WatchFile under the "FYI" and "Just Sayin' " Depts...
Seems to me this should be a post to an earlier thread, but I can't be bothered to dig for it.
"On basic questions of morality and human decency — issues such as governmental use of torture, the death penalty, punitive hitting of children, racism, sexism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, environmental degradation or human rights — the irreligious tend to be more ethical than their religious peers, particularly compared with those who describe themselves as very religious."
...
"As individuals, atheists tend to score high on measures of intelligence, especially verbal ability and scientific literacy. They tend to raise their children to solve problems rationally, to make up their own minds when it comes to existential questions and to obey the golden rule. They are more likely to practice safe sex than the strongly religious are, and are less likely to be nationalistic or ethnocentric. They value freedom of thought."
...
"Consider that at the societal level, murder rates are far lower in secularized nations such as Japan or Sweden than they are in the much more religious United States, which also has a much greater portion of its population in prison. Even within this country, those states with the highest levels of church attendance, such as Louisiana and Mississippi, have significantly higher murder rates than far less religious states such as Vermont and Oregon."
Follow
Befriend (12)
10 threads
3,518 comments
Oakland, CA
leo707's website
Premium
mplangley says
It is only slander if it is untrue:
slan·der
–noun
1.defamation; calumny: rumors full of slander.
2.a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report: a slander against his good name.
3.Law . defamation by oral utterance rather than by writing, pictures, etc.
mplangley says
I did not get from iwog's comment that all christians/jews justify slaughter of children.
However, if they want they can justify it through their religion pretty easy, along with slavery and other atrocities. However, today many choose to cheery-pick around the parts where it is OK to kill children, and think child murder is evil. (Oops is it OK for me to use the word "evil" there?)
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,646 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
mplangley says
Obviously you'll never go into a discussion of WHY because my example is bullet proof and you have no answer. Par.
mplangley says
Seriously???? This has got to be a joke.
I identified Madoff's corruption with his Judaism because he found his victims through his church. AT NO TIME did I ever give the slightest indication that being a Jew made him corrupt or had anything at all to do with making him evil.
This was a desperate leap at character assassination that NO ONE on the board will agree with you on. I suggest you don't try it again.
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,646 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
mplangley says
Not at all, but since you decided to have a conversation about it, do you think God was evil when he murdered all those children in the passover story?
Yes or no?
I'll answer first. I think if the story is taken literally, it was an evil act. Your turn.
Follow
Befriend (12)
10 threads
3,518 comments
Oakland, CA
leo707's website
Premium
thunderlips11 says
Oops sorry, I guess that was slander :)! Fixed it.
Sometimes it grabs the highlighted quote wrong.
Follow
Befriend (12)
10 threads
3,518 comments
Oakland, CA
leo707's website
Premium
iwog says
Yeah, I think that one problem with religion is that good people allow themselves to become victims when they trust someone just because they come from the same faith.
Follow
Befriend
1 threads
118 comments
iwog says
Exactly!
iwog says
O right. If necessary you could simply have said that Madoff got to know his victims at the synagogue he attended but instead you chose to label him as a "serious Jew" and a "practicing Jew". You never mentioned that he met many of his victims at the country club now did you. Instead of identifying him as a "serious golfer" and a "devoted country club member" you chose to single out his religion and the "fact" that Jews "justify slaughter of children". Probably for religious rituals right?
Talk about blood libel.
Follow
Befriend (1)
117 threads
971 comments
mplangley says
Dude, that won't fly. You're picking a couple words out of a larger line of text and placing it completely out of context.
...But then that seems to be the way that current teachings and morality are taken from the bible so basically its in character.
Follow
Befriend
1 threads
118 comments
kentm says
Dude - I quoted it twice. The second time in the "larger line of text" giving the context. The context is clear.
Follow
Befriend
1 threads
118 comments
kentm says
Kentm - where were you when I was called a religious fanatic
iwog says
I can take it however if the discussion is going to devolve into name calling then I think at least I have good reason for what I believe. Read it for yourself an decide. Of all the things that iwog pointed out about Madoff he chose to bring up Judaism. Guilt by association right? Not very subtle.
