Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Are atheists as a group so far gone that it must be explicitly stated that no, all religious people are not unintelligent? As if this is some kind of revelation? I feel that I'm back in 1975 (or earlier) and saying that I know an African American...charming, kindly, and very quick-witted! His clothes were plain and simple, but nonetheless...not unintelligent in conversation. Although I have more recently heard AA's described as "articulate" to insultingly set them apart from the "majority".
Ah - and here is a more classic reference in the vein of feminism that seems to fit:
Abramson, P. R., Goldberg, P. A., Greenberg, J. H., & Abramson, L. M. (1977). The talking platypus phenomenon: Competency ratings as a function of sex and professional status. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 2(2), 114–124. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1977.tb00494.x
Abstract
Ratings of vocational competence, marriageability, and interpersonal success were made by 91 male and 126 female undergraduates of a stimulus person described in a 1-page, single-spaced biography. The sex and status of the stimulus person in the biography were manipulated such that for each biography half the Ss were led to believe it was about a male and half that it was about a female, half were led to believe that the individual was an attorney and half that the individual was a paralegal worker. Results indicate that both male and female Ss perceived the female attorney as being the most vocationally competent. It is proposed that the increased ratings of vocational competency for the female attorney were a function of her performance being perceived as having occurred within a context replete with the types of constraints that usually obviate the degree of success she achieved. It is also suggested that the finding concerning vocational competence exemplifies the talking platypus phenomenon; that is, when an individual achieves a level of success not anticipated, his/her achievement tends to be magnified rather than diminished. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)
Apparently, those who defy stereotypes are perceived as quite amazing in their ability, whatever it is.
I don't know about 'Far gone', but it's rather than any fault in atheists or atheism, real or not, is leaped on by their opponents. So we have to consider a lot of claims or assumptions that we started with.
The argument about relative levels of intelligence is still ongoing. But the fact is that the arguments presented by Theists are irrational or at least, not logically sound. The fact is, they sound stupid, and so it was supposed that only stupid people could believe it. This isn't actually the case. It's a question of crediting rationalist materialist skepticism or crediting the Unknown or undisproved as a lurking place for supernatural or religious claims.
Matt Dillahunty (so far as i know) appealed to atheists to stop calling Christians stupid. After all, when they deconvert, they are some of the smartest atheists. It is that the arguments sound stupid. We have seen often enough how Christian apologists (and muslim, too) do not argue well, logically or even honestly and that's because they are trying to make an argument work that doesn't.
There was a discussion I watched between a panel of atheists and a panel of Christians where each was asked what they wanted the others to stop saying. The Christians said 'stop saying "Check your brains at the church door".
But that's hard to do, as it does seem that critical faculties are put into neutral when doing religion. I think that we atheists want to be fair (in fact we have to be), ad we have to distinguish between level of smarts and the validity of the argument the Smarts are used to support.
To my mind, what characterizes the religious is not just their religious beliefs, but all the other pieces of their world view that often accompany them: homophobia, sexism, racism and xenophobia. They can be, or often are, consistent across the board. And it's all stupid and based on fear. Furthermore, the more stupid (unthinking) they are, the more awful all of this gets, with the far end encompassing Nazism and the skinhead movement.
To my mind, what characterizes the religious is not just their religious beliefs, but all the other pieces of their world view that often accompany them: homophobia, sexism, racism and xenophobia. They can be, or often are, consistent across the board. And it's all stupid and based on fear. Furthermore, the more stupid (unthinking) they are, the more awful all of this gets, with the far end encompassing Nazism and the skinhead movement.
Stereotypical thinking is dangerous, I know.
now if you show me that its religion fault and not a person I will bite. When you can show me that those things are not in most other groups I will believe ya. when you can show me that "... what characterizes the religious ..." is not doing the exact same thing they do, well, that would be like showing the earth 6000 years old.
It took some guy named Matt Dillahunty to tell atheists to stop calling Christians stupid. Then there was a panel of atheists and Christians where an important topic was to stop calling each other names. The spice of life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
I have to say I am shocked. I know a bunch. And my family is constantly breaking my stones about me not believing ... we have a great time. I mean a fun time with it.
I wonder if thats the difference? They break my stones and we have a great time with it. You don't deal with the topic much. And others have negative interactions?
Yes. We don't deal with the topic much because they take their faith very seriously. It is simply not a joking matter because of Satan and hell. They are not taking any chances. I wouldn't say these are negative interactions, but rather serious and boring.
yup. so how would people that have different experiences talk about this topic with each other? Me, who had nothing but fun with it talk to a person that has been abused by it, or a person that has serous interactions talk to a person that has no real experience with it.
how do we judge reliability of their positions based n the personal experiences? How do we lessen the influence of personal bias to remove as much error as we can.
I guess in an anti-god frame of mind, those kinds of questions are best avoided.
yup. so how would people that have different experiences talk about this topic with each other? Me, who had nothing but fun with it talk to a person that has been abused by it, or a person that has serous interactions talk to a person that has no real experience with it.
how do we judge reliability of their positions based n the personal experiences? How do we lessen the influence of personal bias to remove as much error as we can.
