentage of the population be off limits to us atheists to interact with? Atheists are a small minority and so it would be hard for every girl I date or every friend I make to be an atheist. So I end up dating and/or befriending people of many faiths and it has never gotten in the way with the exception of me leaving one Catholic girl because after many months of dating she still wouldn't do "un-Catholic" things... Yet none of my friends hate me for my atheism... Sure they invite me to church and such and do everything that they can to "save" me. I have never been shown any sort of true hatred or brutality for my beliefs (even in the Bible belt where it does exist to some extent... but still not as much as illegals and homosexuals).
See, you can't just look at those percentages. Instead you have to look at how the 39.6% or 47.6% of people actually treat the atheists versus how the 22.6% of people actually end up treating the homosexuals...
Bikerman
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
Ok, then Bikerman. If you're going to believe that, then are a few questions that you must be able to answer.
1. What about all of the crimes committed towards white, upper/middle class, education homosexuals? Or what about the upper/middle class educated people of Middle Eastern descent? This is especially important in high school where class and education make very little difference in if you're going to get picked on or beat up. No bully is going to go after the atheist; they care about the "fag" and "Arab." Note: I never use the offensive word that I just used that started with an "f," but I felt that it was justified this time because I was using the terminology that the bully would use towards the homosexual kid.
Any stats on that? My own impression is that homophobia is not nearly such a problem in schools as it was even a few years ago.
The bully goes after the one who is different enough and isolated enough to be a target. An immigrant who is popular is unlikely to be a target, just as a gay pupil with lots of friends is also not so vulnerable. Maybe it is different here but at the last school I taught at, one of the most popular lads in the school was pretty overtly gay (by which I mean he was quite effeminate and quite open about his sexuality - not that he was inappropriately demonstrating )
If you have an unpopular atheist then I guarantee the bully will go for him.
Quote:
2. If 39.6% or 47.6% (depending on survey) of people truly hated atheists (versus just disapproved of their situation), then wouldn't that percentage of the population be off limits to us atheists to interact with? Atheists are a small minority and so it would be hard for every girl I date or every friend I make to be an atheist. So I end up dating and/or befriending people of many faiths and it has never gotten in the way with the exception of me leaving one Catholic girl because after many months of dating she still wouldn't do "un-Catholic" things... Yet none of my friends hate me for my atheism... Sure they invite me to church and such and do everything that they can to "save" me. I have never been shown any sort of true hatred or brutality for my beliefs (even in the Bible belt where it does exist to some extent... but still not as much as illegals and homosexuals).
Several possibilities. Two obvious ones would be
i. You may live in an area where it is not such an issue
ii. You may be popular enough for this 'defect' to be overlooked
The survey says that very many Americans would prefer the homosexual or the immigrant to be the one dating their daughter, whether that is true where you are or not.
Quote:
See, you can't just look at those percentages. Instead you have to look at how the 39.6% or 47.6% of people actually treat the atheists versus how the 22.6% of people actually end up treating the homosexuals...
But you don't know, unless you have travelled extremely widely - you live in a BIG country. The thing about the statistics is that atheists are the one group towards whom views have NOT liberalised. Attitudes to homosexuals and immigrants show a marked change over the decades, but not so attitudes to atheists.
As I said earlier you can't measure distrust and hatred simply by violence. Violence is an exercise of power over the weaker and you will often find that the bully has no real reason for antipathy towards the victim at all.
Indi
deanhills wrote:
Indi, when I read through your posting, I can't help getting confused again.
Well, try going through the words one at a time, in the order i've written them, using their dictionary definitions and the basic rules of English grammar, in order to determine what i may have meant by them... rather than just picking a few key words out and matching them to what you assume i should be saying.
deanhills wrote:
I've just been "lectured" again that atheism is not a belief, it is something that stands outside all belief systems and religions.
i can't say i'm surprised. Don't worry, it will probably sink in eventually.
deanhills wrote:
But here you describe a group of individuals who share the same "belief" about standing outside religion, and you compare atheists as a "class of individuals" with theists?
No, actually, i didn't describe anything like that. See, this is where actually using the words i wrote, in the order i wrote them, with the dictionary and a basic understanding of English grammar come into play. If you actually look at what i wrote, i don't even say anything remotely to do with a belief about "standing outside religion". You would also notice that i don't even mention religion - not even once - and never talk about any beliefs relating to liking or not liking religion, or being part of it or standing outside of it. i don't even talk about any group of individuals who believe in standing apart from religion, and certainly don't call this group (that i never mention) "atheists".
Of course, some minor use of your brain is necessary, because i do compare theists to atheists, but does that mean that atheists are a well-defined group who share... well, any beliefs? Let's think about that. What if i said that non-redheads were nicer than redheads? Does that mean that "non-redheads" are a well-defined group who share... well, any characteristics... other than the fact that they are not redheads? Does it mean that "non-redheads" all share a belief about distinguishing themselves from redheads? Or... does it just mean that the only thing that defines "non-redheads"... the only thing they "share"... is the fact that their not redheads, and that's literally it?
Try this as an exercise. Try to list everything that "non-redheads" have in common - everything that they share. Try to define them using positive terms; defining them by what they are, rather than by what they're not. Try completing this sentence with a meaningful fact, without using the word "not": "One thing that all non-redheads have in common is that they _____________".
deanhills wrote:
Why do they have to be measured with theists if they are supposed to stand outside all religion and belief systems?
First, they are not "supposed to stand outside all religion and belief systems". They are not "supposed" to do anything except not believe in gods.
Second, anytime you talk about a trait of theists, you naturally have to talk about athiests, too. You can't avoid it. Why? Because they're the "other" - they're the set of everything that's not theist. It's the same reason you have to talk about non-apples when you talk about apples: if you say "apple are delicious", you are implying that everything that is not delicious is in the set of "non-apples". If you say "apples are fruit", you are implying that if you find something that's not a fruit, it must be a non-apple.
That's the mathematically inescapable bottom line: anytime you say anything unique about theists, you are saying something about atheists, too.
deanhills wrote:
And when there is a need for comparison, does atheism really stand outside all religion and belief systems?
No, and i can't imagine why you keep saying it does. You made that requirement up, so you explain it.
deanhills wrote:
Does it not create itself into the same class as religion, along anti-religion lines?
Even if it were true that atheism had anything to do with standing outside religion - or just wanting to - no. Does wanting to have nothing to do with rapists put you in the same class of people as rapists: criminals? Is an anti-rapist a criminal just like a rapist, because they want to stand apart from rapists?
i really can't think of a softer way to answer this question than: don't be stupid.
deanhills wrote:
If one reads your posting, that is exactly the impression I get. "Us" (Atheists") versus "them" (theists).
Yeah, well, that's not really surprising when that's the preconception you brought to the post before you even started to read it. Bigotry does that, you know.
No, all my posting says is that atheists are not theists, and they are different from them. It says nothing even remotely resembling "atheists are against theists" or even that they don't like them. Hell, it's entirely possible to read my post believing that atheists want to be theists - nothing i wrote contradicts that.
The intolerance that you see? Yeah, that comes from you.
truespeed wrote:
Again,why would someone of one faith want to know about another....
For the same reason that people of one country should would to know about another, or people of one political belief should want to know about the political beliefs of others. So that they're not ignorant, provincial dumbasses.
truespeed wrote:
Personally i think the method is flawed,i don't agree with the percentage v population method,i think the only fair way of doing the survey would be to survey equal numbers from the different groups.
How interesting. ^_^; Perhaps you should forward your opinion to the mathematicians and statisticians who designed this type of polling method, to set them straight, because obviously they don't know as much about this kind of thing as you.
For the record, your suggestions are pointless. All that you would gain from sampling equal numbers of atheists and Christians is that the uncertainty in the atheist measure would be much smaller than the uncertainty in the Christian measure. What would be the point? In other words right now the results are something like 30% of Christians ± 5% and 40% of atheists ± 5% within your 95% confidence interval know X. Your suggested changes would make that 30% of Christians ± 5% and 40% of atheists ± 1% within your 95% confidence interval know X. Wonderful. How will that suddenly validate the survey that you now think is invalid?
Do you think it will change the numbers? It won't. The final result of your changes will still be between 35-45% you get from the original 40% of atheists ± 5% - maybe it will be 42 ± 1% or 39 ± 1%, but how does this narrowing of the value change your view of the results?
You're just grasping at straws to justify your irrational dismissal of this evidence.
As for Bikerman and i doing a similar survey with the same number in each group... what would that prove? Why would it matter that the two samples are the same size? Our survey set would all be self-selecting, too, so no matter what sample size ratio we get, the Pew survey results are far more meaningful. It was a properly conducted survey.
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
Those questions were not a good indicator at who is the most hated in society. They are just a good indicator of who isn't approved of.
Now that is splitting hairs down to the quark scale. ^_^;
So let's say that every single survey done shows that atheists are "the most disapproved" group in every single dimension that gets tested (which is probably close to true). Do you think it's likely that there's some other group that the population hates more than atheists... but are more approving of? Something stinks numerically. ^_^;
Let's assume that atheists are not the most hated minority - let's say, for instance, that only 20% of people hate atheists and 33% hate Muslims. When people get asked who they don't want their child to marry, let's assume that they don't answer based on hate. Let's assume they answer for other reasons, like some of the ones you've suggested. Let's take the hell case as an example.
Does it make any sense that people are only worried about atheists converting their children to hell? If you were a Christian (for example), and you were seriously concerned about your child being "converted away" from your religion, shouldn't you be more concerned about Islam, Buddhism or Scientology than atheism... or at least equally concerned? There is no reason that atheists should be only, or even the most, concern, with regards to their children's souls. So if this was really a factor, it should be applied equally among several groups, and not favouring atheism. That means there must be yet another reason.
The dilemma is this: if the big spike in antipathy toward atheism is not caused by hate, it must be caused by something else that ONLY applies to atheism. That's the only way atheists could have that massive fifteen point lead. But there is no reasonable argument specifically against an atheist son- or daughter- in law (as opposed to, for example, a college dropout son- or daughter-in-law). Certainly there is nothing so compelling that it can count for a fifteen point lead.
The only reasonable conclusion: hatred.
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
However, you should see the way other minorities are actually treated. Hispanics and homosexuals are probably treated the worst right now... I see people with bumper stickers or picketing at street corners or running their mouths on the television about all of these "illegals" and Hispanics need to get the hell out of the country. Some of the things said about them are terrible. People may disapprove of my atheism but they aren't trying to kick me out of the country - which is what they are literally trying to do to Hispanics right now...
People do the same with homosexuals - especially teenagers. If you're in high school and you out yourself that you're gay when you're in high school then you can count on getting beaten up and/or picked on nonstop until the day you're out of high school... There was actually a news story about a week ago where someone committed suicide because people found out that he was gay and he was constantly tortured for it. You know how many atheists (and I knew plenty) got beat up and picked on when I was in high school for their atheism? None. How many atheists had to commit suicide for it? None.