Can you tell me what the relationship is between Judaism and greed? So he met some of his victims at the Temple? Did he meet all of them there? Kevin Bacon and Bernie Madoff met because they happened to worship devoutly together at the same temple?
I am trying to figure out exactly what the point is other than a general point that religion is evil. If you want to argue that and provide a reasonable argument fine but the argument seems to be so far.
Madoff is a crook, Madoff is a Jew therefor Judaism is bad.
A similar argument was made earlier about Catholics.
Hitler was a Catholic. Hitler as we all know was "evil". Therefor the Catholic Church is evil.
Not much logic behind these types of arguments.
Follow
Befriend (8)
208 threads
4,505 comments
Davis, CA
I believe some have interpreted your comments mplangley to imply atheist/agnostic have no morality, or that they don't deserve them, or that they have "swiped them" from religion or something like that. That only religious people understand this very complicated concept and can properly "nurture" it.
It's all very befuddling when we see that quite a lot of publicly religious people don't seem to understand it either. Is there no evidence that atheist/agnostic are morally void? A good question, I'm sure some study has been done of the religious background of criminals.
Follow
Befriend (12)
10 threads
3,518 comments
Oakland, CA
leo707's website
Premium
Vicente says
I think you summed it up pretty well there.
I do recall reading a study where prison populations have a higher percentage of religious people compared to the "outside." However, I am skeptical that the prisoner are necessarily "true believers". I think they might be just jumping on the band wagon of, "if you are devout, then you are good person who deserves a second chance." Also, a lot of religions do recruiting in prisons.
Follow
Befriend (5)
171 threads
5,202 comments
Gimme a fricken break !!
mplangley says
You've successfully taken a quark up to a molehill, and than made a mountain out of that.
Here's the original Iwog Madoff comment with context:
iwog says
We all know the point Iwog was making.
You have a pattern. Someone takes the time to craft an argument, that we all understand, and you take a couple words and start talking about semantics, or etymology, or the intention behind that particular word choice.
Believe it or not, I would enjoy reading this more if both sides were compelling. This is true even in political discusions (something the trolls wouldn't believe), but more so in this thread.
You did it to thunderlips too. I think it's a form of of respect that he makes a very clear and compelling point about evil:
thunderlips11 says
Speaking of fair play, the least you could do in a response is show that you comprehend his point. If you feel that you have nothing that can "win out" or whatever the objective is, just let his point stand.
Instead you go in to some semi-interesting non sequiter:
mplangley says
What's this, etymology again?
Follow
Befriend (1)
117 threads
971 comments
mplangley says
But you play at semantics and take partial quotes in order to make a point that I find is inappropriate within the context... I accept iwog's explanation of his intention, I don't think he was equating judaism with immorality as a blanket statement at all and I think its a weird reach to try and play it as such.
As I understand it, iwog's point was more angled toward religious morality and hypocrisy, that Maddoff was religious AND he also did these horrible things. I'd have to go back up and find it to be certain but I think the notion of his being Jewish, as opposed to Christian or Muslim or Buddhist, came up almost accidentally.
So the whole anti-semitic thing, aside from being a complete nonsequitur in the flow of your chat with him, is inappropriate. I hate it when that term is dropped at moments like that because its always used to shut-down a debate the user feels is going poorly for them and doesn't want to have.
mplangley says
I think it was me who called you that! :-) Just kidding. I missed that, I've been skimming these posts.
I do find you're making a lot of blanket statements though, and while I don't get the impression you're an outright fanatic I do feel like your points aren't really well supported.
mplangley says
Speaking for myself, I don't read anyone's point as being that religion is evil, whatever explanation for 'evil' you want to hold. Possibly that a lot of evil has been done under the guise of religious activity, but thats different. The only point I make is that morality does not come from religion, and that was the point of the article that kicked this whole thing off.
