Jump to content

Would the world be a better place without religion?


Itoero
 Share

Recommended Posts

The majority of kids who use social media are fine.

The majority of kids who use alcohol would seriously hurt their development.

 

You don't see your mistake?

Or my argument?

The majority of kids who use social media are fine.

The majority minority of kids who use alcohol would seriously hurt their development.

 

Does that help?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're presuming all kids would use alcohol in some heavy way. I am certainly not advocating that alcohol should be legal for children, but if you imagine a world where it was it would no longer be forbidden fruit. The biggest thing that draws kids to alcohol is that it's a "grown up thing," and it's *forbidden*. You don't know what a that world would be like, so presumptions about it do not constitution convincing arguments in any way. But the alcohol thing was just an example - I don't need a comparison to alcohol to feel completely sure that social media is, in total, bad for our kids. No - not every single bit of it is bad. But much more bad arises from it than good. And yet parents have virtually no choice other than to allow it, because if they don't then their child will be the one outcast who isn't "in the game," and that in itself causes them to become targets.

 

Children can be extremely cruel to one another - giving them new ways to do it was bound to make the problem worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're presuming all kids would use alcohol in some heavy way.

No. I am not.

I made that very clear when I said "even in small doses, it is extremely hurtful to young children."

 

And unless you're a doctor, who has researched the severe side effects to giving children alcohol, I suggest you don't claim it's harmless unless abused.

You don't know what a that world would be like, so presumptions about it do not constitution convincing arguments in any way. But the alcohol thing was just an example - I don't need a comparison to alcohol to feel completely sure that social media is, in total, bad for our kids. No - not every single bit of it is bad. But much more bad arises from it than good.

You're presuming that the world is better without social media and that's alright, but it's wrong for me to presume based upon evidence that alcohol should not be legal for kids?

Okay.

 

 

And evidence social media is bad?

I provided evidence that there are no significant effects.

So unless you can prove contrary, don't say there are negative effects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait a minute. Up until now I thought you were quibbling over the amount of bad effects arising from social media. Are you really claiming that there are none???


https://childmind.org/article/how-using-social-media-affects-teenagers/

https://www.mentalhealth.org.uk/blog/social-media-and-young-peoples-mental-health

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/children/11943810/Excessive-social-media-use-harms-childrens-mental-health.html

https://www.meganmeierfoundation.org/cyberbullying-social-media.html

... etc.

 

Just open your eyes online - this information is everywhere out there.


I have witnessed it affect my own children, so nothing will ever convince me it's not a problem. I've seen it.


Regarding the alcohol topic, I think you misunderstood me (or I wasn't sufficiently clear). I was speaking primarily of teenagers (near adults - the ones who most partake of underage drinking now). I'm quite well aware of the adverse effects alcohol can have on small children / infants. So I think we were looking at two different things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait a minute. Up until now I thought you were quibbling over the amount of bad effects arising from social media. Are you really claiming that there are none???

https://childmind.org/article/how-using-social-media-affects-teenagers/

https://www.mentalhealth.org.uk/blog/social-media-and-young-peoples-mental-health

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/children/11943810/Excessive-social-media-use-harms-childrens-mental-health.html

https://www.meganmeierfoundation.org/cyberbullying-social-media.html

... etc.

 

Just open your eyes online - this information is everywhere out there.

And o golly gee.

Another failure at english.

 

 

Here. Let me explain the term "majority".

 

Majority, means the largest portion of something that's in question.

 

The majority of teens not having adverse effects is what I claimed.

 

Point to where I said "There are no adverse effects in any teens."

 

All the studies support what I'm saying.

A lot of social media is harmful.

I agree.

There are a lot of kids who use it too much.

I agree.

The majority of kids though, don't over use it so much that they are significantly hurt.

I agree.

 

So I agree with your links.

You agree too since you used them.

We're good here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, we're fine. And neither of us has changed his mind in any way. Which is the way this sort of thing usually goes.

And while we were all busy not changing each other's mind, we've gotten seriously OT.

No, you provided 4 links that supported my claim.

Which isn't the way this sort of thing usually goes.

 

Also, I'd refrain from using negative posts on somebody simply because you don't agree.

Typically, it's smart to save them for those who are contributing nothing to the current conversation.

 

 

But we have gotten off topic.

Let's stop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, you provided 4 links that supported my claim.

Which isn't the way this sort of thing usually goes.

 

Also, I'd refrain from using negative posts on somebody simply because you don't agree.

Typically, it's smart to save them for those who are contributing nothing to the current conversation.

 

 

But we have gotten off topic.

Let's stop.

