The Unbeliever Thread

[SeattleUte]

This is a fascinating article. What is interesting is that these girls are drawn to ISIS by the same impulses that I'm sure any one of us have seen at work on girls raised in religious environments that turn their backs on all the liberty and opportunity that Western society now offers women, particularly intelligent women like these--a combination of hormones, teenaged rebellion, inferiority complex ingrained by a paternalistic society and resulting despair, and a romantic and delusional outlook on religion vs. secularism inculcated by their religious upbringing. What a terrible irony that they were actually originally brainwashed by their parents who came to the west because of the economic and freedom opportunity, and now despair at how this has developed. Some of the readers' comments are outstanding, particularly the ones with the NY Times gold medal. The problem is that these girls' families never really did leave the Old World that they left behind only in a physical sense. It's a cautionary tale about raising girls in conservative religious environments.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/18/wo...T.nav=top-news

[LA Ute]

This is a fascinating article. What is interesting is that these girls are drawn to ISIS by the same impulses that I'm sure any one of us have seen at work on girls raised in religious environments that turn their backs on all the liberty and opportunity that Western society now offers women, particularly intelligent women like these--a combination of hormones, teenaged rebellion, inferiority complex ingrained by a paternalistic society and resulting despair, and a romantic and delusional outlook on religion vs. secularism inculcated by their religious upbringing. What a terrible irony that they were actually originally brainwashed by their parents who came to the west because of the economic and freedom opportunity, and now despair at how this has developed. Some of the readers' comments are outstanding, particularly the ones with the NY Times gold medal. The problem is that these girls' families never really did leave the Old World that they left behind only in a physical sense. It's a cautionary tale about raising girls in conservative religious environments.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/18/wo...T.nav=top-news

What? No express comparison to Mormonism?

[SeattleUte]

There's noting really revelatory here; in my community it's well understood and actually common sense.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed...ry.html#page=1

[Rocker Ute]

There's noting really revelatory here; in my community it's well understood and actually common sense.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed...ry.html#page=1

Interesting. I'm curious about the demographics of the secular population and how that factors into all of this. That old stats thing about stray cats and prostitution comes to mind.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NorthwestUteFan]

According to the last comprehensive Pew religion poll people who claim atheist/agnostic beliefs or no religion at all comprise one of the largest single religious groups in America, approaching 55 million people. It is also the fastest-growing groups. So in a sense the demographics of the group will mirror the society at large, with the possible exception of the more patriarchal/fundamental conservative portions of society. So in general it would likely skew more toward the more liberal, compassionate, and openly accepting types.

And this is not related to political positions. After all, 70% of the Democrats in Congress are Christians or Jews (along with one Muslim).

[LA Ute]

According to the last comprehensive Pew religion poll people who claim atheist/agnostic beliefs or no religion at all comprise one of the largest single religious groups in America, approaching 55 million people. It is also the fastest-growing groups. So in a sense the demographics of the group will mirror the society at large, with the possible exception of the more patriarchal/fundamental conservative portions of society. So in general it would likely skew more toward the more liberal, compassionate, and openly accepting types.

Paris_Tuileries_Garden_Facepalm_statue.jpg

[Rocker Ute]

To answer my own question, according to some website I've never heard of nor know the validity other than Google sent me there claims that atheists in the US tend to be more affluent, white or asian, male, and to have more education as well as enjoying more guilt free sex. Wikipedia claims atheists have a higher suicide rate. The male, guilt-free sex and affluence part might explain the whole men-paying-for-Ashley-Madison thing, I'm sure there were no religious people there.

http://atheistscholar.org/AtheistPsy...ographics.aspx
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism

[SeattleUte]

According to the last comprehensive Pew religion poll people who claim atheist/agnostic beliefs or no religion at all comprise one of the largest single religious groups in America, approaching 55 million people. It is also the fastest-growing groups. So in a sense the demographics of the group will mirror the society at large, with the possible exception of the more patriarchal/fundamental conservative portions of society. So in general it would likely skew more toward the more liberal, compassionate, and openly accepting types.