After 9/11, people of Middle Eastern descent were getting beat up for it... I'm in my early 20's so I was still a kid when that happened and was in school... So I can tell you from witnessing it that it happened... How many atheists got beaten up for being atheists? None that I know of...
So I am not saying that atheists aren't disapproved of or even hated... I'm not saying that they're never victims of violence (and we're talking about hated minorities right now... or maybe within the past few years... not many years ago... ) but it is not as bad as other minorities. You can't just look at who people say they disapprove of. People would look at the list, see atheist, and then think, "I don't want my daughter to go to Hell!" and then instantly choose it... They may disapprove of us but they don't really hate us all that much... All they're going to do is try to preach to us. They won't (in general; I'm sure it happens but not too often) beat us up, tell us to leave the country, or pick on us... You shouldn't just look at who polls the worst... You need to actually look at how people are treated.
But there's an obvious reason for that. It's a lot easier to "spot" an illegal immigrant or a homosexual than it is to spot an atheist. In the case of illegals, it's usually racial profiling, but that doesn't matter. There is nothing atheists do, and nothing about the way they look, that makes them easy to pick out of a crowd, and those few things that might identify an atheist - like an IPU or Out! logo, or the Darwin fish - the public awareness of these symbols just isn't wide-spread enough.
Bikerman wrote:
My own impression is that homophobia is not nearly such a problem in schools as it was even a few years ago.
Ooo, sorry Bikerman, but the reality on the ground floor is that homosexuals are suffering. It's not the same kind of suffering as it used to be - physical violence is not the norm anymore, for any group. Nowadays the bullying mostly takes the form of ostracizing, social condemnation and "cyberbullying"... and homosexuals are getting it in spades. (Atheists are, too, but there're a harder target to spot, and when they are bullied it gets far less press, so i honestly can't say how often it happens to atheists. Atheists are also a lot smarter than the average bear, so when the bullying takes the form of more intellectual and social "violence", atheists are a dangerous target to pick on. Case in point, PZ Myers (Pharyngula) recently turned his evolutionary biology students loose on the net, and told the Pharyngula readers to have at them to test their mettle. Some people went too far, and PZ started making pleas for people to go easier on his students. He also went into the class with the intention of telling the students not to let the harassment get to them. And guess what... his class laughed at him. Turned out, they had actually written on the board the name, home address, employment history and phone number of one of the worst offenders... and were actually in the process of discussing what to do about the guy when PZ walked in. This is the 21st century. Bullying isn't what it used to be, and very rarely takes the form of actual physical violence, since the tolerance for any physical violence in school is so low these days. Nowadays, it's a more intellectual process... and atheists, though they may be one of the most hated groups... are also the sleeping tiger in the room when it comes to intellectual prowess.)
For example, just recently a kid named Tyler Clementi committed suicide after a couple of other students net-streamed a video of his sexual encounter with another male. You may also know of Dan Savage (to me, he will always be a hero among heroes for coining the word "[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santorum_(sexual_neologism)]santorum[/url]") - Savage started the It Gets Better project (ironically, just a week or two before the Clementi suicide) to counsel gay kids that are being victimized in school, because the statistics were alarming. The campaign features gay adults (most notably celebrities, of course) promising the kids that... "it gets better".
Bikerman
Hmm...I was ignorant of this. I must be using the rose-tinted beer glasses. Its an example of faulty generalisation - I know, and know of a few young gay people and they are all doing OK so I extrapolated,....always a bad idea when dealing with such small samples
Afaceinthematrix
Quote:
Any stats on that? My own impression is that homophobia is not nearly such a problem in schools as it was even a few years ago.
The bully goes after the one who is different enough and isolated enough to be a target. An immigrant who is popular is unlikely to be a target, just as a gay pupil with lots of friends is also not so vulnerable. Maybe it is different here but at the last school I taught at, one of the most popular lads in the school was pretty overtly gay (by which I mean he was quite effeminate and quite open about his sexuality - not that he was inappropriately demonstrating )
If you have an unpopular atheist then I guarantee the bully will go for him.
Well I am sorry to say that your impression is wrong. I really am sorry to say that because I would like to say that homosexuals are treated decently but they just aren't. I don't see any problems at the university level (but they do exist; reference my article below) where people are generally more mature and liberal, but there were huge problems back in high school with kids who were gay. They were physical abused and mentally raped. I have relatively recent knowledge on the situation because I was in high school until I was 18 and have now been out 3 years. And here, kids aren't bullied for being unpopular. People just ignore the unpopular kids and go after the kids who are openly different (like being gay or something).
Several possibilities. Two obvious ones would be
i. You may live in an area where it is not such an issue
ii. You may be popular enough for this 'defect' to be overlooked
The survey says that very many Americans would prefer the homosexual or the immigrant to be the one dating their daughter, whether that is true where you are or not.
Well I certainly wasn't popular in high school. I had about 10 friends so I wasn't a loner. The reason why I wouldn't get picked on was because I was quite violent back then (although definitely not now) and if you said something to me I would beat the shit out of you. But in my defense I was a super nice person. I would only beat you up if you came to me looking for a fight. I never started anything and I always tried to be nice with everyone. But I had an explosive temper with a short fuse.
And homosexuality wasn't on the list for dating... Americans tend to not accept or like to talk about gay marriage (what the poll was about) - which is part of my point.
Quote:
But you don't know, unless you have travelled extremely widely - you live in a BIG country. The thing about the statistics is that atheists are the one group towards whom views have NOT liberalised. Attitudes to homosexuals and immigrants show a marked change over the decades, but not so attitudes to atheists.
As I said earlier you can't measure distrust and hatred simply by violence. Violence is an exercise of power over the weaker and you will often find that the bully has no real reason for antipathy towards the victim at all.
Violence is a good measure of hatred. Many hate crimes include violence... And I have traveled a decent amount in the U.S. including the "Bible belt" which is where some of my family is and the church that my grandfather preaches at...
Quote:
But there's an obvious reason for that. It's a lot easier to "spot" an illegal immigrant or a homosexual than it is to spot an atheist. In the case of illegals, it's usually racial profiling, but that doesn't matter. There is nothing atheists do, and nothing about the way they look, that makes them easy to pick out of a crowd, and those few things that might identify an atheist - like an IPU or Out! logo, or the Darwin fish - the public awareness of these symbols just isn't wide-spread enough.
But that doesn't quite work because it is quite easy to spot an atheist when they have absolutely no problem bringing it up. Like I said, anyone who has known me for more than a month will find out because eventually it will come up. And I get the similar reactions each and every time. "You don't believe in God??? How do you think this all came to be? Who do you think created us? You really should go to church! You don't want to end up in Hell!........(five minutes later).... Let's go get some beers."
I have never ever been mistreated for being an atheist. Nor have I ever even witnessed someone being mistreated. People just try to preach to you. Again, I am not saying people don't get mistreated ever. I have seen the Youtube documentaries. I am just saying that homosexuals get treated worse and people try passing laws banning their lifestyles. Atheists rarely get abused and we aren't passing laws banning them from being an atheist like with homosexuals. And with illegals, we have people actively trying to get them kicked out of the country which isn't happening with atheists. People just tend to preach to us and that's the end of it... If those 40% of people or so truly hated us then I would have very few friends...
And to answer the first part of your post, it seems like it would make sense to worry about Muslims and such as much as atheists but it doesn't work out that way in reality because people are less worried about a Muslim converting a Christian than an atheist converting a Christian because Islam has a god and so they figure it will end up being a "I have my god you have yours" situation whereas an atheist will spread those "evolution lies." It seems silly and it is... But I have seen it enough...
Indi, when I read through your posting, I can't help getting confused again.
Well, try going through the words one at a time, in the order i've written them, using their dictionary definitions and the basic rules of English grammar, in order to determine what i may have meant by them... rather than just picking a few key words out and matching them to what you assume i should be saying.
Does not always work Indi. One day you are comparing atheists with theists. The other day it is just a simple matter of not believing in God. Yet your rants speak for themselves. In no uncertain words.
Indi wrote:
Try this as an exercise. Try to list everything that "non-redheads" have in common - everything that they share. Try to define them using positive terms; defining them by what they are, rather than by what they're not. Try completing this sentence with a meaningful fact, without using the word "not": "One thing that all non-redheads have in common is that they _____________".
No thanks! I don't see how that has anything to do with the difference between atheists and theists. I stand by my point. What we have to do with here are anti-theists, not atheists.
Indi wrote:
First, they are not "supposed to stand outside all religion and belief systems". They are not "supposed" to do anything except not believe in gods.
OK get it. But still, if they don't believe in God, why are they so preoccupied with theism "as a threat to mankind"? I sense a lot of anger at times as well. As though atheists have deep seated scores to settle with one or the other branch of theism.
Indi wrote:
Second, anytime you talk about a trait of theists, you naturally have to talk about athiests, too. You can't avoid it. Why? Because they're the "other" - they're the set of everything that's not theist.
And vice and versa of course as well? No atheism without theism?
Indi wrote:
deanhills wrote:
And when there is a need for comparison, does atheism really stand outside all religion and belief systems?
No, and i can't imagine why you keep saying it does. You made that requirement up, so you explain it.
It is obvious through your writing Indi that you have a deep seated contempt for religion, and that you think it is limiting mankind. For me that is anti-theism. If an atheist according to your definition does not believe in God, he would not be so bothered by anything to do with God, i.e. theism etc. He would smile philosophically, accept that mankind has its quirks, and get on with his life. When he is interested in religion, he would accept it as part of general mankind, some of it is good, some of it not so good, and not be so overly focussed and preoccupied with the "not so good" parts.
Indi wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Does it not create itself into the same class as religion, along anti-religion lines?
Even if it were true that atheism had anything to do with standing outside religion - or just wanting to - no. Does wanting to have nothing to do with rapists put you in the same class of people as rapists: criminals? Is an anti-rapist a criminal just like a rapist, because they want to stand apart from rapists?
So are theists then the equivalent of rapists? Or is that something that I need to look up in a dictionary as well?
Indi wrote:
deanhills wrote:
If one reads your posting, that is exactly the impression I get. "Us" (Atheists") versus "them" (theists).
Yeah, well, that's not really surprising when that's the preconception you brought to the post before you even started to read it. Bigotry does that, you know.
No you are wrong Indi. My interest in this discussion started at the exact point where the atheists in this discussion wanted to make this poll as good evidence of how intelligent atheists are vs theists. Instead of pointing out that in this poll, those who were randomly selected in the atheist group answered the questions that were selected with more perfect scores than the theist group. Could be if the questions were different ones, or different people had been selected in the groups, that the theists could have done better. For me it is definitely not evidence that atheists are more intelligent than theists.
Indi wrote:
No, all my posting says is that atheists are not theists, and they are different from them. It says nothing even remotely resembling "atheists are against theists" or even that they don't like them. Hell, it's entirely possible to read my post believing that atheists want to be theists - nothing i wrote contradicts that.