 

 

Kiplngram didn't give you the negative rep, I did. And I didn't give it 'simply because I disagree'. I used it because I abhor the disrespectful, smart-ass attitude you often use with people. In this case, starting off your post with "And o golly gee. Another failure at english." That type of response also contributes nothing to the current conversation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kiplngram didn't give you the negative rep, I did. And I didn't give it 'simply because I disagree'. I used it because I abhor the disrespectful, smart-ass attitude you often use with people. In this case, starting off your post with "And o golly gee. Another failure at english." That type of response also contributes nothing to the current conversation.

In response to "Just open your eyes online" I thought it was fair.

And I'd pointed it out to two people directly before, that there are exceptions. So by the third time somebody said I claimed "absolutely none" I got annoyed.

But in which case, I'll keep the negative rep point.

 

And for actually being honest +1

Edited by Raider5678
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 8 months later...

Some of you might be lost since this post draws information from all of the previous ones.

First, less interestingly, I noticed that this data obtained from an Iranian university sample is consistent with an opposing effect from honesty-humility.  It identifies correlations with neuroticism (inversely) and extraversion, but the magnitude of the agreeableness correlation has decreased with respect to the conscientiousness correlation.  This opposite effect was inferred from (A) the failure of religiosity to significantly correlate with the modesty & straightforwardness facets of agreeableness and (B) what seemed to be an opposite, positive correlation of Neuroticism/Introversion and the modesty facet of Agreeableness. 

Basic Religious Beliefs and Personality Traits

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3428642/

Even more interesting was some research on collective narcissism.

On Self-Love and Out Group Hate: Opposite Effects of Narcissism on Prejudice via Social Dominance Orientation and Right Wing Authoritarianism

I didn't actually read it.  I skipped to Table 6: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5601291/table/per2114-tbl-0006/

EDIT: but Table 4, which provides the zero-order correlations from Study 3 rather than Study 4, shows something different. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5601291/table/per2114-tbl-0004/

This decades-old concept of "collective narcissism" might need a new name, but that is not the point.  Agreeableness and Conscientiousness correlated positively with collective narcissism, right-wing authoritarianism (especially Conscientiousness), and social dominance orientation.  Furthermore, emotionally stability (inverse Neuroticism) correlated with right-wing authoritarianism.  Recall that secondary psychopaths, which is probably linked to lower religiosity, scored lower on the RMET (Reading The Mind in the Eyes Test), which is linked to religiosity, but primaries did not and exploitative narcissists might score higher.  This could help to explain the prejudice of the latter groups.  Although I would want to see research on vasopressin too, oxytocin has been linked to higher social skills, but also higher prejudice in some scenarios.  All of this is consistent with inference from the observation that BPD is more frequently diagnosed in women, who are well-known to be less narcissistic than men, and gay men.  The different diagnoses received by these disadvantaged groups would suggest less prejudice.  Of course, women tend toward higher oxytocin and higher religiosity, so there is more going on, but my point is that secondary psychopathy might be linked with belonging to disadvantaged groups and being less prejudiced.  In turn, this may help to explain why religiosity, despite its many admirable associations, is correlated with greater prejudice. Not everything good is entirely good.

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20170303-how-collective-narcissism-is-directing-world-politics

Quote

In fact, in her recent review of the field Cichocka explains how feeling a strong sense of identification with a larger group can be constructive. People can find great purpose and meaning in doing things for the greater good of their group, and healthy patriotism is associated with more tolerance and understanding of other nationalities. What makes collective narcissism distinct is its defensive and paranoid tone, and the insatiable desire for due recognition from others.

Edited by MonDie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correction: In that sample, Agreeableness and Conscientiousness were un-correlated with SDO after controlling for (Free of) RWA.  Anyway, now I have read the publication except its long discussion section.

On Self-Love and Out Group Hate: Opposite Effects of Narcissism on Prejudice via Social Dominance Orientation and Right Wing Authoritarianism (Cichoka, Dhont, Makwana, 2017)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5601291/

Table 6 reviewed the data from Study 4, which was conducted in post-Communist Poland.  Furthermore, it derived more statistical power from its sample size, but it used the "Single-Item Narcissism Scale" and assessed the Big Five with a ten-item scale.  Coincidentally or resultantly, the correlation of narccisism and prejudice not only dropped below significance but even was heading in the other direction.  The researchers repeat and emphasize the positive and contrapositive of an opposite pair of findings: narcissism is indirectly related to higher prejudice through SDO (Free of RWA) and lower prejudice through lower RWA (Free of SDO), and the reversed findings apply for low narcissists.  One would presume that the prejudice via SDO effect overpowered the prejudice via RWA effect in their previous samples but not this Polish sample.  Lastly, their failure to correlate individual narcissism and collective narcissism may be a deviation from prior research, for this correlation's existence is stated in the intro to Study 4.