And this is not related to political positions. After all, 70% of the Democrats in Congress are Christians or Jews (along with one Muslim).

Well stated. Actually, the only people I interact with socially or professionally who go to church (or admit to it) are my Jewish friends. They are all reform, and so none of them believes the Bible is a history book or in its miracles or creation story. I do have some family and old friends in Utah that go to church; many who don't, though they used to. Other than that, I can't think of any colleagues, family or friends who go to church. Go to Europe and visit those magnificent religious monuments to Western civilization and, with a few exceptions, the only people you'll see at church are gawking tourists and tour guides. So, Rocker's suggestion that that this writer's subjects are aberrant or cherry picked doesn't make sense to me. Mostly I see religion making news in very negative ways.

[Rocker Ute]

Well stated. Actually, the only people I interact with socially or professionally who go to church (or admit to it) are my Jewish friends. They are all reform, and so none of them believes the Bible is a history book or in its miracles or creation story. I do have some family and old friends in Utah that go to church; many who don't, though they used to. Other than that, I can't think of any colleagues, family or friends who go to church. Go to Europe and visit those magnificent religious monuments to Western civilization and, with a few exceptions, the only people you'll see at church are gawking tourists and tour guides. So, Rocker's suggestion that that this writer's subjects are aberrant or cherry picked doesn't make sense to me. Mostly I see religion making news in very negative ways.

I'm not saying the stats are cherry picked, I'm saying correlation isn't necessarily causation. In other words, atheism isn't the cause of reduced crime, self-fulfillment, empathy etc, rather affluence is.

You could say the same thing about the research that shows atheists donate far less a percentage of their income to charity than religious people.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SeattleUte]

I'm not saying the stats are cherry picked, I'm saying correlation isn't necessarily causation. In other words, atheism isn't the cause of reduced crime, self-fulfillment, empathy etc, rather affluence is.

You could say the same thing about the research that shows atheists donate far less a percentage of their income to charity than religious people.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm confident that people who don't go to church give more to charities other than churches (including non-church interests owned by religions such as schools and hospitals) than religious people do. Whatever your explanation--and I agree that poverty is the root of all evil--clearly there isn't a necessary correlation between going to church and reduced crime, self-fulfillment, empathy etc. (You throw around that word atheist, and I'm not sure you have given a lot of thought to what it means.)

[LA Ute]

I'm confident that people who don't go to church give more to charities other than churches (including non-church interests owned by religions such as schools and hospitals) than religious people do.

I'm pretty sure the opposite is true and that this has been an accepted fact for many years.

Religious Americans Give More, New Study Finds

[SeattleUte]

I'm pretty sure the opposite is true and that this has been an accepted fact for many years.

Religious Americans Give More, New Study Finds

About 75 percent of people who frequently attend religious services gave to congregations, and 60 percent gave to religious charities or nonreligious ones. By comparison, fewer than half of people who said they didn’t attend faith services regularly supported any charity, even a even secular one.

This article doesn't make the point you seem to be saying it does. It's extremely vague, probably deliberately so. I have no idea what this study says about comparable giving to non-church charities. Interestingly, the demographics that it claims are the most generous probably have the least means to give. I do know that more than half of the charitable giving in the United States is to churches--this does not include religious owned activities such as hospitals and schools. I think this is unfortunate.

[LA Ute]

This article doesn't make the point you seem to be saying it does. It's extremely vague, probably deliberately so. I have no idea what this study says about comparable giving to non-church charities. Interestingly, the demographics that it claims are the most generous probably have the least means to give. I do know that more than half of the charitable giving in the United States is to churches--this does not include religious owned activities such as hospitals and schools. I think this is unfortunate.

You said:

I'm confident that people who don't go to church give more to charities other than churches (including non-church interests owned by religions such as schools and hospitals) than religious people do.

You need to find some support for your position. Then you need to explain why, if your position is supported, that is a significant fact.