Right Indi, when you intellectualize about what an atheist is, then it sounds like the real thing. But when you rant about anything that in your estimation needs to be rooted out in no uncertain terms, then that sounds like "anti" to me, not "a".
Afaceinthematrix
Indi wrote:
You have to keep the comparisons fair, though. Certainly there are ****** atheists along with the nice ones... but think in terms of the scale.
The ****** who talk rudely and sneer are the worst of the atheists.
I am sorry that I am responding to an old post in this topic, but I just now read this and noticed it. I disagree. Those are not the worst of the atheists. We actually did cover this in this very topic in the first page (although in all fairness, you were not part of that section of the discussion; although you should do your research before posting).
There are some atheists, like Varg Vikernes who takes his atheism to a larger degree. I suppose you can argue that it isn't exactly his atheism that caused him to burn churches rather than a hatred towards Christianity, but in all fairness I do believe that this would be a valid example of aggressive atheism. It is especially aggressive considering he has followers:
Wiki wrote:
* Novak Majstorovic, then 19-year-old guitarist of the metal band Schwarzreich, was charged with arson and burglary in relation to the torching of a 100+-year-old United Church in Ascot Vale, Australia in August 2004. He was convicted and sentenced to three years in Youth Detention. In all media depictions of the event he is said to have been heavily influenced by Burzum. However, he has stated on several message boards across the internet that the influence does not stretch beyond the superficial, and that the media has overblown his statements to the police to suit their own ends. He claims that the arson had very little in common with Vikernes' attacks. Majstorovic was released in August 2006.[58]
* Kalle Holm, an 18-year-old Finn known to have played drums in several Finnish metal bands, has said on his website that he was influenced by Burzum. He set fire to the Porvoo Cathedral in Finland in May 2006: the roof of the church burned, but the ceiling, vaults and interiors survived undamaged. The attorney's claims that the motives behind the arson were related to a "hatred towards Christianity" were overruled in court. He was sentenced to three years and two months of imprisonment without parole.[59] The sentence was later doubled to six years and six months by the Court of Appeal.[60]
* The Winnipeg Sun reported that three people were convicted on 27 June 2006 of arson in a fire that destroyed the Minnedosa United Church in Minnedosa, Manitoba, Canada on 12 February 2006. One was sentenced to three years in prison, the second to two years and the third to two years less a day. All three were ordered to pay CAD $1.2 million in restitution. Justice officials said the church was set on fire on Vikernes' birthday (11 February).[61]
We talked about him after I posted a Youtube video (it's the first one out of two I posted) that talked about this. Although, if you do watch the video, it does contain one factual error (that is sort of irrelevant but I will post it anyways because it is a factual error). Varg was only sentenced to serve 21 years (not life) in prison. He was also released last year after only 16 years in prison...
So would this be a case of the worst being worse than a sneering prick?
Bikerman
Since the group 'athests' includes several hundred millions of people then it would be astonishing if it did not include some of the worst of humanity. Ani-christian cannot be said to be atheism, as you admit, so I don't understand why you then go on to say it is an example of aggressive atheism. It is an example of anti-christianism if anything.
When talking about 'the worst of...' it is obviously a generalisation meant to specify 'types' of atheist that people might be familiar with. I don't think that picking 'ourliers' like the ones above are really in that category, just as picking a particular nutcase as an example of theism wouldn't be.
Bikerman
deanhills wrote:
Indi wrote:
deanhills wrote:
And when there is a need for comparison, does atheism really stand outside all religion and belief systems?
No, and i can't imagine why you keep saying it does. You made that requirement up, so you explain it.
It is obvious through your writing Indi that you have a deep seated contempt for religion, and that you think it is limiting mankind. For me that is anti-theism. If an atheist according to your definition does not believe in God, he would not be so bothered by anything to do with God, i.e. theism etc. He would smile philosophically, accept that mankind has its quirks, and get on with his life. When he is interested in religion, he would accept it as part of general mankind, some of it is good, some of it not so good, and not be so overly focussed and preoccupied with the "not so good" parts.
Oh so this is the DeadHills prescription for atheism is it? Well, if you believe atheists should be simpering fools then I guess it is understandable...
What religious people do affects everyone, whether atheist or not. Atheists have a vested interest in keeping an eye on theism. The fact that you cannot understand this is your problem, not a problem for atheists.
Quote:
So are theists then the equivalent of rapists? Or is that something that I need to look up in a dictionary as well?
You could try looking up the work 'simile' and reduce your ignorance that way.
Quote:
My interest in this discussion started at the exact point where the atheists in this discussion wanted to make this poll as good evidence of how intelligent atheists are vs theists. Instead of pointing out that in this poll, those who were randomly selected in the atheist group answered the questions that were selected with more perfect scores than the theist group. Could be if the questions were different ones, or different people had been selected in the groups, that the theists could have done better. For me it is definitely not evidence that atheists are more intelligent than theists.
Since the group 'athests' includes several hundred millions of people then it would be astonishing if it did not include some of the worst of humanity. Ani-christian cannot be said to be atheism, as you admit, so I don't understand why you then go on to say it is an example of aggressive atheism. It is an example of anti-christianism if anything.
When talking about 'the worst of...' it is obviously a generalisation meant to specify 'types' of atheist that people might be familiar with. I don't think that picking 'ourliers' like the ones above are really in that category, just as picking a particular nutcase as an example of theism wouldn't be.
I only did it because Indi did say the worst of. I wouldn't have brought it up if Indi had said, "The norm of" or "a typical aggressive atheist" etc. If somebody wants to bring up with the worst of I will do just that, bring up the worst of. If Indi had said something like, "Typically, extreme atheism gets as worse as scoffing" then I would have agreed because my example is out of the norm. But Indi just said, "the worst of" and so I brought up what truly is some of the worst.
And, yes, this could be seen as anti-Christian versus aggressive atheism. However, it is fueled by aggressive atheism. I pride myself on knowing an extensive amount of stuff about the Norwegian black metal scene and many of those musicians truly see all theism as something to be terrible with and something that they need to attack. Anti-theism and atheism is the basis of black metal. Most of the time it turns out to be an opposition to Christianity simply because black metal is the biggest in Norway and is somewhat big in the United States. Both countries have Christianity as the dominant religion. Count Grishnackh (Varg Vikernes) calls theism "mental enslavement." Since Christianity is popular in Norway, it often gets attacked (and because it is easy). That's why I said it can be seen as anti-Christian but it is fueled by atheism at the roots.
So these black metal musicians are atheists (for the most part). They are highly opposed to all theistic religions. Christianity is big in the places where black metal exists. Therefore, they'll have something to say about Christianity. They'll make their statement. And their statement is extreme. And this isn't just a case of a single nutcase; this is an entire movement that mostly took place in the 90's (although black metal is still relatively big today; Dimmu Borgir and Enslaved - two Norwegian black metal bands - are coming to my town next month and I am seeing them (because they aren't responsible for any extreme church burning actions or murders... if they were a band like, Mayhem, for instance, I would probably not see them on principle)).
Edit: Oh, and let me add one more thing:
Quote:
Compare them to the worst of the theists. You know, the ones who, when they're not actively murdering atheists just for being atheists and nothing else (Appoo or Shelton), are saying that atheists don't deserve to be considered fully human (too many to name), and that they don't deserve the same rights or freedoms as theists (or that they should just be locked up or killed).
Indi is also choosing a case that's out of the norm. That's also an extreme case where a few nutcases are chosen... So it's okay for Indi to pick out an extreme situation out of the norm but not for me to pick one out? A theist saying that atheists do not deserve the same rights (Bush said that) is aggressive theism and is not out of the norm for aggressive theism but murder is. All I did was look at someone saying, "For extreme theism I will pick out something out of the norm (murder) and then use scoffing as an example of the worst of atheists" and then I said, "But wait, here's an example of atheists doing something similar."
Indi
deanhills wrote:
Indi wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Indi, when I read through your posting, I can't help getting confused again.
Well, try going through the words one at a time, in the order i've written them, using their dictionary definitions and the basic rules of English grammar, in order to determine what i may have meant by them... rather than just picking a few key words out and matching them to what you assume i should be saying.
Does not always work Indi. One day you are comparing atheists with theists. The other day it is just a simple matter of not believing in God. Yet your rants speak for themselves. In no uncertain words.
"One day and the next day"? It's the same day. Atheism is a simple matter of not believing in gods, and that's what makes it different from theism: look, right there, the definition and a comparison.
If stating the bloody obvious is a rant, then... rant complete. ^_^;
deanhills wrote:
Indi wrote:
Try this as an exercise. Try to list everything that "non-redheads" have in common - everything that they share. Try to define them using positive terms; defining them by what they are, rather than by what they're not. Try completing this sentence with a meaningful fact, without using the word "not": "One thing that all non-redheads have in common is that they _____________".
No thanks! I don't see how that has anything to do with the difference between atheists and theists. I stand by my point. What we have to do with here are anti-theists, not atheists.
That is why you remain ignorant: you refuse to even try to see.
If atheists are not theists... which they are by definition... that makes them a different group, which opens up the the possibility of comparison. The fact that they are the logical negation of theists means that anytime you say anything about either group, you say something about the other. If theists are T and atheists are ¬T, then any information you have about T, you have about ¬T. It's basic logic. None of that has anything to do with anti-theism, except in your personal, bigoted opinion (bigoted because, by your own admission, not only do you not understand, you refuse to even try).
deanhills wrote:
Indi wrote:
First, they are not "supposed to stand outside all religion and belief systems". They are not "supposed" to do anything except not believe in gods.
OK get it. But still, if they don't believe in God, why are they so preoccupied with theism "as a threat to mankind"?
They're not. Again, that's your bigotry at work. You have the definition, you've had it explained (repeatedly), and it doesn't include that.
deanhills wrote:
I sense a lot of anger at times as well. As though atheists have deep seated scores to settle with one or the other branch of theism.
If you're talking about the small subset of atheists that speak out... which, i would be surprised if you were, because if you were, that would mean you were trying to judge all atheists by just the outspoken ones, and that would be as ignorant as judging all Muslims by the guys that scream "Death to America", and you wouldn't be that ignorant, would you?... they are angry, because various theist groups are trying to take away their freedoms. Seems to me that because of that they should be angry.
deanhills wrote:
Indi wrote:
Second, anytime you talk about a trait of theists, you naturally have to talk about athiests, too. You can't avoid it. Why? Because they're the "other" - they're the set of everything that's not theist.
And vice and versa of course as well? No atheism without theism?
First of all, what i said was that you couldn't talk about theists without also talking about atheists. i said nothing about that there would be no theism without atheism. Again i have to tell you: try reading the words that i wrote, in the order their written, using the dictionary definitions, and stop using your own interpretations then twisting my words to make them support it (or simply inventing quotes out of whole cloth).