Follow
Befriend
1 threads
118 comments
marcus says
Ok - Tell me what his point was? I think I addressed him perfectly actually. My understanding of the exchange was as follows" ChrisLA says "Wall street is full of agnostics". Iwog replies and says "your wrong, it also has Jews and Christians."
Both took the opportunity to slam their respective subjects - ChrisLA qualifies his agnostics with the label "who care not for principals or humanity". I take it that ChrisLA holds this to be true of all agnostics and that's why he answers the original question by saying "that's why we dislike them" - in other-words his answer to the original question is that Americans hate Atheists and Agnostics because they have no principals and do not care for humanity"
Iwog tries to rebut this by saying basically that there are plenty of bad Christians and Jews on wall street as well. If he had left it there Id would not have made a big deal out of it.
In other words I think we can all agree that there are some people who call themselves religious who are "bad" and some are "good". Likewise there are some people who call themselves Agnostic/Atheist who are "bad" and others who are "good"
Iwog took things a bit further than that though. Why did he feel compelled to call Madoff a "serious Jew" and later a "practicing Jew". Why not refer to him as a man who calls himself Jewish, or Jewish by birth or something like that. Why make a point out of saying he is a "practicing" and "serious" Jew? He makes a similar point about Lay, "an active Christian", and Paulsen a "fanatic about Jesus".
Just as you say that "we all know what he means" I agree. These remarks are perfectly consonant with what he said earlier
iwog says
So it is clear what he thinks of Christians and Jews. Its also clear why he used adjectives like "practicing", "serious" , "active" and "fanatic". If all of these are true than it makes his case stronger. If they are all false then really what he says is all - to quote Iwog "bullshit".
So this is why I asked the question I did? What is it about Madoff that caused Iwog to misrepresent him as a committed Jew? The answer is not about Madoff but about Iwog. The answer is that he thinks religious people are evil hypocrites who have the same contempt for others that exterminators have for cockroaches.
I think I understand him pretty well.
Im ready to move on though. I hate to get caught up in semantics. Those of you who agree with Iwog and would argue with him that "Christians have historically shown nothing but contempt for basic human rights and have treated life with the same contempt as an exterminator treats roaches" why not jut come out and say it and then give your reasons and evidence.
In fact just be honest about it. A more generalized version of that is the whole point of the Washington Post article which essentially tries to argue that Atheist are more ethical, more intelligent and better citizens than religious people who are ignorant, illiterate dumb fools with a "significantly higher" chance of becoming axe murderers.
I mean that right there is the Post argument as it is Iwogs though I think the Post hides its religious hatred a little bit better.
Follow
Befriend (8)
208 threads
4,505 comments
Davis, CA
mplangley says
I don't think, that agnostics/atheists give that much passion to the topic.
File this under "I have black friends" if you like, but my family is filled with Fundies and somehow I make it through Thanksgiving without offending any of them.
Many feel a bit more obligated to counter some argument we see as ridiculous, if it's on a forum of strangers and we are bored. But it doesn't generally translate into "let's burn all the holy books & people too!"
I'm perfectly willing to admit there are upstanding religious people who practice what they preach and have little complaint about them. It would be nice if the religious people would always return the compliment. At best we get proselytised, nagged, and derided as without morals of our own.
Follow
Befriend
1 threads
118 comments
marcus says
Well Ill take your words as a compliment. Socrates was often accused of getting caught up in semantics. I just happen to believe words have meaning and that its a little bit inconsistent and confusing for someone who does not believe in a creator to use the term "created". But I was also making a point. I made the claim that basically if you are an American - or born and raised in the West that your are almost by definition an Aristotelian. That is you have an Aristotelian and Judeo-Christian understanding of the world.
I got a lot of flack for this point but then thudnerlips goe and uses the following phrase
thunderlips11 says
Now perhaps thunderlips invented that himself but by golly that phrase is almost verbatim (as translated) our of Aristotle except that he says "Man by nature is a social animal". He does not use the word "creature". Its only later after Christianity comes along that the phrase "Man by nature is a social animal" becomes "Man by nature is a social creature".
So there you have it, timely and almost perfect evidence what I had just said.
And a few of you say I don't support what I say.