[Rocker Ute]

I'm confident that people who don't go to church give more to charities other than churches (including non-church interests owned by religions such as schools and hospitals) than religious people do. Whatever your explanation--and I agree that poverty is the root of all evil--clearly there isn't a necessary correlation between going to church and reduced crime, self-fulfillment, empathy etc. (You throw around that word atheist, and I'm not sure you have given a lot of thought to what it means.)

That's my point I think. I won't use atheist any more (as it should be used in reverence), but rather how about we use 'none' or secular population to keep everyone happy. The original article you cited notes some fine attributes of the secular population which are all commendable. What I was alluding to was perhaps the secular population tended to be more affluent and educated and hence the lower crime rates, sense of well-being etc had more to do with the fact that they neither grew up in a culture nor ever had a need to go and rob a store, if that makes sense.

In other words, how much of these good attributes have to do with their affluence versus their personal beliefs? I agree that religion doesn't necessarily make a person better, or in many cases it might be a 'shallow good'. I'm just curious if you took a sampling of similar demographics to the secular or 'none' population in a religious population if you'd see similar results.

I live in a middle-class neighborhood that is as melting pot as you can get in Salt Lake City. A little more than 1/3 are LDS, a variety of nationalities, but mostly white... with really the only commonality across the board being the type of house we each can afford. I'm not really seeing any of us, religious or not, committing crimes.

[SeattleUte]

You said:



You need to find some support for your position. Then you need to explain why, if your position is supported, that is a significant fact.

This happens all the time. I think you are deluded, and it turns out that you are being mendacious.

Probably the most notable statistics, though, are those which compare religious and non-religious philanthropy. Religion is supposed to make us better people, which includes, I assume, being more generous. So, is it the case that religious people give more generously than the non-religious?
Well, yes and no. Remember that statistic, that 65% of religious people donate to charity? The non-religious figure is 56%. But according to the study, the entire 9% difference is attributed to religious giving to congregations and religious organizations. So, yes, religion causes people to give more—to religion itself.

What did Richard Dawkins say? The primary function of a meme is to replicate itself. Which is what religions do, brilliantly.
As between different religions, the numbers are fairly consistent—except for American Jews, who give more to secular causes than anyone else. Coming in the wake of the recent Pew Survey on American Jewish Life, these findings may shed new light on Jewish secularism, a trend which has greatly worried the Jewish establishment. Maybe the secular social-justice commitments of American Jews are a sign of Judaism’s success.

So, most religious people are equally generous; they only give more than non-religious people because they give to religious organizations; and they, like the rest of us, give to overwhelmingly religious organizations. For better or for worse.

http://religiondispatches.org/new-st...s-to-religion/

So I understated the share of charitable giving that goes to religion (excluding laudable and important secular causes owned by religions)--it's 75%! What an awful figure.

[SeattleUte]

That's my point I think. I won't use atheist any more (as it should be used in reverence), but rather how about we use 'none' or secular population to keep everyone happy. The original article you cited notes some fine attributes of the secular population which are all commendable. What I was alluding to was perhaps the secular population tended to be more affluent and educated and hence the lower crime rates, sense of well-being etc had more to do with the fact that they neither grew up in a culture nor ever had a need to go and rob a store, if that makes sense.

In other words, how much of these good attributes have to do with their affluence versus their personal beliefs? I agree that religion doesn't necessarily make a person better, or in many cases it might be a 'shallow good'. I'm just curious if you took a sampling of similar demographics to the secular or 'none' population in a religious population if you'd see similar results.

I live in a middle-class neighborhood that is as melting pot as you can get in Salt Lake City. A little more than 1/3 are LDS, a variety of nationalities, but mostly white... with really the only commonality across the board being the type of house we each can afford. I'm not really seeing any of us, religious or not, committing crimes.

I totally agree. If we solve the economic problem, human rights improve for a million reasons. I said to someone recently, there are many reasons to hate the republican party, and one ultra-important one to like it--it believes in capitalism.