But, for the record, yes. There can be no theism without atheism or vice versa, because one is the logical complement of the other. Of course, if no one had ever heard of the concept of a god, there would be no theists or theism, and everyone would be "atheist", but the word wouldn't have any functional meaning. But that's also something that's been explained to you before. Repeatedly.
deanhills wrote:
It is obvious through your writing Indi that you have a deep seated contempt for religion, and that you think it is limiting mankind. For me that is anti-theism. If an atheist according to your definition does not believe in God, he would not be so bothered by anything to do with God, i.e. theism etc. He would smile philosophically, accept that mankind has its quirks, and get on with his life. When he is interested in religion, he would accept it as part of general mankind, some of it is good, some of it not so good, and not be so overly focussed and preoccupied with the "not so good" parts.
No, i don't have a "deep seated contempt for religion", so it's only obvious in your head. What i do have - and this should be obvious, because i say it all the time - is a deep-seated contempt for anyone who tries to take away other people's fundamental rights and freedoms. Religion has made itself the enemy of anyone who shares that with me, and if you weren't trying so hard to be stupid, you would admit that. You know that many groups are trying to take away the rights and freedoms of people for religious reasons. They have to be stopped, and the best way to fight them is to destroy their justification for taking away people's rights and freedoms... that is, destroy the power of their religion.
Your hypothetical atheist is a fantasy that cannot exist in the real world, but not because of the atheist - because of religion. How can the atheist just "smile and accept the quirks of mankind" when some of those quirks include young girls being forced into marriage and having their genitals mutilated, or when children are being raped systematically and the rapists being allowed to get away with it? If that's what you want them to do - to just "ignore the not so good parts" - then you are as bad as the people cutting the girls or sheltering the pederasts. How is an atheist supposed to "get on with his life" when the life he wants to get on with involves them marrying their gay lover, or even shopping on a freaking Sunday? The problem is religion, not the atheist who just wants to live free, and what you want is for us to just excuse and ignore the horrible things religion is doing - the "not so good parts". Sorry, not gonna happen.
Frankly, i'm thoroughly disgusted that you can look at the rape of children and the subjugation and humiliation of women and just say that's "not so good", and that we should just smile and ignore it. It's that kind of thing that makes me challenge religious morality. Anytime you care more about protecting an institution or a belief system than preventing children from being raped and exploited, you are morally vile.
deanhills wrote:
Indi wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Does it not create itself into the same class as religion, along anti-religion lines?
Even if it were true that atheism had anything to do with standing outside religion - or just wanting to - no. Does wanting to have nothing to do with rapists put you in the same class of people as rapists: criminals? Is an anti-rapist a criminal just like a rapist, because they want to stand apart from rapists?
So are theists then the equivalent of rapists? Or is that something that I need to look up in a dictionary as well?
i really don't think a dictionary is going to help you at this point.
deanhills wrote:
Indi wrote:
deanhills wrote:
If one reads your posting, that is exactly the impression I get. "Us" (Atheists") versus "them" (theists).
Yeah, well, that's not really surprising when that's the preconception you brought to the post before you even started to read it. Bigotry does that, you know.
No you are wrong Indi. My interest in this discussion started at the exact point where the atheists in this discussion wanted to make this poll as good evidence of how intelligent atheists are vs theists. Instead of pointing out that in this poll, those who were randomly selected in the atheist group answered the questions that were selected with more perfect scores than the theist group. Could be if the questions were different ones, or different people had been selected in the groups, that the theists could have done better. For me it is definitely not evidence that atheists are more intelligent than theists.
Could it have been? Sure, assuming a 95% confidence interval, it's 5% possible. ^_^; Is it really that big a deal? Good grief, man, if someone came along with a poll that said Canadians were less intelligent than any other group in the world, i would be a little embarrassed for my group, but i wouldn't freak out like you people are, ranting and raving about conspiracies and hatred, or implying the people who took the poll were just incompetent (unless there was real evidence that any of those things were true, of course). i would take comfort in the fact that i'm above the average (or, if i wasn't, i would work harder to become above the average). At the most what i would do is try to spread the conception that Canadians are actually smart by being a good example. Whatever i do, it would not involve freaking out, stamping my foot down and whining about how i simply refuse to accept the evidence.
deanhills wrote:
Indi wrote:
No, all my posting says is that atheists are not theists, and they are different from them. It says nothing even remotely resembling "atheists are against theists" or even that they don't like them. Hell, it's entirely possible to read my post believing that atheists want to be theists - nothing i wrote contradicts that.
Right Indi, when you intellectualize about what an atheist is, then it sounds like the real thing. But when you rant about anything that in your estimation needs to be rooted out in no uncertain terms, then that sounds like "anti" to me, not "a".
Again, i do hope you're not being so ignorant as to judge all atheists just on one example: me. And to make matters worse, as i've shown, the "interpretations" you're seeing just aren't in my words... you're putting them there. So basically, are you judging all atheists based on the interpretations you are putting into the words of one?
Afaceinthematrix: You're right, i forgot about those cases, but the reason i forgot about them is because i don't consider property damage to be even in the neighbourhood of the severity of murder. But you're right, that would mean comparing the worst of the theists - those who murder or otherwise harm or take away the freedoms of actual people - to the worst of the atheists - those who burn buildings. To me, it's still no contest.
Afaceinthematrix
Indi wrote:
Afaceinthematrix: You're right, i forgot about those cases, but the reason i forgot about them is because i don't consider property damage to be even in the neighbourhood of the severity of murder. But you're right, that would mean comparing the worst of the theists - those who murder or otherwise harm or take away the freedoms of actual people - to the worst of the atheists - those who burn buildings. To me, it's still no contest.
I understand. And I certainly do hope that you do not think that I feel murder is even in the same league as property damage. I definitely do not think that! I don't think you think that I feel that way because your tone seems mellow.
The reason why I felt it was so important to bring that up was because I think it is very important to be neutral about any group that you're in (or even any group you're not in). It sort of annoys me when people purposely (although I know you didn't do it because you said you just forgot). But I often see people say something that puts their group in a better light. The most often that I see is military people talk about how they're altruistic and they joined just about of patriotism and to serve their country when, in reality (this is based off of most of the people I know who joined the military), they just desperately needed a job or they wanted to do a particular activity reserved the military (fly cool planes, throw grenades, shoot big guns, etc.).
So the fact of the matter is aggressive atheism does get worse than scoffing - if you're comparing the worst to the worst - and we may as well be honest about it. Although this whole situation is unfortunate. It sucks that we have to have murderers or arsonists.
truespeed
Going back to the survey,i won't quote anyone because i don't have time to read back the whole thread.
Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists,were surveyed according to the list above,the reason given for not including them individually was because they didn't have enough interviews to include them individually.
So earlier i said they were excluded,but i was wrong,there inclusion however is based on very little data as 0.6 % of the population for muslims for example would only add up to about 15 people,hardly worth it,so why not over sample to get a proper representative sample? After all,0.6% adds up to nearly 2 million Americans,so they are omitting a large group,the same is true of Hindus (0.4%) and Buddhists (0.6%)
Maybe to 212 like with the Atheists (4%) and the Jews (1,7%),as 212 seems to be according to pewforums quite an accurate number with which to create a representative sample with only a 8.5% margin for error.
I do think if these groups were properly represented then the overall score would of favoured the theists,now i have nothing to back this up,it is just my opinion.
Now onto the Atheists V Christians..
I am not the best with math,but overall Christian score (On Christianity) was 6.2 (out of 12) and a very similar score for the Atheists - 6.7 (out of 12) now allowing for an 8.5% margin for error,how does that work in terms of accuracy compared to the Christian,2,528 sampled margin for error 2.5?
Bikerman
Firstly the reason they didn't oversample the groups you mention is, as I think I have said 3 times, because they were not particularly interested in those particular groups.
Clearly you have to stop somewhere - there are thousands of potential divisions you can make for religion - from christian scientists to bahaism to zoroastrianism and so on. They were particularly interested in Christians and atheists so the surbey reflects that. They could not ignore the other religions since it was a random sample and you can't selectively ditch data, but they didn't oversample because they weren't trying to draw conculusions about that group in particular and it costs money.
Would this have affected the final results? I doubt it. The possible effect they could have made would be to increase the overall theist average. That is pretty unlikely. The questions were weighted to include more on Christianity so I find it hard to believe that Hindus would know more about Christianity than the Christians. The same would apply to Buddhists and Muslims.
What they could not have influenced is the Christian and Atheist scores.
2528 Christians out of about 200 million = confidence interval of 1.97% (=+/- 0.24)
212 atheists out of about 1.6 million = copnfidence interval of 6.7% (=+/- +/- 0.84)
So Christians 6.2+/- 0.24
Atheists 6.7 +/- 0.84
Without more data you cannot draw any particular conclusion that this. I would want the standard deviation at least before plotting it.
The only thing you can say without the SD is that the atheists mean score was 7.5% higher.
truespeed
Bikerman wrote:
Firstly the reason they didn't oversample the groups you mention is, as I think I have said 3 times, because they were not particularly interested in those particular groups.
Clearly you have to stop somewhere - there are thousands of potential divisions you can make for religion - from christian scientists to bahaism to zoroastrianism and so on. They were particularly interested in Christians and atheists so the surbey reflects that. They could not ignore the other religions since it was a random sample and you can't selectively ditch data, but they didn't oversample because they weren't trying to draw conculusions about that group in particular and it costs money.
If they were particularly interested in the results between Christians and Atheists,why not just survey those two groups,as you say the survey (12 questions of the 32 were about Christianity)
Having said that, 12 questions about a religion is hardly conclusive proof of knowledge of one group over another.
Bikerman wrote:
2528 Christians out of about 200 million = confidence interval of 1.97% (=+/- 0.24)
212 atheists out of about 1.6 million = copnfidence interval of 6.7% (=+/- +/- 0.84)
So Christians 6.2+/- 0.24
Atheists 6.7 +/- 0.84
So worse case scores favour the Christians?
Christians - 5.96
Atheists - 5.86
Bikerman
They couldn't just sample atheists and Christians....I've explained this twice now. It was a random sample, therefore they would get people of other religions anyway. If they got enough to be statisticaly significant they included them, if not they didn't.
The 'worst case' score doesn't favour the Christians because there is no such thing. If you mean that it is conceivable that the Christians actually scored more than the atheists - not really. It is statistically possible, but so are a lot of things we regard as impossible. The chances would be astronomical. I can't be bothered to look up the tables to calculate them - data doesn't group like that unless you fiddle it.
I would predict that the atheist data points would be more closely clustered (a lower standard deviation) than the Christian points (ie the Christians would have a wider range of scores, more spread out, than the atheists). but that is conjecture - based on the fact that I would expect the best Christian scores on Christianity to be better than the best atheist scores - which also indicates that the worst scores would be worse as well...
This would seem to tie in nicely with the intelligence results for the groups in question. I would expect intelligence to correlate to a knowledge of world relions more strongly than a knowledge of one in particular.People with higher IQs also tend to have wider and deeper general knowledge.
