What do you or don't you believe?

[_Yoda]

In answering the OP, I'm an agnostic Mormon. ;)

[_beastie]

I don't feel particularly inclined to bang my head against the wall again tonight. Maybe tomorrow.

For interested readers, here's the thread in which kevin's bigotry against atheists was explored:

http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... y&start=42

Here's one statement in particular:

dart

What I am talking about now is the absence of a requisite inhibitor. Religion is successful in making bad people better people, and it can work to inhibit a human's tendency to commit genocide on his own people.

the dude's astute observation(my emphasis):

Emphasis mine.

So are saying Religion makes people better and lack of religion makes them worse, or it fails to make them better. This would be a distinction without a difference in network terms.

Well, it seems to me your equation functions as bigotry against atheists even if you posit religion as a "modifier" instead of a prime mover of human nature. What's the difference? As a rule of thumb skeptics aren't as good as believers, from your point of view.

You can dress it up however you want, kevin, but if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.

[_dartagnan]

Stating facts supported by the observable data is not bigotry. It s good social science that needs to be used to refute the bigot among the New Atheists who continue to claim religion is dangerous.

It is a fact that religious life does indeed tend to make people become more charitable, be less violent, etc.

This is a fact.

Why bang your head over it and call anyone who acknowledges it a "bigot"?

Because you have no intellectual basis to refute it and you as an atheist feel persecuted. Which is crazy really since I never once said atheism causes anyone to do anything bad. Human nature causes people to do bad. Atheism does nothing to prevent them from doing bad. Religion in fact does.

These are the facts. It doesn't mean atheists are evil. It means religion does humanity a service if you really consider charity a service. Religious lifestyles generally promote well-being and longevity in human life.

The point is atheism does nothing proactively. All it is really is an absence of belief. Dawkin's dominant theme is "religion is bad for you," and as a devoted disciple, beastie feels a need to attack anyone who dares argue otherwise. She now wants to pretend she feels persecuted by my so-called "anti-atheism" but the fact is her mentors have started this war on religious beliefs, and I am merely pointing out the holes in their arguments.

She can't handle that.

[_beastie]

If it's a fact, why do atheists have lower divorce rates than almost every religious group? Why are atheists under-represented in jail?

It is not a fact that religionists are better people than atheists at all, and that you think it is a "fact" is why you are a bigot.

[_dartagnan]

So are saying Religion makes people better

Generally, yes.

and lack of religion makes them worse

No. Atheism doesn't "make" anyone "do" anything, positive or negative. Beastie's charges of "bigotry" rest on her refusal to understand my point here. She isn't interested in my answer, as usual. We saw this yesterday when she cited half of my sentence and ignored the rest, just so she could accuse me of more adopting nonsense which I never believed to begin with.

or it fails to make them better.

Precisely. And who could really argue with this? How could atheism make someone "better"? In what sense?

Can a lack of belief in aliens make a person better? A lack of belief in unicorns? A lack of belief in the matrix?

No.

So why would it be different when the subject is God?

[_Mudcat]

Hi Beastie,

But even the very process of "squeezing in" to a different (lesser) dimension alters characteristics beyond recognition. Anyway that a godbeing could manifest itself to human beings would require such extraordinary "translating", so to speak, so we could comprehend at all, it would inevitably result in misrepresentation. Kind of like "seeing through a glass darkly", but so darkly we can't have any certainty at all just what it is we are even seeing.

I guess my thought would be if God so chose to communicate with us in such a manner, it seems to me that he would understand the aforementioned conundrum. I wouldn't see any need for him to communicate to us, that which is entirely beyond our comprehension. What would be the point? I would think, he understanding his own creation, would devise a method of comprehensible communication to elicit the desired effect.

For me, I would only accept any supernatural event if it could be reliably demonstrated that any non-supernatural alternative was even more wildly unlikely than the supernatural one. In other words, the supernatural would be absolutely required... and I haven't seen anything in this life that requires the existence of a godbeing.

It seems you have already concluded that if God chose to communicate with us, it would require extraordinary efforts...does this not in some way qualify for the supernatural?

I'm strictly a Jean Luc kind of gal. Next Generation and the movies are the only ones I really like. I adore Q, though, and he's such a perfect analogy.

Yeah, my wife (active LDS) would agree with you on your Trek selections. I like them as well.

Mudcat

[_EAllusion]

If it's a fact, why do atheists have lower divorce rates than almost every religious group? Why are atheists under-represented in jail?

I'm guessing the main reason is the higher wealth and education levels of atheists relative to the general population. For the former, I'd toss in the fact that atheists probably are less likely to marry into shakier relationships since there isn't as much pressure among atheists to be married.

Kevin -

You mentioned that Einstein believed that God was a spirit, not anthropomorphic. That struck me as odd, as Einstein oft stated rejection of anthropomorphism has to do with rejecting a personal God, in spirit form or not. What do you think that word means in this context?