Not only do I support what I say but you also support what I say.
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,646 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
mplangley says
No religious hatred here, I've said repeatedly that I admire and respect religion.
However the point still stands as correct. Christianity has been the inspiration and the justification for millions murdered throughout history. Do you wish to pretend that none of it happened? Do you think 300 years of reasonable Christians wash away the sins of 1500 years?
Sure, if you want to view it that way you're entitled, but then again that wasn't my point. I'm illustrating the fallacy in claiming that Christians or people of any other religion are more or less capable of evil acts in direct opposition to what Chris said:
ChrisLA says
The best way to counter the claim of Wall Street being full of "gambling agnostics" is to show that some of the worst Wall Street criminals, Bernie Madoff and Kenneth Lay, were QUITE religious. However is that really necessary? All you need to do is to read some history where it's very clear that Christianity does not = good and quite often creates evil. Or do you deny the Dark Ages too?
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,646 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
mplangley, you've abandoned several lines of reasoning that you started. I'd rather you not become one of the many "conservatives" on this board who refuses to answer questions. We have too many as it is.
Again, do you think God was evil when he murdered all those children in the passover story? You had plenty to say on the topic but for some reason you decided to disappear when the question was asked.
I'm going to demonstrate that not only is the concept of evil in the Western world NOT sourced from biblical Christianity, but quite often in direct contradiction to it.
Follow
Befriend
1 threads
118 comments
thunderlips11 says
Yes - I agree. But not the point that iwog made.
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,646 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
thunderlips11 says
Yes he did, but I'll take it a step further. I think Bernie Madoff committed evil acts in spite of his belief in god and his faith.
Isn't that what Christians teach? We are all sinners, even the faithful? I think people are very capable of being serious about their religion, serious about their god, and STILL able to commit criminal acts.
Follow
Befriend
1 threads
118 comments
marcus says
That is part of his point. His point is also that religious people are generally worse than non religious.
You are totally ignoring what he said .
"Christians have historically shown nothing but contempt for basic human rights and have treated life with the same contempt as an exterminator treats roaches"
Pretty broad strokes if you ask me. He clearly thinks that non religious people are better. Has he ever said anything like "Non religious have historically shown nothing but contempt for basic human rights?"
Follow
Befriend (5)
171 threads
5,202 comments
I just erased a comment, seeing Iwog said it better.
I think you should be flattered Iwog. Maybe mplangley is someone we know from under another name,or maybe he has read many of your posts, including ones in other threads and has some strange bias about you. If he doesn't believe you know what it is that you meant or what you were saying, then you have to just let it be.
I don't see his point at all, but then I am listening from a different perspective. And I'm not saying that to defend you Iwog. As I said to mplangley, I really would have preferred to hear something more compelling from him.
Maybe it's the lack of respect he feels you you showed Thomas Aquinas.
Follow
Befriend
1 threads
118 comments
marcus says
Well - I quoted him verbatim
iwog says
Maybe Iwog should have mercy on me and clear up any stupid misunderstanding on my part. Does Iwog think that non christians or non religious people have also historically shown nothing but contempt for basic human rights and have treated life with the same contempt as an exterminator treats roaches?
My impression was that he thinks it is better to be Agnostic or Atheist or a non religious. If I have misunderstood then my apologies.
Follow
Befriend (5)
171 threads
5,202 comments
mplangley says
Yes, but take it with everything he said.
Add one word, "Christians often have shown," and everyone can agree.
Is your goal to hear what he's saying? Or is your goal to win? Or is your goal to be able to not hear most of what he's saying, by finding small things that you can challenge, thus overlooking the bigger message.
Follow
Befriend (5)
171 threads
5,202 comments
mplangley says
We all make choices that are best for us individually. So that's sort of a trick question.
A person can have respect for religion, and for those who have faith, and simultaneously have issues with religion, and some of it's consequences. And a person can choose to be an agnostic while still respecting believers for their faith.
Who needs to negate the others beliefs more? The agnostic or the Christian? I guess it depends on individuals.