Helmuth Nyborg's 2008 study shows a significant difference in IQ between atheists and the religious - nearly 6 IQ points average difference between atheist and dogmatic believer - that is significant. The case is greatly stengthened by the fact that when he did a world survey (average IQ of nation plotted against average religiousity of the nation) then the same 6% figure emerged....since then other studies have thrown up the same sort of figure - around 5-6 points IQ difference.
http://bikerman.co.uk/IQ&religion.html http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100224132655.htm http://www.atheistnexus.org/profiles/blogs/the-strong-correlation-between
12 questions on Christianity seems like a reasonable number to me - they were answering on other religions as well. The simple fact is that the atheists trounced the Christians on general religion knowledge and beat them by around 7-8% on Christianity...
I don't actually find that result surprising at all. I contribute to several science forums where there are a lot of atheists, and it is obvious that the atheist posters know more, in many cases much more, than the religious posters about religion in general and a decent amount about Christianity in particular. You also see it on these boards. How many Christians have started threads in this forum that are just wrong - often on many levels - about Christianity itself? And I mean factually demonstrably wrong, not a matter of opinion.....
I tell you that it is quite a high number...
The couldn't just sample atheists and Christians....I've explained this twice now. It was a random sample, therefore they would get people of other religions anyway. If they got enough to be statisticaly significant they included them, if not they didn't.
They could of just surveyed Christians and Atheists,they chose to make it an all religion survey,i get your (And their) reasons for saying why they left out those 3 major world religions,but it doesn't explain why they went out of their way to include and over sample the Jewish (Only 56 interviewed as part of the national sample, 156 through over sampling) and Mormons. (54 interviewed as part of the national sample and 161 as part of the oversampling)
They could of like with the other three groups,just left in the overall data but left out their individual results.
Bikerman wrote:
The 'worst case' score doesn't favour the Christians because there is no such thing. If you mean that it is conceivable that the Christians actually scored more than the atheists - not really. It is statistically possible, but so are a lot of things we regard as impossible. The chances would be astronomical. I can't be bothered to look up the tables to calculate them - data doesn't group like that unless you fiddle it.
I would predict that the atheist data points would be more closely clustered (a lower standard deviation) than the Christian points (ie the Christians would have a wider range of scores, more spread out, than the atheists). but that is conjecture - based on the fact that I would expect the best Christian scores on Christianity to be better than the best atheist scores - which also indicates that the worst scores would be worse as well...
I will have to take your word for it on the math, as i say its not my strongest subject.
Bikerman wrote:
12 questions on Christianity seems like a reasonable number to me - they were answering on other religions as well. The simple fact is that the atheists trounced the Christians on general religion knowledge and beat them by around 7-8% on Christianity...
See i struggle with that,12 questions on any subject seems a very small amount to me to compare knowledge,but for one group to then claim greater knowledge of the subject based on those 12 questions when the actual score percentages are so close seems a little bit of a hollow victory to me.
Bikerman wrote:
I don't actually find that result surprising at all. I contribute to several science forums where there are a lot of atheists, and it is obvious that the atheist posters know more, in many cases much more, than the religious posters about religion in general and a decent amount about Christianity in particular. You also see it on these boards. How many Christians have started threads in this forum that are just wrong - often on many levels - about Christianity itself? And I mean factually demonstrably wrong, not a matter of opinion.....
I tell you that it is quite a high number...
I think those Atheists who go onto forums and debate Theists do so in the knowledge that they know their subject,they make a point of knowing more than the Theists,i think the majority of Atheists couldn't care less and lack the knowledge accordingly.
The couldn't just sample atheists and Christians....I've explained this twice now. It was a random sample, therefore they would get people of other religions anyway. If they got enough to be statisticaly significant they included them, if not they didn't.
They could of just surveyed Christians and Atheists,they chose to make it an all religion survey,i get your (And their) reasons for saying why they left out those 3 major world religions,but it doesn't explain why they went out of their way to include and over sample the Jewish (Only 56 interviewed as part of the national sample, 156 through over sampling) and Mormons. (54 interviewed as part of the national sample and 161 as part of the oversampling)
They could of like with the other three groups,just left in the overall data but left out their individual results.
Yes they could. They must have wanted to look at those groups as well - I don't have the original research submission so i don't know..
Quote:
See i struggle with that,12 questions on any subject seems a very small amount to me to compare knowledge,but for one group to then claim greater knowledge of the subject based on those 12 questions when the actual score percentages are so close seems a little bit of a hollow victory to me.
A win is a win - if it is statistically significant (which this is) then it is evidence. Until more evidence comes along then this is the best we have.
Quote:
I think those Atheists who go onto forums and debate Theists do so in the knowledge that they know their subject,they make a point of knowing more than the Theists,i think the majority of Atheists couldn't care less and lack the knowledge accordingly.
But the atheists I'm talking about Don't debate theists - I'm talking about science forums where there is no discussion of religion allowed.
Quote:
Quote:
Quiz is not enabled
Quiz doesn't work?
Odd - try going to the site first - www.arise-blog.org
the click the top right menu to start the quiz...that should work..
truespeed
Bikerman wrote:
Odd - try going to the site first - www.arise-blog.org
the click the top right menu to start the quiz...that should work..
Still not working,i have tried it in 2 different browsers. (Chrome and Firefox)
Indi
truespeed wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
2528 Christians out of about 200 million = confidence interval of 1.97% (=+/- 0.24)
212 atheists out of about 1.6 million = copnfidence interval of 6.7% (=+/- +/- 0.84)
So Christians 6.2+/- 0.24
Atheists 6.7 +/- 0.84
So worse case scores favour the Christians?
Christians - 5.96
Atheists - 5.86
^_^; i just have to quote this for the mathematical chuckle.
Bikerman
truespeed wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
Odd - try going to the site first - www.arise-blog.org
the click the top right menu to start the quiz...that should work..
Still not working,i have tried it in 2 different browsers. (Chrome and Firefox)
Very strange - works fine on mine....I'll have to check it out later. Did it ask you for name and religion?
truespeed
Bikerman wrote:
truespeed wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
Odd - try going to the site first - www.arise-blog.org
the click the top right menu to start the quiz...that should work..
Still not working,i have tried it in 2 different browsers. (Chrome and Firefox)
Very strange - works fine on mine....I'll have to check it out later. Did it ask you for name and religion?
Yes i got the details page... name,addy and religion,when i click next i get "Quiz is not enabled"
Bikerman
Hmm...strange. Does the crossword work?
truespeed
The crossword loads,i have just tried the quiz again and its still coming up with not enabled.
deanhills
Indi wrote:
None of that has anything to do with anti-theism, except in your personal, bigoted opinion (bigoted because, by your own admission, not only do you not understand, you refuse to even try).
I understand perfectly Indi. But perhaps bigotry is in the eye of the beholder? Bigotry being defined in Wikipedia as:
Quote:
a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, irrationality, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs.
With the exclusion of irrationality.
Indi wrote:
They're not. Again, that's your bigotry at work. You have the definition, you've had it explained (repeatedly), and it doesn't include that.
OK let's change the definition, an atheist is someone who does not believe in God. But you still have not answered my question. If an atheist does not believe in God, why so preoccupied with those who do? And why call those who are theists bigots? Ah! Just got an idea. If theists are bigots, then atheists are abigots? Just the opposite side of the same thing, except they THINK they are smarter?
Indi wrote:
If you're talking about the small subset of atheists that speak out... which, i would be surprised if you were, because if you were, that would mean you were trying to judge all atheists by just the outspoken ones
.... look who is judging now? My atheist friends are completely different from the ones I got to know in this Forum. I hardly know they are atheists as they are not bothered by religion at all. Which goes to show that not all theists are alike, not all atheists are alike either. And thank goodness for that!
Indi wrote:
and that would be as ignorant as judging all Muslims by the guys that scream "Death to America", and you wouldn't be that ignorant, would you?... they are angry, because various theist groups are trying to take away their freedoms. Seems to me that because of that they should be angry.
I don't know who they are, and since you obviously do, that anger seems to be more familiar to you than it is to me. It sounds pretty destructive to me.
Indi wrote:
First of all, what i said was that you couldn't talk about theists without also talking about atheists. i said nothing about that there would be no theism without atheism. Again i have to tell you: try reading the words that i wrote, in the order their written, using the dictionary definitions, and stop using your own interpretations then twisting my words to make them support it (or simply inventing quotes out of whole cloth).
it is always complicated with you Indi. Reams and reams of words, and now you want me to line them up as well and work with a dictionary? Haven't you heard about genius in simplicity? Not complexity?
Indi wrote:
No, i don't have a "deep seated contempt for religion", so it's only obvious in your head. What i do have - and this should be obvious, because i say it all the time - is a deep-seated contempt for anyone who tries to take away other people's fundamental rights and freedoms. Religion has made itself the enemy of anyone who shares that with me, and if you weren't trying so hard to be stupid, you would admit that. You know that many groups are trying to take away the rights and freedoms of people for religious reasons. They have to be stopped, and the best way to fight them is to destroy their justification for taking away people's rights and freedoms... that is, destroy the power of their religion.
OK, now I have to line all of this up and use a dictionary?
Quote:
1. I don't have a deep seated contempt for religion
2. I have a deep seated contempt for anyone who tries to take away other people's fundamental rights and freedoms
3. Religion has made itself the enemy of anyone that shares that with me.
4. If you were not trying to be stupid you would admit that.
5. You know that many groups are trying to take away the rights and freedoms of people for religious reasons.
6. They have to be stopped - the best way is to destroy their justification for taking away people's rights and freedoms and that is to destroy the power of their religion
OK, you don't have contempt for religion, you just want to destroy the power of religion? So why were 2-5 necessary? So let me rewrite this for you:
I don't have contempt for religion, I just want to destroy the power of religion to take away the rights of freedom of people.
Indi wrote:
Your hypothetical atheist is a fantasy that cannot exist in the real world, but not because of the atheist - because of religion. How can the atheist just "smile and accept the quirks of mankind" when some of those quirks include young girls being forced into marriage and having their genitals mutilated, or when children are being raped systematically and the rapists being allowed to get away with it? If that's what you want them to do - to just "ignore the not so good parts" - then you are as bad as the people cutting the girls or sheltering the pederasts. How is an atheist supposed to "get on with his life" when the life he wants to get on with involves them marrying their gay lover, or even shopping on a freaking Sunday? The problem is religion, not the atheist who just wants to live free, and what you want is for us to just excuse and ignore the horrible things religion is doing - the "not so good parts". Sorry, not gonna happen.
I thought you had no contempt for religion? But here you have dedicated a number of sentences blaming all of the ugly things in the world on religion, instead of the human race, of which you are a part as well. Whether atheist or theist, we are all responsible for these atrocities. And pointing fingers at religion is most certainly NOT the answer and vice versa.