In Study 3, the association of narcissism and prejudice appeared to decrease after they controlled for psychopathy and Machiavellianism, but I have to wonder whether what resulted was a purer measure of narcissism or a measure of narcissistic extraversion, which likely arises from the mixed correlations of the honesty-humility factor.  Indeed, extraversion was inversely related to prejudice, for extraversion is always strongly correlated with openness.  Of course, this could carry an unexpected implication that the low honesty-humility samples, like the one obtained from the Iranian university, might be less prejudiced in some ways.

If narcissism and RWA (Free of SDO) were inversely related through this pathway, IQ might be an important explanatory variable, correlating differently to Openness and Conscientiousness.  This could explain the particularly strong correlation of Conscientiousness and RWA.

That is probably all... now... after I give thanks to Wikipedia.

Whether right-wing authoritarians are less intelligent than average is disputed, with Stenner arguing that variables such as high verbal ability (indicative of high cognitive capacity) have a very substantial ameliorative effect in diminishing authoritarian tendencies.[1] Measured against other factors of personality, authoritarians generally score lower on openness to experience and slightly higher on conscientiousness.[24][25][26]

Thank you, Wikipedia

Edited by MonDie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I guess I need to watch what I say.

Those tables are showing "zero-order correlations", which might mean that those data were output before controlling for other variables, like Machiavellianism or RWA/SDO.  The pattern seen in the SDO column is still interesting, but my recollection of another publication raised interesting questions about the RWA findings.

Disparities in the Moral Institutions of Criminal Offenders: The Role of Psychopathy (Aharoni, Antonenko, Kiehl, 2011)

Figure 1 sums it up: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3107598/figure/F1/

Whether you want to compare psychopaths to narcissists (low Agreebleness) or antisocial personalities (low Agreeabelness and Conscientiousness), we should expect that, per Table 6 from above, they would be lower in right-wing-authoritarianism.  In this publication from 2011, they scored lower on the "moral foundation" called "respect for authority."  The problem is to come: This correlation was not particularly strong, surpassing only the correlation with ingroup loyalty.  PCL-R scores had a stronger inverse correlations with "Harm Prevention" and "Fairness."  However, I read that publication long ago, and there are newer ones that I have not read.  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3861283/

Lastly, I will give an idea about the correlation of religiosity with higher conscientious, higher alpha/stability, and lower openness.  To the extent that it really is "typical", the typical religious personality might be described as a rule-following personality, a personality that does not waver unpredictably.  In contrast, history shows that many "plastic" intellectuals were rejected by the religious community.  Openness/Intellect comprises part of the hierarchical factors called "Positive Emotionality" and "Beta/Plasticity."  Galileo and Darwin were not rule-breakers, but mold-breakers, adaptive thinkers, who were lumped together with run-of-the-mill trouble-makers.  I might study next—for the research already existshow creativity and innovation are affected by systems of reinforcement that focus on punishments instead of rewards.  Rewards say, "Find a path to point B."  Punishments says, "Don't stray from the path, you might cause a C."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Could you clarify that? Like what is that test?

The Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test is a decades-old test of "mentalizing", the ability to read emotional signals and to understand the emotions that cause them.  It was designed to distinguish autistics from normal people, but it really only measures one of several dimensions of autism.  It is unique to only show pictures of the eyes.  Unlike the mouth, which can be manipulated consciously, the eyes convey our emotional state more accurately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, MonDie said:

The Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test is a decades-old test of "mentalizing", the ability to read emotional signals and to understand the emotions that cause them.  It was designed to distinguish autistics from normal people, but it really only measures one of several dimensions of autism.  It is unique to only show pictures of the eyes.  Unlike the mouth, which can be manipulated consciously, the eyes convey our emotional state more accurately.

So through that, they came to the conclusion right-wing authoritarians were more emotionally stable?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

So through that, they came to the conclusion right-wing authoritarians were more emotionally stable?

 

That was not their conclusion, but that is observable in the data in Table 6, if "Emotional Stability" refers to inversed Neuroticism.  Neuroticism is one of the five factors, and alpha/stability is a hierarchical factor.

My reasoning has gone like this.

Primary Psychopathy, low Agreeableness.  Secondary, low Conscientiousness.

Secondary psychopathy -> lower religioisity

Secondary psychopathy -> lower mentalizing; lower mentalizing -> lower religioisity

Conscientiousness -> higher religiosity (Well established correlation of religiosity with agreeableness and conscientiousness, and conscientiousness is usually stronger)

Per Table 6: high Conscientiousness -> high RWA

Per Table 6 + hierarchical analysis + IQ correlations: RWA -> high alpha/stability, but low IQ

 

When you use the inversed "Emotional Stability" factor, all five of the factors are socially desireable and positively correlated.  In a six-factor analysis, the new-comer, honesty-humility, might break this pattern, potentially explaining instances of weaker correlations with Agreeableness as compared to Conscientiousness.

