Page 4 of 7

Posted: Thu Mar 20, 2008 12:00 am
by Frank 013
Will
You'll understand, I'm sure, why I'll need to see this evidence for myself, be satisfied that such ideas as civility and respect have been somehow measured, and see that there could really be a link of causation, not just correlation, between low religious affiliation and these positive qualities.


Then you should take a look at some of the latest studies to find out if you agree...

In those studies religious people were shown (per capita) to be more hypocritical, bigoted and ignorant of the subjects that they claimed to care about then their atheist counterparts as well as having a higher criminal percentage and divorce rate.
Will
In passing, I note that the U.S. is a religious society. It is prosperous, and I think if we are speaking comparatively, it is also a society in which civility and respect are the norm.
Following are the results of such studies...
America, which is the most religious nation in the industrialized West, not only has higher rates of crime than less religious nations, but also has the highest rates of social dysfunction on every measurable scale. Even within America, areas with the highest rates of religiosity have the highest rates of crime and social dysfunction. Americans with no religious preference, which includes most atheists, are under-represented in the American prison system relative to their numbers in the general population.

atheism.about.com/od/isatheismdangerous/a/RiskyCrime
The Barna Research Group, an evangelical Christian organization that does surveys and research to better understand what Christians believe and how they behave, studied divorce rates in America in 1999 and found surprising evidence that divorce is far lower among atheists than among conservative Christians

Posted: Thu Mar 20, 2008 1:10 pm
by Penelope
I think what we need is a typology of belief that would encompass both secular and religious beliefs. Someone may have done something like this. We need more psychological precision to classify the things people are said to believe. I'm still strongly inclined to think that a rather militant stance against religion, per se, is never going to produce genuine understanding and consensus, only more culture wars.

Sorry to abuse anyone's patience with all of this. I don't speak as a believer of any kind, only as someone who values liberalism (my own idea of it, not the political version).
Above is a quote from DWill -

To take your last paragraph first. You are not abusing anyone's patience. These issues need to be addressed.....

I agree with you that evangelical or fundamentalist atheism is never going to work....even with such a charismatic proclaimer as our Frank....

There is something in the human soul....that searches for a pattern....we might call it God.......we might not.

Chaos theory makes nice TeeShirts when computerised.....as Terry Pratchet says.....but it is unacceptable to the rational mind.


OK - so the Christian Doctrine is perhaps too mythologised......although, the words attributed to the Jesus character.....are very profound and worth considering.,...and....can change ones perpective on life. Does it really matter if Jesus is not historically accurate?

If we have a deeper sense of self.....than just the body..If the corporal reality of us is not the true reality....then the people, like Jesus and Buddha who taught us about our eternal lives, are worth considering.....but THEY ARE NOT WORTH FIGHTING ABOUT.

Posted: Thu Mar 20, 2008 2:50 pm
by Frank 013
Penelope
To take your last paragraph first. You are not abusing anyone's patience. These issues need to be addressed.....
I agree, no one abusing my patience, I like discussing this stuff. :)
Penelope
I agree with you that evangelical or fundamentalist atheism is never going to work....even with such a charismatic proclaimer as our Frank....
Technically there is no such thing as evangelical or fundamentalist atheism; Fundamentalist atheism cannot exist because there are no 'fundamental' beliefs for atheists to hold.
Fundamentalism is a label applied to religious movements that, at the very least, emphasize the importance of "fundamental" beliefs in contrast to modern developments. Atheism isn't even a philosophy or a belief system, much less a religion, but even if we ignore that we still have to conclude that "fundamentalist" can't apply here because the rejection of religion isn't a "fundamental" belief.

There is also a real double-standard here in that irreligious atheists who are critical of religion are expected to "moderate" their negative conclusions about religion, but you don't see similar statements about religious theists who think religion is a good thing. Why aren't theists "dogmatic" for insisting that religion is necessarily a good thing and who are not interested in further research before latching on to this conclusions firmly? Why aren't Christians called "fundamentalists" when they insist that Christianity is a force for good and without wondering if further research will prove them right?

atheism.about.com/od/fundamentalistatheists/a/AtheistDogmatic
And just to be clear Penelope, I do not think you meant to imply that that is what I am doing. I just thought I would clear up the terminology for future discussion.

As I have said before I do not condone forcing my belief on others, but I would like the same courtesy from the religious, a courtesy I have yet to see.
Penelope
OK - so the Christian Doctrine is perhaps too mythologized......although, the words attributed to the Jesus character.....are very profound and worth considering.,...and....can change ones perspective on life. Does it really matter if Jesus is not historically accurate?
Not to me... I can see the wisdom in some of the words of Jesus just as I can in Yoda or Mr. Spock. But I doubt you will find many religious people share that view.

What bothers me the most is the blatant lying of the church; which include the insistence that Jesus was a historic character without a speck of credible evidence.

Another false claim is the Christianity is a force for good claim.

Any honest look at the history of Christianity will show that not only is the claim not true but it has never been true.

What Jesus is currently said to stand for is another matter altogether.


Later

Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 10:13 am
by DWill
Frank 013,
You are a capable advocate for your position. I'm not sure that there isn't, beyond all the evidence, some insuperable tempermental/philosophic barrier that will prevent us from agreeing. But you have given food for thought, and I will continue to mull over these things and review the evidence. Now, though, time for a break!

Will

Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 5:52 pm
by Frank 013
Frank 013,
You are a capable advocate for your position. I'm not sure that there isn't, beyond all the evidence, some insuperable tempermental/philosophic barrier that will prevent us from agreeing. But you have given food for thought, and I will continue to mull over these things and review the evidence. Now, though, time for a break!