Follow
Befriend
1 threads
118 comments
marcus says
Marcus - fine - but my argument is that you are not hearing/understanding what is being said. What is your take on the Washington Post article. I thought it was pretty clear that the point of that article was that :
"the irreligious tend to be more ethical than their religious peers, particularly compared with those who describe themselves as very religious"
It seemed to me that Iwog was making the exact same point.
Follow
Befriend (5)
171 threads
5,202 comments
mplangley says
The point was that agnostics and atheists are worthy of respect that they don't receive from the religious. Not that they are better.
Since we are dealing with beliefs, and religious people respecting atheists would challenge all but those with the very strongest of faith, it isn't surprising that atheists get no respect from the religious.
Follow
Befriend
1 threads
118 comments
iwog says
I too would agree with that. It seemed to me your argument actually was "because of" rather than "inspite of".
Now - so as to avoid any "give me a breaks!!" and to show that I am not being entirely unreasonable you did ask us to take a look at a map of teen pregnancy rates and to "Guess which states are the most religious?"
In fact it was almost a taunt or challenge:
"Guess which states are the most religious? Go on, guess!" which states had the higher teen pregnancy rates.
What ever the middle terms I think that was a pretty strong statement on your part that there is some sort of causal relationship between Christianity the bible belt and teen pregnancy rates. If thats not your point then why add the "guess, just guess" statement? Your basically saying it is obvious from the map which are the most religious - i.e those with the most teen pregnancies because teen pregnancy goes hand in hand with religion or something like that.
Follow
Befriend
1 threads
118 comments
marcus says
No marcus. You are going to accuse me of quibbling or not wanting to hear but the article says exactly what I quoted.
"the irreligious tend to be more ethical than their religious peers, particularly compared with those who describe themselves as very religious"
This goes beyond your claim that "agnostics and atheist are worthy of respect" the article says they are more worthy - they are "more ethical" they are happier and less likely to commit murder. I meant it goes even further - while building up Athiest it manages to sneak in a few put downs of those religious bigots:
"Rarely denounced by the mainstream, this stunning anti-atheist discrimination is egged on by Christian conservatives who stridently — and uncivilly — declare that the lack of godly faith is detrimental to society, rendering nonbelievers intrinsically suspect and second-class citizens"
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,646 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
mplangley says
How do you expect me to respond to a claim that Christians have a higher moral standard than atheists? That's what Chris was saying. Maybe the problem here is you jumped into someone else's line of reasoning?
I don't know if atheists are more ethical/moral than Christians or not. I find a few question areas in the article to be suspect. Specifically sexism, (I'm damn sexist) homophobia, (the word itself is biased) and environmental degradation. (wtf?) Therefore I don't even care what the article says. I'm not going to argue either way because I know religion doesn't change the way people ultimately behave........good or bad.
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,646 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
marcus says
Absolutely.
Follow
Befriend
1 threads
118 comments
iwog says
Ok - so you were joking? Being flippant? I don't think it was unreasonable to interpret you to imply that religiosity goes hand in hand with immorality/irresponsibility in the form of increased teen pregnancy. Why would you go to the trouble of finding that map and make the point about guessing which states are most religious?
iwog says
Now Im really confused. I'd almost agree with you if you mean "religion by itself does not make a person good or bad". What does make a person good or bad?
But I do like the new tone. It sure sounded to me like you thought that ultimately Christianity made people behave badly. Witness your references to the Dark Ages which I take it were caused by the Catholic Church which "institutionalized evil" and was accepted by everyone. You've mentioned the wars that religion has caused and have not mentioned any wars that atheism has caused. In fact you said that the evils that occurred in soviet russia "were falsely attributed to atheism" and were carried out by one man. So all in all you hit religion pretty hard and say nothing critical about Atheism. Hence I don't think its unreasonable for someone to conclude that you have an overall critical (some might say a harshly critical) opinion of religion - particularly the Catholic Church (since you single it out).