I guess in an anti-god frame of mind, those kinds of questions are best avoided.
I think that once you move past the emotional aspect of an experience and just look at the content, the facts that can be agreed on, there is no need to judge reliability as you would already have it. This would probably allow you to move forward with the information or lack of it.
To my mind, what characterizes the religious is not just their religious beliefs, but all the other pieces of their world view that often accompany them: homophobia, sexism, racism and xenophobia. They can be, or often are, consistent across the board. And it's all stupid and based on fear. Furthermore, the more stupid (unthinking) they are, the more awful all of this gets, with the far end encompassing Nazism and the skinhead movement.
Stereotypical thinking is dangerous, I know.
Very good post, although I would disagree about saying there is consistency across the board.
I'm not quite sure if it's christianity that sparks all that you mention, or if christianity for some is just another of the ingredients.
When "Downton Abbey" first came around, I tried it once and it didn't interest me. Last week I decided to try one more time, and I have been binge watching it. Love it. Last evening I was watching the episode after the one daughter dies of eclampsia, and the father, who is Irish catholic, decides to have the baby baptized in the catholic church. And while the series hasn't been hitting us over the head with the theme of the rift between the catholic church and the more-protestant church of England. That whole flash point certainly isn't as fervent as it was in the past, but it's a theme I have long been aware of; I even heard a bit of it in my own family between my mother's side and my father's side, although it was rather tame. It's one of those things that some religious people just can't get over. And what frustrates me about topics like that is that you end up having very religious people doing things against their own faith's principles.
It never ceases to amaze how often, over in the "Great Debates" subforum, the topic of racism surfaces. I totally fail to understand how a committed christian can be racist. It seems so illogical to me. And yet every racist person I've ever communicated with in this country has been a person I am quite sure would self-identify as also being a christian.
The key thing -- which you point out -- is fear. I grew up in an all-white town, had a major and minor in college that seemed to attracted no minorities (at that time), and then suddenly was plopped down to teach in a school that was about 50-50 Black/White. I admit it. I was afraid. They may have only been 14 years old, but most of the African American fellows were bigger that I was. But, fortunately, I saw the situation as a learning experience, and I soon learned that -- for the most part -- kids are kids. I look back fondly at my time at that school and it taught me well. The problem is, many have a stereotype and never get over it because they never experience the situation they are so afraid of.
I don't understand why -- since they are in the majority (and so often claim that) -- so many christians are so afraid.
It never ceases to amaze how often, over in the "Great Debates" subforum, the topic of racism surfaces. I totally fail to understand how a committed christian can be racist. It seems so illogical to me. And yet every racist person I've ever communicated with in this country has been a person I am quite sure would self-identify as also being a christian.
Self interest permits the mind to cling to opposing concepts simultaneously. The Lutheran and Baptist churches of the US fragmented in the first half of the 19th Century, giving birth to the Southern Baptists and the Southern Lutherans. The difference between them and their northern original versions? Just one. The northern branches preached in favor of the abolition of slavery, while the southern branches preached that slavery was the god endorsed proper condition for Africans.
In sermon after sermon from southern pulpits, attendees were taught that the African race was an inferior one, that taking them out of the jungle and introducing Jesus in their lives was a benefit which far outweighed leaving them free to cope with their primitive and savage culture. The Massa was a patriarch, taking loving care of these otherwise hapless people. This is the way god wanted things.
All this fits well with the idea that Christianity is and always has been, a designer religion. One where parts may be embraced or rejected to fit the circumstances and convenience of the faithful.
@phet: If you get HBO, there is a new film with the same theme and actors, "Downton Abby." The people who made the series made a movie, in other words, and I think it's quite good. I don't like most contemporary films and tv shows, but I like this.
I guess I just don't like scary, weird and violent. There's enough of that in RL.
Anyway, I taught in the Memphis public schools for a couple of years. Nearly all black students and I loved them. They used to say "Ms. _____ is alright," which I took as a compliment . A lot of the middle school girls had early pregnancies and the smell of weed wafted up from the school grounds. A police officer (not a rent-a-cop) supervised the boarding of the school buses.
We discussed racism in class frequently and I heard a lot of heart-rending stories.
Self interest permits the mind to cling to opposing concepts simultaneously. The Lutheran and Baptist churches of the US fragmented in the first half of the 19th Century, giving birth to the Southern Baptists and the Southern Lutherans. The difference between them and their northern original versions? Just one. The northern branches preached in favor of the abolition of slavery, while the southern branches preached that slavery was the god endorsed proper condition for Africans.
In sermon after sermon from southern pulpits, attendees were taught that the African race was an inferior one, that taking them out of the jungle and introducing Jesus in their lives was a benefit which far outweighed leaving them free to cope with their primitive and savage culture. The Massa was a patriarch, taking loving care of these otherwise hapless people. This is the way god wanted things.
All this fits well with the idea that Christianity is and always has been, a designer religion. One where parts may be embraced or rejected to fit the circumstances and convenience of the faithful.
Well written. Thank you.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