Will
I thank you for your compliment. And even if we never agree on these matters I have enjoyed discussing them with you. In my opinion the fact that you are willing to listen and consider these possibilities shows an open mind and that is a rarity in today's age.

Enjoy your break

Later

Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 6:18 pm
by Penelope
I hope you will keep in touch DWill. Rather pessimistic posts from you, here and there, today.

Thanks Frank.

Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 7:00 pm
by Frank 013
Penelope,

I don't want to speak for Will but the things we are discussing can be earth shattering for some people, especially when they begin to realize that what has been taught to them all of their life was probably a lie.

Now in Will's case he does not seem to be a traditional theist, but he had apparently accepted some of the propaganda that Christianity touts.

If Will needs some time to process this new information and confirm it through his own research then I have no problem giving him that opportunity. I don't really see anything specifically pessimistic about his approach, just cautious skepticism, and when dealing with subjects like these that caution and skepticism are natural.

Of course I realize I could be completely off the mark here... that's really for Will to say.

Later

Posted: Sat Mar 22, 2008 6:56 am
by Penelope
You are right Frank in the case of this discussion, that it does take some assimilating. But I was not only referring to this post from DWill - but another one also, where he is talking about reading up the effects of global warming.

We try to take one day at a time....but sometimes several days attack us at once!!!! ;-)

Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 5:24 am
by WildCityWoman
QUOTE

Penelope said . . . I don't agree 100% with the Salvation Army - but they are organised to give practical help - and I know that they do it for the same reasons as I want to do it. And they let me help, they don't insist that I accept all of their dogma.

UNQUOTE

I dunno' about that . . . I've been involved with the Salvation Army a few times in my life.

At age 8, I took a pledge never to drink or smoke - ridicuclous, my parents said - why would they expect an 8 year old to make such a pledge. But they shrugged it off - I went to afternoon Sunday school there, simply because I enjoyed it.

We were United protestants - I went to the United Church Sunday school in the morning - the Salvation Army in the afternoon and sometimes enjoyed an event at the Anglican church!

Quite a mix - the only church my mother didn't like me going to was Baptist - I don't know why - I loved the Happy Hour session on Friday night at Waverly Baptist - I used to drop in after choir practice at the Bellefair United.

My parents weren't too amused with Pentecostal either - a school friend once got me interested in their dogma - her aunt had given her a lot of material and it was pretty scary - the fire and brimstone stuff.

I stayed up a whole night worrying about it - my mother went over to the girl's mother and told her about it - her mother put a stop to the aunt tutoring her daughter in the faith too.

Anyway, Penelope - about the SA . . . they are very good people - but they are 'adamant' in their faith.

In 1994 I took my formal computer training - the old WP 4.9 - just before windows. The course was funded by Employment Canada - a social worker got me into it. It was 18 weeks long - I loved it!

The school itself was 'administered' by the Salvation Army - they insisted on that religion being first and foremost - when the phone was answered it was:

Good Afternoon! Salvation Army Work Training . . . etc. I forget how the whole title went - but it was ridiculous.

When it came time to go out on 'interviews' for jobs, you'd have it on your resume that you took this computer training - you gotta' put something, where else have you been for the last 18 weeks, eh?

We students often felt put off with this business of the phone being answered that way when prospective employers phone for a 'work/school reference'.

We felt they might think we had been living in some fleabag hostel downtown because of this.

We, of course, didn't look at it this way ourselves - we'd appreciate the 18 weeks training in a work-environment teaching program and it certainly wasn't any fleabag homeless hangout - it was an up-to-date, modern office environment there!

But we were right in our concerns - a lot of people do assume that anything the 'Sally Ann' runs is strictly charity and if you're there, you're down and out, therefore qualified for nothing.

-----------------------

About their imposing their own religion on you . . . well, religion was taught for about an hour once a week - the Brigadier would come in and speak to the classes and lead us in prayer.

Some people resented that - and you couldn't blame them really - a lot of the people were 'refugees', running from their countries - they were Muslims! And it must have been an affront to them to have 'our religion' shoved down their throats in this way.

They, btw, most of them, were quiet people who said very little about how things were run - a lot of them were just too scared they might be sent back to their own country if they didn't co-operate with the employment counsellors.

(One of the girls cried in my arms - I'd been elected to help her write a story with the computer program - that was one of our assignments - her English wasn't up to par and she was afraid she'd 'fail' the assignment and get sent back - geesh! That was tough going - she did ok though)

I thought it was kinda' silly to be including religious training in our program, but that's how the Salvation Army people are - if they're involved in anything, even if they're being paid to run a program, they figure they've got a right to make you attend meetings where they preach 'their thing'.

--------------------

I once went through a bad time in my life - I stayed, for a few weeks, in a spiritual recovery home - it was the Salvation Army who provided it.

It was a wonderful place - if you weren't out working somewhere, you had to attend chapel - I didn't mind at all - I enjoyed going to chapel and enjoyed singing the old hymns - even played the piano a bit there.

But there were girls staying there who were not Christian - one was Jewish -she didn't like being made to sit in for chapel sessions twice a day. But they made her do it.

I didn't think that was right.

----------------

All in all, I respect the Salvation Army - they are a wonderful organization and are helpful to those who are down and out. But they can be what's looked at as being 'dogmatic'.

Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 5:29 am
by WildCityWoman
Frank?

What is it you have in your arms, in the picture you've used for your avatar?

Just curious . . .