[LA Ute]

So I understated the share of charitable giving that goes to religion (excluding laudable and important secular causes owned by religions)--it's 75%! What an awful figure.

LOL.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tooblue]

LOL.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The following links are from a couple of years ago, but interesting still:

http://www.macleans.ca/general/do-atheists-care-less/
http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/t...in-the-valley/

[Ma'ake]

Charity is a function of affinity.

The poor are often amazingly generous, because they know the plight of the poor very well. People who've had cancer strike their families are more apt to donate to cancer research.

Church goers are generally better educated about the charitable needs of the community, because the needy seek assistance from churches. The faithful are also commanded to be charitable.


Liberals tend to support governmental programs in the social safety net, where conservatives are more likely to think government programs should be eradicated, and thus charity is a private responsibility.


For example, the Canadians I've met often express pride in paying higher taxes, as they feel a more equitable society is a safer society, where all Canadians can achieve and prosper, and have a sense of community. The crime rates between the US and Canada certainly support this thinking.

[SeattleUte]

Charity is a function of affinity.

The poor are often amazingly generous, because they know the plight of the poor very well. People who've had cancer strike their families are more apt to donate to cancer research.

Church goers are generally better educated about the charitable needs of the community, because the needy seek assistance from churches. The faithful are also commanded to be charitable.


Liberals tend to support governmental programs in the social safety net, where conservatives are more likely to think government programs should be eradicated, and thus charity is a private responsibility.


For example, the Canadians I've met often express pride in paying higher taxes, as they feel a more equitable society is a safer society, where all Canadians can achieve and prosper, and have a sense of community. The crime rates between the US and Canada certainly support this thinking.

Apparently Ma'ake has lost his faith in capitalism, which makes me very sad.

[tooblue]

Is this what a secular society governed by moral relativism looks like?

Why drivers in China intentionally kill the pedestrians they hit:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...t_china_s.html

[NorthwestUteFan]

No. Toronto is a better example of what a secular society looks like, because it is among the most diversified melting pot cities in the world. So many different nationalities and religions and belief systems are represented that people have exposure to a broader world view and as a result people are generally more accepting than in narrower communities.

The ties binding the society together are based more in shared humanity than in the similarity of belief (especially when those beliefs can be in opposition to each other, sometimes violently)

[tooblue]

No. Toronto is a better example of what a secular society looks like, because it is among the most diversified melting pot cities in the world. So many different nationalities and religions and belief systems are represented that people have exposure to a broader world view and as a result people are generally more accepting than in narrower communities.

The ties binding the society together are based more in shared humanity than in the similarity of belief (especially when those beliefs can be in opposition to each other, sometimes violently)

Apples and oranges. Toronto is a wonderful melting pot, culturally and especially religiously. And it is not the best example of what a secular society looks like. Religion plays as big a role as anywhere else in north America. The hard truth is that Canadians, generally speaking, are more tolerant and peaceable.

[Ma'ake]

Apparently Ma'ake has lost his faith in capitalism, which makes me very sad.

Lol. Ma'ake has always been stubbornly pragmatic. The United Order was a commendable effort, high ideals.

A wise, visionary mentor once told me the organizational structure is far less important than the people in it. If you have good people, you'll have good results.

American capitalism definitely has some rough edges, but Americans are largely good, moral people, religious or not. Contrast this with China, where the results justify the means. China could definitely twist capitalism into unfettered Darwinism.

[SeattleUte]

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/enigmat...&st_refQuery=/

Since non-LDS publications generally do not accept ancient Book of Mormon studies as a legitimate discipline, this essentially means that no publication on ancient Book of Mormon studies can be acceptable as authentic scholarship at BYU.

This blog post is a pretty good backhanded compliment to BYU.