That is all.  Have fun!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

My personal view is that religion needs to evolve.

I doubt we will ever get rid of religion, and we should acknowledge that religion has done some good things and religious people still do good things. Also, people keep creating new religions. Even atheists are creating their own churches or religious/spiritual communities because they want to keep the desirable aspects of religion and discard the undesirable aspects.

However, religion needs a major philosophical or theological overhaul because it is horribly out of touch with the modern world. My primary concerns with religion is that it does not know what a human being is. They have a very cynical and simplistic view of the human experience, and that is not helping anybody. In other words, theologians should probably spend ten or twenty years studying human psychology to get a modern appreciation for humankind.

Another concern I have is that religion has no comprehension of human rights. Most religions have the self serving idea that people should sell their souls to one religion and only one religion. Yet, human rights says people have the right to choose what they are willing to believe and what they are not willing to believe. Therefore, a good modern religion should ask people what they are willing to believe and what they are not willing to believe.

Another issue is that religion is undemocratic. People should have the liberty to decide who they are willing to follow and who they are not willing to follow. True, people could make a stupid choice, but they do this as a group and that has one distinct advantage, namely everybody shares the blame. Therefore, they can correct their folly on the next vote. This in unlike the traditional hierarchal design where the authoritarian at the top never makes mistakes, so they don't need to fix their follies. And if there are any follies to fix, it was probably somebody else's fault and that person should be punished, severely punished for making the supreme leader look human.

and that is my two and a half cents

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll put in 3 cents worth! Personally I really don't give a stuff about religion and religious people one way or the other...I take each one on their merits. If they stick to there myth without bothering me, and/or trying to project their myths into science, or installing their nonsensical "god of the gaps"  explanation, then I leave them in peace. But in every field we will always have the fanatical, zealous and others that imagine themselves on a white charger out to stick it up science whenever they get the urge. 

Obviously science has pushed the necessity of any deity and/or magical spaghetti  monster into near oblivion, and this naturally enrages those same zealous, fanatics and god botherers. The Catholic church, [god bless their cotton picking little souls] now even accept the theory of evolution and the BB, but then once again, in comes their god of the gaps!

Science though proceeds in the continued search for knowledge and pushing back and invalidating supernatural and paranormal nonsense. If it were not for science, we would still be swinging in the trees. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Would the world be a better place without religion?

Let's me put in Lady Gaga performance of John Lennon's Imagine:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3ues1stefk

 

"Imagine there's no heaven

It's easy if you try

No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people living for today
Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people living life in peace, you
You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope some day you'll join us
And the world will be as one
Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people sharing all the world, you
You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope some day you'll join us
And the world will be as one"
 
 
Edited by Sensei
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Sensei said:

Let's me put in Lady Gaga performance of John Lennon's Imagine:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3ues1stefk

 

"Imagine there's no heaven

It's easy if you try

No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people living for today
Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people living life in peace, you
You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope some day you'll join us
And the world will be as one
Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people sharing all the world, you
You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope some day you'll join us
And the world will be as one"
3

Ironically the closest we ever got to this ideal is when religions start.

Edited by dimreepr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Ironically the closest we ever got to this ideal is when religions start.

There is said to be a tripe in the amazon that has no concept of god or religion as we know it. Not sure if that is relevant or not, this horse has been beaten to death and then beaten repeated after death. You are correct, no large society on Earth is really free of the influence of religion in some way... 

On 5/17/2017 at 4:15 PM, Raider5678 said:

No.

Because I already provided a large amount of statistical evidence showing that to be false.

And then you told me you weren't arguing that point.

Now you're saying you're arguing that point again.

Raider, you do realise that children needs to be defined here. Some countries do indeed allow alcohol for young people, even children less than puberty. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

 no large society on Earth is really free of the influence of religion in some way..

1

Not really my point, imagine what it takes to convert a pagan to a Christian or a Hindu to a Buddist, on mass? My point is that history clearly shows, every new major religion spread far and wide despite indigenous culture/belief.   

We're both veterans on this site, so let me ask, how often does anyone here admit they're wrong, let alone jump ship?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Not really my point, imagine what it takes to convert a pagan to a Christian or a Hindu to a Buddist, on mass? My point is that history clearly shows, every new major religion spread far and wide despite indigenous culture/belief.   

We're both veterans on this site, so let me ask, how often does anyone here admit they're wrong, let alone jump ship?

I admitted I was wrong once but it turned out I was correct!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.