Indi wrote:
Frankly, i'm thoroughly disgusted that you can look at the rape of children and the subjugation and humiliation of women and just say that's "not so good", and that we should just smile and ignore it. It's that kind of thing that makes me challenge religious morality. Anytime you care more about protecting an institution or a belief system than preventing children from being raped and exploited, you are morally vile.
I think this is called trolling Indi. I won't dignify this accusation with a reply.
deanhills wrote:
Again, i do hope you're not being so ignorant as to judge all atheists just on one example: me. And to make matters worse, as i've shown, the "interpretations" you're seeing just aren't in my words... you're putting them there. So basically, are you judging all atheists based on the interpretations you are putting into the words of one?
Definitely not Indi. First of all, I don't have a preoccupation with atheists. I'm also not taking "Indi" personally.
Indi
deanhills wrote:
Indi wrote:
None of that has anything to do with anti-theism, except in your personal, bigoted opinion (bigoted because, by your own admission, not only do you not understand, you refuse to even try).
I understand perfectly Indi. But perhaps bigotry is in the eye of the beholder? Bigotry being defined in Wikipedia as:
Quote:
a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, irrationality, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs.
With the exclusion of irrationality.
With the exclusion of irrationality. ^_^; The "irrationality" is kinda the point, unless you would call a mathematician a bigot for being "obstinately devoted" to the belief that 2+2=4, and not tolerating the beliefs of people who say 2+2=7 or 2+2=fish, and calling said people idiots for believing that.
As i have told you countless times, if you can prove my beliefs wrong, then prove them wrong. If you do, i'll change them. But if i can prove yours wrong, don't expect me to tolerate it just because you're too stubborn to let it go.
deanhills wrote:
Indi wrote:
They're not. Again, that's your bigotry at work. You have the definition, you've had it explained (repeatedly), and it doesn't include that.
OK let's change the definition, an atheist is someone who does not believe in God. But you still have not answered my question. If an atheist does not believe in God, why so preoccupied with those who do? And why call those who are theists bigots? Ah! Just got an idea. If theists are bigots, then atheists are abigots? Just the opposite side of the same thing, except they THINK they are smarter?
"Atheists" don't call "theists" bigots. That is your persecution complex talking again. SOME atheists - myself included - call SOME theists bigots... but only if they are bigots, or at least acting like it. So there's your answer to one question: why do some atheists call some theists bigots?
Because they freaking are. What's so hard to understand about that?
As for the second question: why are SOME atheists so preoccupied with theism? i'm really getting tired of answering this. You ask it every time and i always give you the same answer. You know the answer.
deanhills wrote:
Indi wrote:
If you're talking about the small subset of atheists that speak out... which, i would be surprised if you were, because if you were, that would mean you were trying to judge all atheists by just the outspoken ones
.... look who is judging now? My atheist friends are completely different from the ones I got to know in this Forum. I hardly know they are atheists as they are not bothered by religion at all. Which goes to show that not all theists are alike, not all atheists are alike either. And thank goodness for that!
? Yeah... i actually didn't do any judging in that quote. Again... you should try reading what i wrote. i just stated the obvious: "If you judge all atheists by a small subset of them, then you are judging all atheists by a small subset of them." That's all. It's a blatantly obvious tautology - there's no judgement there except in your head.
deanhills wrote:
Indi wrote:
and that would be as ignorant as judging all Muslims by the guys that scream "Death to America", and you wouldn't be that ignorant, would you?... they are angry, because various theist groups are trying to take away their freedoms. Seems to me that because of that they should be angry.
I don't know who they are, and since you obviously do, that anger seems to be more familiar to you than it is to me. It sounds pretty destructive to me.
It is, and they are, for the most part, ignorant and evil. But they are not "all Muslims". They are a large number of them, and they are a group that we must take seriously and deal with, but they are not "all Muslims".
deanhills wrote:
Indi wrote:
First of all, what i said was that you couldn't talk about theists without also talking about atheists. i said nothing about that there would be no theism without atheism. Again i have to tell you: try reading the words that i wrote, in the order their written, using the dictionary definitions, and stop using your own interpretations then twisting my words to make them support it (or simply inventing quotes out of whole cloth).
it is always complicated with you Indi. Reams and reams of words, and now you want me to line them up as well and work with a dictionary? Haven't you heard about genius in simplicity? Not complexity?
If i were to put everything i've written in response to you in its most succinct and compact form, yet still keeping the spirit of the message intact, it would look something like this: "dean... stop being such a ****** idiot."
deanhills wrote:
Indi wrote:
No, i don't have a "deep seated contempt for religion", so it's only obvious in your head. What i do have - and this should be obvious, because i say it all the time - is a deep-seated contempt for anyone who tries to take away other people's fundamental rights and freedoms. Religion has made itself the enemy of anyone who shares that with me, and if you weren't trying so hard to be stupid, you would admit that. You know that many groups are trying to take away the rights and freedoms of people for religious reasons. They have to be stopped, and the best way to fight them is to destroy their justification for taking away people's rights and freedoms... that is, destroy the power of their religion.
OK, now I have to line all of this up and use a dictionary?
Only if you don't want to remain ignorant of its meaning.
deanhills wrote:
OK, you don't have contempt for religion, you just want to destroy the power of religion? So why were 2-5 necessary? So let me rewrite this for you:
I don't have contempt for religion, I just want to destroy the power of religion to take away the rights of freedom of people.
Because i've already said that to you dozens of times. Dozens and dozens of times. And so have others. But you don't get it. You refuse to get it. And, a few weeks from now, someone - me or someone else - is going to have to repeat it again. Because you won't get it. You don't want to get it.
deanhills wrote:
Indi wrote:
Your hypothetical atheist is a fantasy that cannot exist in the real world, but not because of the atheist - because of religion. How can the atheist just "smile and accept the quirks of mankind" when some of those quirks include young girls being forced into marriage and having their genitals mutilated, or when children are being raped systematically and the rapists being allowed to get away with it? If that's what you want them to do - to just "ignore the not so good parts" - then you are as bad as the people cutting the girls or sheltering the pederasts. How is an atheist supposed to "get on with his life" when the life he wants to get on with involves them marrying their gay lover, or even shopping on a freaking Sunday? The problem is religion, not the atheist who just wants to live free, and what you want is for us to just excuse and ignore the horrible things religion is doing - the "not so good parts". Sorry, not gonna happen.
I thought you had no contempt for religion? But here you have dedicated a number of sentences blaming all of the ugly things in the world on religion, instead of the human race, of which you are a part as well. Whether atheist or theist, we are all responsible for these atrocities. And pointing fingers at religion is most certainly NOT the answer and vice versa.
i did not blame "all of the ugly things in the world" on religion. Again, that's your persecution complex at work. Read the words i wrote. The evils which i have blamed religion of causing are evils caused by religion. Duh. The priests getting away with raping children are not getting away because they have secular immunity, they're getting away because of the special treatment religion and religious people get, and that special treatment not only exists because of religion, religion demands it. Atheists are not responsible for priests raping children, dean, get your head out of your ass. The priests are, and their entire (religious) organization is for letting them keep getting away with it, and the reason they let them get away with it is because they didn't want to ruin the church's ability to be moral dictators for everyone else. The same more or less goes for the other evils i mentioned.
Pointing fingers at religion is the answer, because religion is causing these problems - THESE problems... not ALL problems... try and figure out the difference - and our efforts to stop these problems are being thwarted by religion. i say again, i don't have contempt for religion, but i have no shortage of contempt for these violations of human rights, and, since my head is not up my ass, i can see what needs to be "fixed" to put an end to these atrocities: the guilty religions need to be fixed, and they will be fixed - the hard way, if they will not cooperate.
deanhills wrote:
Indi wrote:
Frankly, i'm thoroughly disgusted that you can look at the rape of children and the subjugation and humiliation of women and just say that's "not so good", and that we should just smile and ignore it. It's that kind of thing that makes me challenge religious morality. Anytime you care more about protecting an institution or a belief system than preventing children from being raped and exploited, you are morally vile.
I think this is called trolling Indi. I won't dignify this accusation with a reply.
No, dean, it's not called trolling, it's actually called expressing an opinion (and, it is a reasonable opinion based on fact, because you did call the child rape and so on that i mentioned "not so good" and say that i should ignore it in favour of the good stuff). If you really thought it was trolling, and you weren't just being a sanctimonious ass looking for an excuse to take a cheap shot at me rather than dealing with my points, you would report me for trolling, not grandstand with your soap-boxing here in public.
But i'll tell you what, if you really believe it's trolling, please, do, report it - and not to Bikerman either, pick a moderator you believe will be impartial. i've seen in the other thread that you don't believe Bikerman is impartial; i think this would be an excellent test of whether you really have a point about the moderation around here being unfair, or whether Bikerman is right and you just have your head up your ass. Please, do; i hate wasting moderator time, but i'd love to see how this plays out.
deanhills wrote:
Definitely not Indi. First of all, I don't have a preoccupation with atheists. I'm also not taking "Indi" personally.
Oh, but dean, if you don't have a preoccupation with atheists, why are you always talking about them? ^_^
(And because i know you're too thick to realize what i just did: i just turned your own claims right around back on you. You say atheists have a preoccupation with theists because they talk about them, therefore since you're spending so much time and effort talking about atheists you must have a preoccupation with them. ... right?)
truespeed
Bikerman wrote:
12 questions on Christianity seems like a reasonable number to me - they were answering on other religions as well. The simple fact is that the atheists trounced the Christians on general religion knowledge and beat them by around 7-8% on Christianity...
I think this poll is being used as Atheist propaganda across the net,you yourself take great delight in the "trouncing" of Christians,and for what,a 12 question survey on their religion,when taking into account the margin of error for both surveyed groups the difference is minimal,you would answer there shouldn't even be a difference as they should know more,i would answer 12 questions on any subject isn't enough to start doing a victory lap round St Peters Square.
So what if they don't know about other religions,they believe in their God,their book,so its hardly surprising that a survey taken by an insular group in a insular country would show those results.
Concerning the other poll,the one that show Atheists to be the most hated/distrusted group in the united states,really?
Quote:
I would disapprove if my child wanted to marry a member of this group....
Result
Atheist: 47.6%
Muslim: 33.5%
African-American 27.2%
Asian-Americans: 18.5%
Hispanics: 18.5%
Jews: 11.8%
Conservative Christians: 6.9%
Whites: 2.3%
This was nearly 10 years ago,I would be surprised if that would still be the case today,perhaps the American theists on this forum could choose one from the list above they would least like to marry their son/daughter.
pentangeli
My only problem with Atheists is that can't for one minute shut up about God. I think Chesterton said it best when he said, "If there was no God, they'd be no Atheists". I'll let that penny drop for a second while you consider this thread itself, it's length, depth and endless content. The argument never ceases. People like Richard Dawkins dedicating his whole life's work to ranting on about God. He talks about God more than the Pope does. If you truly believe in something that apparently doesn't exist, your problem with deism is what exactly?