[_dartagnan]

If it's a fact, why do atheists have lower divorce rates than almost every religious group?

Are you saying divorce indicates a "bad" person?

Most people who belong to religious groups are not particularly religious. It is impossible to perform and apples/apples comparison here. Activity rates among virtually all members of all denominations float around the 30% mark. That means you're including roughly 70% of them as "religionists," when in fact they are in no sense active in religious life. Atheists represent a very tiny minority - too small to even pretend you can make reasonable comparisons.

Why are atheists under-represented in jail?

Says who?

About 3.8% of prisoners in America do not beieve in God. And at the same time,

The 2001 ARIS report found that while 29.5 million U.S. Americans (14.1%) describe themselves as "without religion", only 902,000 (0.4%) positively claim to be atheist, with another 991,000 (0.5%) professing agnosticism. http://www.gc.cuny.edu/faculty/research ... ndings.htm

So how is that 3.8% "under-represents" a group that constitutes less than 1%? Also, prisoners frequently become "religious" after entering prison. If for no other reason, conversion to Jesus or Islam is a huge benefit among prisoners wishing to survive in clusters. Here is a chart that shows the percentage of atheist priosoners in various countries. Notice how the figure rises in countires that have a higher percentage of atheists:

http://www.swivel.com/graphs/show/18369455

It is not a fact that religionists are better people than atheists at all

Again, you're not dealing with the logic or my reasoning. How can atheism cause anyone to do better? You can't even explain how this is conceivable, yet you want to cry foul because I say it doesn't make people better. Can you really argue that religion doesn't make bad people better people? That is what bigotry is. Dawkins and the rest of your ilk insists people who believe in God are dangerous to society because they are religious. I have never said any citizen was a danger to society because they are atheist.

and that you think it is a "fact" is why you are a bigot.

No, it simply means I know how to interpret data properly. You've abandoned the data in favor of bigot-baiting.

[_EAllusion]

It is a fact that religious life does indeed tend to make people become more charitable, be less violent, etc.

This is a fact.

Why bang your head over it and call anyone who acknowledges it a "bigot"?

Because you have no intellectual basis to refute it and you as an atheist feel persecuted. Which is crazy really since I never once said atheism causes anyone to do anything bad. Human nature causes people to do bad. Atheism does nothing to prevent them from doing bad. Religion in fact does.

You're a bigot because, without reaching to some awfully question-begging definitions of "religion," this is not a fact. Obstinately holding to unreasonable, negative perceptions of a group of people - the non-religious in this case - is what bigotry is. Hardcore racists are wont to make bad social science arguments as well. That you also are interpreting data to reach totally unwarranted causal conclusions does not make the observant say, "Oh, he mustn't be a bigot."

[_EAllusion]

Trevor, this comes from page 33 of McGrath's "The Dawkins Delusion?"

As Gould observed in Rocks of Ages, based on the religious views of leading evolutionary biologists: “Either half my colleagues are enormously stupid, or else the science of Darwinism is fully compatible with conventional religious beliefs."

The fact that America's leading evolutionary biologist should make such a statement outrages Dawkins. How could he say such a thing! Dawkins dismisses Gould's thoughts without giving them serious consideration. "I simply do not believe that Gould could possibly have meant much of what he wrote in Rocks of Ages." This creedal statement is Dawkins's substitute for a response. It simply will not do. For Gould has simply articulated the widely held view that there are limits to science.

Of course this makes perfect sense since the more accurate survey information indicates that atheism isn't nearly as popular among natural scientists as beastie humorously suggested (90%!). The fact that a neighborhood of 50% would fail to categorize themselves as atheists, raises more problems for people like Harris, Dawkins, Hitchens and of course, beastie.

The heck? Because Gould off-hand mentioned about half of his colleagues being conventionally religious, that establishes that 50% of natural scientists would fail to categorize themselves as atheists? Is this some more of your awesome ability to interpret data? The data wildly varies based on what questions are asked, which leads to people cherry-picking their numbers. Among the hard sciences, the number of people who don't believe in God tend to be in low 60's. In biology it's higher, in chemistry it is lower. When you ask about people who categorize themselves as atheists, that number drops. There is a funny quirk in the data that shows that as measures of academic prestige go up, so does the incidence of atheism. There was a famous - in atheist circles anyway - survey done that showed over 90% of members of the national academy of sciences were atheist. I'm guessing beastie was referring to that.

... Ha! Going back, that is exactly what she is referring to. What the heck Kevin? She's not using that as representative of all scientists. She did not suggest 90% of all natural scientists are atheist. Can't you read? The NAS just happens to be an elite group of scientists. Being a member is highly prestigious. It is quite fair to say that the NAS members are "top scientists." There's only 2500 or so members in total, so a properly random sample of 260 would be massive. I'm not saying there aren't potential selection biases we might want to account for here, but boy did you take the wrong routes of attack.