[LA Ute]

Right up your alley, SU:

There are are more atheists and agnostics entering Harvard than Protestants and Catholics

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...and-catholics/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[#1 Utefan]

I'm confident that people who don't go to church give more to charities other than churches (including non-church interests owned by religions such as schools and hospitals) than religious people do. Whatever your explanation--and I agree that poverty is the root of all evil--clearly there isn't a necessary correlation between going to church and reduced crime, self-fulfillment, empathy etc. (You throw around that word atheist, and I'm not sure you have given a lot of thought to what it means.)

You have no basis to make this conclusion other than it is seemingle what you want to believe. All indications are the opposite is true.

[SeattleUte]

You have no basis to make this conclusion other than it is seemingle what you want to believe. All indications are the opposite is true.

And you are probably fully unconscious of the irony in what you say.

[NorthwestUteFan]

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/enigmat...&st_refQuery=/



This blog post is a pretty good backhanded compliment to BYU.

This is particularly funny after he absolutely got his ass handed to him by a real theologist from Baylor. The debate started with Hamblin's claim that Ancient Book of Mormon Studies is an academic discipline on par with Biblical Studies.

[Hamblin] wrote,

“Jenkins asks about the question of falsifiability. I’ll set aside the problem that this is really a methodology issue for empirical experimental science, which doesn’t really work with non-empirical historical questions.” You [referring to Hamblin] then proceed to apply the issue to one limited and very specific topic in the area of personal names. “But, the best test of “falsifiability” for the Book of Mormon would be the absence of BOM names in the corpus of Preclassic inscriptions. If we had, say, phonetic readings for several thousand personal and place names in Preclassic Mesoamerica, and found no BOM names there, that would be problematic for the BOM.” However, we have no such lists, so no problem. So that’s all right then.

Jenkins responds:

"This statement is utterly revealing in multiple ways. Primarily, it shows that you are completely ignoring the far more critical question, namely whether there is any evidence whatever for the existence of any of the peoples mentioned in the Book of Mormon in the New World, at any place, at any time. Throughout, you are assuming that presence, and then working to discredit any form of disproof that might be offered. I did not initially recognize that rhetorical technique because it is so completely odd to me and, I would say, to any standard form of argumentation. You are, so to speak, going to stage twelve of an argument without passing through the prior eleven steps that constitute the essential foundation for that conclusion. To you, questions and arguments about testing and verifying might seem inappropriate, irrelevant and “naïve” (your pet word). They are absolutely not so to anyone who is not already a thoroughgoing believer in the historicity of the Book of Mormon. Throughout, you are assuming rather than testing or proving, or indeed thinking that testing and proving might be worthwhile or necessary activities. You are making that assumption of truth –assuming that the Book of Mormon scenario is correct –which is extremely far-fetched for anyone not already convinced of the religious views that you espouse. Those religious views, moreover, are the sole and solitary ground for believing that historical and archaeological hypothesis. Because you do not acknowledge that point, and don’t even appear to understand it, you are left concluding that anyone who disputes your position must either be ignorant or suffering from religious bigotry. "

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/anxious...mon-revisited/

[SeattleUte]

I came over here to explain my answer to Ma'ake in the Crucible of Doubt thread. I am quite familiar with the Givenses mentality and approach to religion. Many Mormons have decided that with respect to the LDS community, the thing speaks for itself, and it is worth saving and supporting regardless of the historical truth of Joseph Smith's claims. They love their community. They participate in and support Mormonism because of love. There could be no better reason. Hence, this concept among progressive Mormons that many mainstream Mormons and apostates are alike unduly "binary". There is a third way by which meaning is sought from the institution irrespective of the fantastic claims, and you just live with the realism that belies those claims because that's a part of life. It is what it is.

I have no criticism of this, as I don't believe in attacking people's faith. All I'll say is that my approach was admittedly binary. I didn't know a whole lot about the stuff about Mormonism that excites exmormons. I simply decided I didn't believe in angels etc. and that would be a part of my value system. I also had a lot of problems with the LDS Church and civil rights progress.

Actually, it's part of the Givenses tactic to make it all seem so complicated but it's really not.