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,646 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
mplangley says
Because it's a direct and effective contradiction of an absurd claim by using a very specific instance of immorality. I wasn't trying to be flippant, rather I was trying to point out that the hypothesis of "Christians are better" doesn't stand up to the real world.
mplangley says
Genetics, peers, and parents in that order. People do what they feel, not what they know is right.
mplangley says
Atheists have no excuses and they choose not to participate in religious grouping, so it's hard to say anything in general about them. They are very much individuals.
As far as being hard on the Catholic church, I gave my list. I have a violent reaction to people who try to assert control over others when their own house is in tatters. Other than that, I'd probably be a member of a tight knit church if I could stand the dogma. Unfortunately I cannot accept certain implications that go with a belief in god and I cannot in good faith fake it.
Follow
Befriend
1 threads
6 comments
thunderlips11 says
Please take the time to read a comment more closely before responding. I am fine with having atheist videos on YouTube - why not, and good for them. What I find pushy is having pro-atheist comments pop up repeatedly on YouTube videos that have nothing to do with religion, like 1980 videos, japanese animes that don't address religion, a video on internet scammers, etc. As mentioned in my post, I rarely find other religions bringing up their beliefs when commenting on non-religion based videos or blogs (like ones on the housing market, for example).
Follow
Befriend
1 threads
6 comments
kentm says
My post stated that, in my experience, atheists are the biggest prosthelytizers out there ONLINE (Yes, I agree, they haven't started knocking on doors...yet). I am totally fine with having atheist sites online, I just am annoyed when they pop up on sites/stories/videos that have nothing to do with religion (like blogs on the housing market, for instance).
As for your other points:
- "Regularly gathering in large numbers in their places of non-worship"
Atheists don't have rallies, educational programs, billboards stating "This season, try reason" at christmas, etc.?
- "Always sermonizing on their atheist radio stations, playing their atheist music"
Listened to popular music lately? Way more make mention of their being no god than than the reverse - which I am fine with so long as I like the song. And no, they don't sermonize on the radio, they do it on TV. A lot of popular TV shows and comedians push atheism hard. "The Family Guy" even managed to hawk Richard Dawkins book. I would be totally ok with having "The Atheism Hour" as a show, but its the virtual equivalent of knocking randomly on doors when they do it on shows that aren't about religision.
- "all those Richard Dawkins books I keep finding in my hotel room drawers…" Hey, you've got your porn channel in the hotel too.
Follow
Befriend (3)
12 threads
3,118 comments
thunderlips11 says
lol ..... lmao
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,646 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
mlisaj1111 says
I've never seen anything of the sort. I'm in Northern California, and if there's a hot bed of atheism, this is it. Yet this area is SATURATED with Christian propaganda every Christmas. The most atheists do is have a picnic once a year. (about 40 people attend)
mlisaj1111 says
No they don't. Modern media is highly secular and goes out of its way to avoid any references to religion and atheism at all. It's bad for business. When you tally up Christian stations versus atheist stations, you get a result of several thousand to.........one. Yes one. Atheists have a single channel next to an ocean of Christian programs, and it's damn near impossible to find even if you look for it.
mlisaj1111 says
Once again you are making the tragic error of assuming secular = atheist. It certainly does not! Are you telling me the porn channel doesn't appeal to Christians??? ROFLOL Is it time for me to list the Christian sex scandals or is it just a waste of time because we all remember them?
Follow
Befriend (3)
12 threads
3,118 comments
lol ... not many flavored oxygen bars in those "bad neighborhoods" you listed either .... or Pirus owners .... or Starbucks .... or weight lifting gyms .... or public sodomite displays .... or Trader Joes .... or kids named Skyler, Avery, Buffy, or Tanner ... lol
I would imagine the ratio of trailer park population vs private school population would match your example pretty close.
Follow
Befriend (3)
12 threads
3,118 comments
iwog says
once again, I ask how one is known to be/act/conform to the tribe of atheist? Is there a guide book or rules of behavior?
Follow
Befriend (3)
12 threads
3,118 comments
iwog says
by basic definition, wouldn't all non-religious stations be atheist stations? non-atheist = religious, therefore, athiest = non-religious. Right?