Exactly.
liljp617
pentangeli wrote:
My only problem with Atheists is that can't for one minute shut up about God. I think Chesterton said it best when he said, "If there was no God, they'd be no Atheists". I'll let that penny drop for a second while you consider this thread itself, it's length, depth and endless content. The argument never ceases. People like Richard Dawkins dedicating his whole life's work to ranting on about God. He talks about God more than the Pope does. If you truly believe in something that apparently doesn't exist, your problem with deism is what exactly?
Exactly.
Everyone would be an atheist actually. We probably wouldn't have a term for it in the way we do today, but people would still be atheists by default. Every person is born an atheist.
Dawkin's rarely spends his time "ranting about God." He more often than not rants about religious people who do negative things in the name of their gods.
Afaceinthematrix
pentangeli wrote:
My only problem with Atheists is that can't for one minute shut up about God. I think Chesterton said it best when he said, "If there was no God, they'd be no Atheists". I'll let that penny drop for a second while you consider this thread itself, it's length, depth and endless content. The argument never ceases. People like Richard Dawkins dedicating his whole life's work to ranting on about God. He talks about God more than the Pope does. If you truly believe in something that apparently doesn't exist, your problem with deism is what exactly?
Exactly.
You just don't get it, do you? You understand about as much on atheist as Chesterton does - and that's not saying much... Ahhh, there probably is no god and there are still atheists. Even if there was, for sure, no god, then there would still be atheism.
And we don't go on talking about religion 24/7. It's religious people that talk about religion 24/7. They try to insert it into every section of our lives when we don't want it. So what are we supposed to do? We need to do what we can to get rid of that garbage. Because of religious people inserting their religion into my life, I am forced to have currency that says, "In God We Trust" on it. And so now I have to, every time I get a new bill, take out a pen just to cross out the "God" (and then I write "Satan" just to show those Christians what it is like to have someone push beliefs onto them when they're not interested) just to protect my freedom of not having a religion thrown upon me.
Furthermore, religion is dangerous. So when people force it upon me, they're forcing danger onto me. That's not something I appreciate and so I will do what I can to stop it. When Christian people want science taken out of classrooms and Creationist bullshit brought it, then any man of science (like Dawkins) will do what he can to defend science.
pentangeli
Quote:
And we don't go on talking about religion 24/7.
pentangeli
liljp617 wrote:
pentangeli wrote:
My only problem with Atheists is that can't for one minute shut up about God. I think Chesterton said it best when he said, "If there was no God, they'd be no Atheists". I'll let that penny drop for a second while you consider this thread itself, it's length, depth and endless content. The argument never ceases. People like Richard Dawkins dedicating his whole life's work to ranting on about God. He talks about God more than the Pope does. If you truly believe in something that apparently doesn't exist, your problem with deism is what exactly?
Exactly.
Everyone would be an atheist actually. We probably wouldn't have a term for it in the way we do today, but people would still be atheists by default. Every person is born an atheist.
Dawkin's rarely spends his time "ranting about God." He more often than not rants about religious people who do negative things in the name of their gods.
The God complex is as inherent in all human beings psychologically (from before birth) as the patriarchal inert mistrust of a parenting array becomes in the "Satanist" (only exists in opposition to something he believes doesn't exist) is above me. Atheist is not the default by any stretch of the imagination. Purity is the default. Pure of mind, joy of thought. Show me a 3 year old child that doesn't believe in Santa Claus and I'll show you my hairy ass in the Vatican. The problem is mistrust and insecurity which sets in later on in "apparently" free-thinking, intelligent minded individuals, combined with ego and super-ego battling against the ID, ergo the father figure on some type of Oedipal complex stamping it's feet on every stair and slamming it's bedroom shut in protest. Some kind of psuedo faux-maturity sought in extremely bass and puerile juvenile behavior. If you think about this deviation, and place it in the correct context, you'll see right away that it's a pollution of mental and spiritual freedom. Not the other way around. All that ranting is just emo. Get over yourself. Come to terms with your childhood daddy traumas.
All famous atheists from Schopenhauer to Nietzsche to the proprietor of the famous psychoanalytic ethos I've already echoed (Freud) share one main attribute in common. Abuse from the father figure. I'm not saying it's a coincidence. I'm saying it is. As for Dawkins, the guy doesn't know which side his bread is buttered. He wouldn't have a job without God. Which is exactly what Chesterton is saying. Simple and sweet.
As for you Satanist tards, you know Lucifer is religious rhetoric right? The great dragon ect? From St John's Revelations? The serpent from Genesis etc? You champion that do you? Religion and the Bible I mean? Oh I know Star Wars is Science Fiction but Darth Vader is real. Pick a viewpoint. Preferably one that doesn't make you look like a complete ignoramus.
c'tair
pentangeli wrote:
My only problem with Atheists is that can't for one minute shut up about God. I think Chesterton said it best when he said, "If there was no God, they'd be no Atheists". I'll let that penny drop for a second while you consider this thread itself, it's length, depth and endless content. The argument never ceases. People like Richard Dawkins dedicating his whole life's work to ranting on about God. He talks about God more than the Pope does. If you truly believe in something that apparently doesn't exist, your problem with deism is what exactly?
Exactly.
Dawkins doesn't exactly rant about God, he 'rants' on a very serious topic which is the oppression and ostracism of atheists by modern society.
liljp617
pentangeli wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
pentangeli wrote:
My only problem with Atheists is that can't for one minute shut up about God. I think Chesterton said it best when he said, "If there was no God, they'd be no Atheists". I'll let that penny drop for a second while you consider this thread itself, it's length, depth and endless content. The argument never ceases. People like Richard Dawkins dedicating his whole life's work to ranting on about God. He talks about God more than the Pope does. If you truly believe in something that apparently doesn't exist, your problem with deism is what exactly?
Exactly.
Everyone would be an atheist actually. We probably wouldn't have a term for it in the way we do today, but people would still be atheists by default. Every person is born an atheist.
Dawkin's rarely spends his time "ranting about God." He more often than not rants about religious people who do negative things in the name of their gods.
The God complex is as inherent in all human beings psychologically (from before birth) as the patriarchal inert mistrust of a parenting array becomes in the "Satanist" (only exists in opposition to something he believes doesn't exist) is above me. Atheist is not the default by any stretch of the imagination. Purity is the default. Pure of mind, joy of thought. Show me a 3 year old child that doesn't believe in Santa Claus and I'll show you my hairy ass in the Vatican. The problem is mistrust and insecurity which sets in later on in "apparently" free-thinking, intelligent minded individuals, combined with ego and super-ego battling against the ID, ergo the father figure on some type of Oedipal complex stamping it's feet on every stair and slamming it's bedroom shut in protest. Some kind of psuedo faux-maturity sought in extremely bass and puerile juvenile behavior. If you think about this deviation, and place it in the correct context, you'll see right away that it's a pollution of mental and spiritual freedom. Not the other way around. All that ranting is just emo. Get over yourself. Come to terms with your childhood daddy traumas.
All famous atheists from Schopenhauer to Nietzsche to the proprietor of the famous psychoanalytic ethos I've already echoed (Freud) share one main attribute in common. Abuse from the father figure. I'm not saying it's a coincidence. I'm saying it is. As for Dawkins, the guy doesn't know which side his bread is buttered. He wouldn't have a job without God. Which is exactly what Chesterton is saying. Simple and sweet.
As for you Satanist tards, you know Lucifer is religious rhetoric right? The great dragon ect? From St John's Revelations? The serpent from Genesis etc? You champion that do you? Religion and the Bible I mean? Oh I know Star Wars is Science Fiction but Darth Vader is real. Pick a viewpoint. Preferably one that doesn't make you look like a complete ignoramus.
Please, do continue.
Afaceinthematrix
pentangeli wrote:
The God complex is as inherent in all human beings psychologically (from before birth) as the patriarchal inert mistrust of a parenting array becomes in the "Satanist" (only exists in opposition to something he believes doesn't exist) is above me. Atheist is not the default by any stretch of the imagination.
Atheism is the default position. You don't believe in God until someone lies to you and tells you the fairy tales.
Quote:
Purity is the default. Pure of mind, joy of thought. Show me a 3 year old child that doesn't believe in Santa Claus and I'll show you my hairy ass in the Vatican.
I don't personally want to see your ass but I guess you'll have to pull down your pants and show the world your ass. Make sure someone gets a picture. Many children do not believe in Santa Claus. Actually, the vast majority of three-year-olds do not believe or even know of the idea of Santa Claus. Just visit the third world and this will be apparent. Most children developed countries know of the idea because their parents and the rest of society encourages the idea. But we also encourage the idea of "growing out" of it after a few years. Children who do not receive this encouragement do not believe in Santa. It really isn't too different from God. The only difference is that instead of society encouraging people to grow out of the belief, they encourage people to strengthen their belief...
Quote:
The problem is mistrust and insecurity which sets in later on in "apparently" free-thinking, intelligent minded individuals, combined with ego and super-ego battling against the ID, ergo the father figure on some type of Oedipal complex stamping it's feet on every stair and slamming it's bedroom shut in protest. Some kind of psuedo faux-maturity sought in extremely bass and puerile juvenile behavior. If you think about this deviation, and place it in the correct context, you'll see right away that it's a pollution of mental and spiritual freedom. Not the other way around. All that ranting is just emo. Get over yourself. Come to terms with your childhood daddy traumas.
What the f**k? This is full of a bunch of nonsense. What ego? Missing father figure? Wtf? A father figure is what Christianity offers - not atheism. Pollution of mental and spiritual freedom? Religion is the thing that enslaves you. Get over yourself? Just because we don't find a lack of evidence a compelling reason to think something exists... Okay. See this is why atheism should be the default to any rational thinking person... You tell me that a sky fairy exists and I'll only accept that if you provide enough evidence... And there's no evidence...
Quote:
All famous atheists from Schopenhauer to Nietzsche to the proprietor of the famous psychoanalytic ethos I've already echoed (Freud) share one main attribute in common. Abuse from the father figure. I'm not saying it's a coincidence. I'm saying it is. As for Dawkins, the guy doesn't know which side his bread is buttered. He wouldn't have a job without God. Which is exactly what Chesterton is saying. Simple and sweet.
As for you Satanist tards, you know Lucifer is religious rhetoric right? The great dragon ect? From St John's Revelations? The serpent from Genesis etc? You champion that do you? Religion and the Bible I mean? Oh I know Star Wars is Science Fiction but Darth Vader is real. Pick a viewpoint. Preferably one that doesn't make you look like a complete ignoramus.
Wtf? Abuse from the father figure? I doubt there's any difference. I personally come from a loving family with three pastors... Oh, and Dawkins WOULD have a job... He is a biologist, you know? And he is a professor...
liljp617 wrote:
[Please, do continue.
How about not? While it may be entertaining, it's also pretty annoying.
tingkagol
pentangeli wrote:
All famous atheists from Schopenhauer to Nietzsche to the proprietor of the famous psychoanalytic ethos I've already echoed (Freud) share one main attribute in common. Abuse from the father figure. I'm not saying it's a coincidence. I'm saying it is.
I've heard this numerous times (that (some) atheists were abused by their fathers as children), and I still can't make sense out of it.
What exactly does that mean? That all atheists have bad fathers, and that all theists have good fathers? That atheists need to reconcile with their bad fathers in order to revert back to being theists?
And if this doesn't apply to all atheists, then why bring it up?
deanhills
c'tair wrote:
pentangeli wrote:
My only problem with Atheists is that can't for one minute shut up about God. I think Chesterton said it best when he said, "If there was no God, they'd be no Atheists". I'll let that penny drop for a second while you consider this thread itself, it's length, depth and endless content. The argument never ceases. People like Richard Dawkins dedicating his whole life's work to ranting on about God. He talks about God more than the Pope does. If you truly believe in something that apparently doesn't exist, your problem with deism is what exactly?
Exactly.
Dawkins doesn't exactly rant about God, he 'rants' on a very serious topic which is the oppression and ostracism of atheists by modern society.
Agreed. That was a bit insulting of Dawkins. They guy is quite courteous and respectful all of the time.
Must say however I really enjoy pentageli's postings. Not because of his point of view only, but it has an entertaining style and is enjoyable reading. Keep them coming pentageli!
Bikerman
truespeed wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
Odd - try going to the site first - www.arise-blog.org
the click the top right menu to start the quiz...that should work..
Still not working,i have tried it in 2 different browsers. (Chrome and Firefox)
OK - try it now if you get the time. I think it should work OK.....
truespeed
Bikerman wrote:
truespeed wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
Odd - try going to the site first - www.arise-blog.org
the click the top right menu to start the quiz...that should work..
Still not working,i have tried it in 2 different browsers. (Chrome and Firefox)
OK - try it now if you get the time. I think it should work OK.....
Done it,badly may i add. I was hoping for the results when i finished to see how many i got wrong,i say got wrong because i don't think i got many right.
Bikerman
The reason it doesn't give results is to stop cheating/repeating which would skew the results overall.
You actually did OK - 12/20. It is not easy and I think anything over half marks is pretty respectable.
Do you want me to record you as 'non-theist' or 'atheist'? (Those are the two categories which seem closest to your entry of 'none'). I'm recording the results (with no personal details of course) to see if we get enough for a statistically valid conclusion....
truespeed
Bikerman wrote:
The reason it doesn't give results is to stop cheating/repeating which would skew the results overall.
You actually did OK - 12/20. It is not easy and I think anything over half marks is pretty respectable.
Do you want me to record you as 'non-theist' or 'atheist'? (Those are the two categories which seem closest to your entry of 'none'). I'm recording the results (with no personal details of course) to see if we get enough for a statistically valid conclusion....
I understood your reasons for not giving the answers,as like with any poll/survey,when the answers are known,they can be hijacked to show a result to favour a particular group.
Put me down as Atheist,perhaps a drop down if its possible at the beginning would be better for people to select their own group,with an "other" option for those who can't find a suitable group.
Bikerman
Yes, I started to do that, but quickly got to 20 choices* without even trying and thought it might be easier for me to actually put them into whatever groups are indicated based on a free text choice...
Christian Lutheran
Christian Anglican
Christian Presbyterian
Christian Catholic
Christian Mormon
Christian JW
Christian Methodist
etc etc
catscratches
The quiz doesn't appear to work for me either, (despite it being fixed for truespeed).
I get the same error message:
Quote:
Quiz is not enabled
Bikerman
Try putting a different name in - maybe add an initial or slightly change the spelling - see if that works. I'm still trying to find the glitch. Try it a few times just to be sure if you would be so kind....
catscratches
I've tried it with quite a few different names now. Do I have to be logged in to the site?
I don't know if it has any relevance but on the site it says:
Quote:
1 visitors online now
0 guests, 1 bots, 0 members
I'm not a bot.
Bikerman
Shouldn't have to login..this is a real pain in the butt...I thought I had it cracked but apparently not...back to the drawing board....
You show up as a visitor - the bots are things like the google search engine indexer etc,,
If you want to register and login then you can - we don't use details or give them out or anything - it's just that you shouldn't have to in order to do the quiz....
tingkagol
catscratches wrote:
The quiz doesn't appear to work for me either, (despite it being fixed for truespeed).
I get the same error message:
Quote:
Quiz is not enabled
Same here.
Bikerman
Yes this is a real nuisance. Still trying to sort it out....
Bikerman
I've carried out an upgrade and some edits - if you would like to try it again I'd be grateful....
tingkagol
Now it says I have to be logged in to do the test.
I will register later, but for the moment I'll have to get some sleep.
Bikerman
Yes, unfortunately that is needed at the moment, but I'm working on a way around it....
truespeed
Is there no better wordpress plugin that could do the same job,one that doesn't rerquire registering?
This one maybe . (I only had a quuick look and this was the first suitable one i came across)
Bikerman
That is the one currently used I looked for alternatives but this one is the best and most suited for this quiz that I managed to find....I'm in contact with the author and hopefully we'll get it sorted between us....
Bikerman
PS - I think I've cracked it at last...let me know if you would be so kind.
C.
tingkagol
"Quiz not enabled"
Bikerman
Damn...OK, thanks for trying....back to the drawing board...
Bikerman
Ready for another try when someone has the time
C.
truespeed
Nothing,not even the text quiz not enabled,i used a proxy to re-check as i had already done the quiz and thought maybe that possibly the reason it wasn't showing was because it wouldn't allow re-takes,so back to the drawing board i am afraid.
If your having trouble,maybe an idea would be to put the plugin link in the marketplace and offer a reward for anyone who can fix it so that it works for guests.
Bikerman
Nah, I hate being beaten
truespeed
One suggestion,an input box for country of origin,it would be interesting to have a break down of religious knowledge country by country,i suspect the UK would do quite poorly.
ocalhoun
truespeed wrote:
i suspect the UK would do quite poorly.
Compared to what?
Nearly all nations would do quite poorly.
Bikerman
Well, until I can get the quiz functioning properly on the ARISE site, I've knocked-up a stand-alone web version of it which can be run by clicking on the link below:
I think this is the most common misconception about atheism, apart from the misconception of labeling it as a religion or organized movement
There've been a lot of points in this thread... which one are you referring to?
liljp617
Bikerman wrote:
Well, until I can get the quiz functioning properly on the ARISE site, I've knocked-up a stand-alone web version of it which can be run by clicking on the link below:
As a special note, if you have an ad-blocker it won't work. Disable your ad-blocker on that webpage.
Seems to work well by the way.
Bikerman
Thanks. There is no ad in the quiz (I don't 'do' ads ) so it is probably a false-positive. Thanks for the info.
Afaceinthematrix
The last two questions didn't really work. I would highly suggest reformatting the way that they are coded. I didn't even end up doing those two - even though I knew the answers. It's hard to describe what was happening... But basically you cannot drag those buttons up to the top where you can set them in their inserts because that requires you to scroll up - which you cannot do if you have the mouse clicked on the button on the bottom. So I grabbed a mouse with a thing that scrolls in between the two buttons but was still having trouble because I would try scrolling up and the bar on the right would reach the top but my mouse still wasn't high enough to actually drop it in the box. I ended up spending about 4-5 minutes on the second two last question before I just gave up.
I didn't end up passing the test but I am pretty sure that I had at least one (if not both) of those two correct and so I could have had a better score... I would suggest either doing a drop down box or just typing in a number next to the buttons...
And I must say that the quiz started off very easy but quickly became much harder... You start off by raising the ego and then you just crush it lol!
Bikerman
OK...I'll change those two (I presume you mean the ones which ask the number of followers per religion & per christian sect?
EDIT - Ahh...I think you probably meant the blank words fill-in?
Anyway I've changed all 4 so there should be no issue now.
C.
Afaceinthematrix
Bikerman wrote:
OK...I'll change those two (I presume you mean the ones which ask the number of followers per religion & per christian sect?
EDIT - Ahh...I think you probably meant the blank words fill-in?
Anyway I've changed all 4 so there should be no issue now.
C.
Ahh I just retook the quiz and I see that they are different each time. This time, the questions didn't even appear. So I guess it sounded stupid to say "the last two questions" because they are different each time...
And yes, I did mean the blank words fill-in; the rest worked just fine. It was merely impossible to drag the options up when it requires you to scroll on the side but you cannot do that while holding down on the button...
Anyways, thanks for fixing it. I just retook it and didn't do too well... But I guess it fits when you consider the fact that I could not care less about learning more about religions... I really only care about Islam and Christianity because those are the religions that affect me directly... Hinduism/Janism/Buddhism/etc. don't have much of an effect here in the U.S... I usually don't even classify myself as an "atheist" even though I am... I only call myself that when other people bring it up. I usually classify myself as "someone who doesn't give a crap."
Bikerman
You didn't do badly - 55%....
tingkagol
45%
Nonetheless, I'm quite happy I nailed the order of oldest-newest religions. That was lucky.
Bikerman
Well the quiz is not easy. I deliberately made it difficult enough so that only someone with a very good knowledge of world religions has a chance of a high score.
ocalhoun
Bikerman wrote:
Well the quiz is not easy. I deliberately made it difficult enough so that only someone with a very good knowledge of world religions has a chance of a high score.
A good strategy... A quiz that is too easy doesn't differentiate between good and excellent.
Ah this is great. The pope is now whining about "aggressive secularism" in Spain. I would like to find out how simply not being religious is being aggressive towards religion. This seems like the pope is being quite an aggressive theist. And he's just being an idiot. Believe it or not, Pope, just because I don't follow your religion doesn't mean that I'm being aggressive towards it... From what I understand, Spaniards aren't even being too aggressive (the worst their secularism gets is homosexuals making out in front of a church...), they just want basic freedoms (like being able to get abortions, not having to learn about religion, etc.). This doesn't seem too aggressive and I don't know how it would, under any definition, even be considered aggressive.
I'm going to make a proposition: I want everyone to bow down to me! Absolutely everyone HAS to do as it's MANDATORY. And if you do not do it, then you're an aggressive protester. I do not care how you protest; you'll be aggressive no matter what. If you politely say, "No thank you. I do not bow down to anyone" then you're against me and you're being aggressive! If you try to kill me, you're being aggressive!
When will the pope get it?
Klaw 2
i was doing two things at the same time and didn't notice the timer... I only did the 15 first questions.
i knew 1 2 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 th rest where quesses
if i had done the rest i would have gotten 16 21 23 (25) 26
.
Not bad. I think I missed one of the questions about some specific person in the Bible and I know I missed the one about teachers reading from the Bible as an example of literature. Wasn't aware they could do that, but I suppose that condition at the end is the important aspect.
So why were 2-5 necessary? So let me rewrite this for you:
