Is religion being picked on?

[swansont]

So how is ridicule equivalent to persecution, anyway? If you have freedom of religion and freedom of speech, why does religion win?

[Prometheus]

 

I used the example of the dream as being a form of natural data that the brain generates. If we could get computers to spontaneously generate such content, it would be marveled at.

 

We all have had dreams to know such data does indeed exist. We also have all had dreams with unique content. Since this unique content is real ad may occur millions of times a night, but can't be proven in a scientific way, what is real millions of time is called irrelevant. This means data can be left out, so one can draw biased conclusions, called acceptable.

 

Psychology, is called soft science because it will make use of unique data and not stick its head in the sand, based on the philosophy of science. But since this is not fully by the book; repeatable, it is deemed soft science, meaning it used too much data and departs from the collective external data only bias.

 

Instead of a dream, say my unique data was a feeling of God. This data can also be real data. The best you get out of the philosophy of science will be soft science at best or irrelevant at worse.

 

 

 

 

This is a good observation. Not all religions have deities. There is no God in Buddhism, yet this is called a religion. God is not the common thread that defines a religion unless you use part data. There is something more fundamental with atheism a non-deity religion.

 

This religion angle could explain why a nativity scene to an atheist is like sunlight to a vampire. The nativity scene creates external data; object that is reproducible. The atheist religion needs to get rid of all the external data from its competitor, so what is left is only internal data, which can be denied.

 

What such atheists need to do is go up to a nativity scene and observed the internal things that it may trigger, knowing this data, although real, will be denied. They appear to get spooked by what they see and feel, yet the method is not applied to them. This is because the atheists only apply this to competing religions and not heir own godless religion.

 

Getting off topic now but by your reasoning I can claim the Force is real - i was certainly moved by Star Wars far more than any nativity scene. This Force must then be real, because i feel it is real. Many people agree with me, and Jedism is a growing religion. You cannot prove the Force does not exist, as it is based on the feelings of its followers. Hopefully not too many will join the dark side and start blowing people up.

[Strange]

I already posted that i was ridiculed by atheists when I was a Christian. They ridiculed my faith.

 

Judging by your posts here, they may have just been ridiculing your lack of logic ...

[Acme]

Whether or not an atheist's crime is atheistically motivated, religion might have inhibited it. Religious youth exhibit fewer delinquent behaviors. Perhaps religion inhibits as many crimes as it induces.

Did I miss a citation to support the 'Religious youth exhibit fewer delinquent behaviors' claim? Even if true, a new study finds religious kids are less altruistic.

 

The Negative Association between Religiousness and Childrens Altruism across the World

Summary

 

Prosocial behaviors are ubiquitous across societies. They emerge early in ontogeny [ 1 ] and are shaped by interactions between genes and culture [ 2, 3 ]. Over the course of middle childhood, sharing approaches equality in distribution [ 4 ]. Since 5.8 billion humans, representing 84% of the worldwide population, identify as religious [ 5 ], religion is arguably one prevalent facet of culture that influences the development and expression of prosociality. While it is generally accepted that religion contours peoples moral judgments and prosocial behavior, the relation between religiosity and morality is a contentious one. Here, we assessed altruism and third-party evaluation of scenarios depicting interpersonal harm in 1,170 children aged between 5 and 12 years in six countries (Canada, China, Jordan, Turkey, USA, and South Africa), the religiousness of their household, and parent-reported child empathy and sensitivity to justice. Across all countries, parents in religious households reported that their children expressed more empathy and sensitivity for justice in everyday life than non-religious parents. However, religiousness was inversely predictive of childrens altruism and positively correlated with their punitive tendencies. Together these results reveal the similarity across countries in how religion negatively influences childrens altruism, challenging the view that religiosity facilitates prosocial behavior. ...

[iNow]

^ See the entire article here: http://www.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/S0960-9822(15)01167-7.pdf

 

A common sense notion and a theoretical assertion from reli- gious metaphysics is that religiosity has a causal connection and a positive association with moral behaviors [8]. This view is so deeply embedded that individuals who are not religious can be considered morally suspect [9, 10]. In religious households, children receive a basic form of moral training and, over middle childhood, are expected to begin to be more sensitive to the plight of others as well as to express greater prosociality and less antisocial behavior [11].

<snip>

Here, we show that religiosity, as indexed by three different measures, is not associated with increased altruism in young children. Our findings robustly demonstrate that children from households identifying as either of the two major world religions (Christianity and Islam) were less altruistic than children from non-religious households. Moreover, the negative relation be- tween religiousness and spirituality and altruism changes across age, with those children with longer experience of religion in the household exhibiting the greatest negative relations.

Edited November 7, 2015 by iNow

[Jagella]

 

I'm not saying this is what happened, but is there a chance that these people, being atheists and hopefully rational thinkers, offered up reasons to support why they thought your faith was ridiculous (don't answer that yet, two-part question)? And you, being religious at the time and armed mostly with emotional appeals, doctrine full of contradictions and errors, and an abiding faith that absolutely won't allow you to be wrong about your religion, is there a chance you perceived that criticism as ridicule?

 

What they said was not what I would describe as constructive criticism. It was cruel considering that I was trusting in my Christian faith to heal me of a severe injury. Would you resort to ridicule if you are told by a person dying of cancer that she is looking to a god to heal her?

 

And because it's about your faith, it feels like it's about you. So here are these atheists, seemingly mocking you personally, but it might be that they were just using their knowledge of the natural world to explain where your doctrine failed the reality test, or to point out that strong faith means accepting a single explanation about a phenomenon without question even though you can't possibly know something like that.

One of those atheists had it in for me. For example, he lied to me saying that a petition was going around to have me evicted from my apartment. So I have reason to believe that it was about me.

Let's put you on the receiving end. If some Christians deem your atheism to be ridiculous and ridicule you, would that be OK for you?

Jagella

[Bells]

 

What they said was not what I would describe as constructive criticism. It was cruel considering that I was trusting in my Christian faith to heal me of a severe injury. Would you resort to ridicule if you are told by a person dying of cancer that she is looking to a god to heal her?

 

 

 

Have you considered the possibility that they were responding with exasperation out of concern for your health and wellbeing?

 

That perhaps they were hoping to shock you out of your belief that God would heal you, if you were not seeking medical help or care for your cancer and if you were instead relying solely on prayer?

 

 

 

One of those atheists had it in for me. For example, he lied to me saying that a petition was going around to have me evicted from my apartment. So I have reason to believe that it was about me.

 

Let's put you on the receiving end. If some Christians deem your atheism to be ridiculous and ridicule you, would that be OK for you?

 

Jagella

 

Why would he say that? I find it strange that anyone would try to have someone evicted because of their religious beliefs. How did he even know what your religion was?

[iNow]

Let's put you on the receiving end. If some Christians deem your atheism to be ridiculous and ridicule you, would that be OK for you?

Yes, because my stance is easily defended with logic and reason and rationality. Valid positions are far easier to defend than those based on wish thinking and faith alone. I also have a thick skin and the ability to reciprocate, and also a willingness to walk away from ignorant people without it having a negative affect on my own self-image and self-confidence.

[pwagen]

 

I already posted that i was ridiculed by atheists when I was a Christian. They ridiculed my faith.

 

 

Yes. My mother, a Roman Catholic, called me an "asshole" because I attended an Assembly of God church.

 

You've been asked before why you single out atheists, so I won't ask that again. I would, however, ask you to consider the following.

People are assholes to people that are different from themselves, be it by religion, skin colour or accents. The more different they are, the more likely they are to be demeaning in some way, and the more extremely they will behave. You and the alleged atheists were separated by differences of belief, which is commonly a huge part of one's life.

 

However, in this post you bring up something new. Your mother, the person which you arguably have the most things in common with, were incredibly mean to you because you didn't follow her exact doctrine.

 

Now ask yourself what is worse. People you have very little in common with following their unfortunate human nature and being disrespectful due to your faith. Or your own mother, whom you should be able to trust with everything, doing the same thing for the same reason.

Edit: Not only for religious reasons, but DESPITE her being religious.

 

When you're done thinking, you'll probably realize the futility and uselessness of this thread.

Edited November 8, 2015 by pwagen

[Strange]

I already posted that i was ridiculed by atheists when I was a Christian. They ridiculed my faith.

 

As you have already completely misrepresented one discussion on another forum (post #51), I would suggest people take this with a pinch of salt.

[John Cuthber]

 

 

(1) One of those atheists had it in for me. For example, he lied to me saying that a petition was going around to have me evicted from my apartment. So I have reason to believe that it was about me.

 

(2) Let's put you on the receiving end. If some Christians deem your atheism to be ridiculous and ridicule you, would that be OK for you?

 

 

(1) So, it's not about religion or atheism is it?

as you say "So I have reason to believe that it was about me. "

 

(2) They are welcome to try; some have. I suspect that some of those who tried are no longer theists. It is easy for me to deflect that ridicule and point out that, from my point of view, they are acting like grown-ups who still believe in Santa Claus.

[Phi for All]

What they said was not what I would describe as constructive criticism. It was cruel considering that I was trusting in my Christian faith to heal me of a severe injury. Would you resort to ridicule if you are told by a person dying of cancer that she is looking to a god to heal her?

Can't answer that. No offense, you're asking me a question but only giving me one very slanted perspective of the situation.

 

One of those atheists had it in for me. For example, he lied to me saying that a petition was going around to have me evicted from my apartment. So I have reason to believe that it was about me.

So being a Christian might not have been the only thing this person was angry with you for?

 

Let's put you on the receiving end. If some Christians deem your atheism to be ridiculous and ridicule you, would that be OK for you?

There are no arguments from a theistic POV that might show any kind of atheism to be ridiculous, without begging the question that the religion's deity is real. I'm the kind of atheist that treats religion the same way I treat golf. I'm a non-golfer, so why would anything bad a golfer had to say about my not golfing bother me? Why am I giving his perspective that much importance?

[Jagella]

 

As you have already completely misrepresented one discussion on another forum (post #51), I would suggest people take this with a pinch of salt.

 

Trail the heretic! Denounce him wherever he goes.

 

Jagella

[Phi for All]

 

Trail the heretic! Denounce him wherever he goes.

 

Jagella

 

Heretic, denouncer. I always get those two mixed up.

 

 

 

Golfer: "Let's go golfing!"

Non-Golfer: "I don't golf."

Golfer: "What do you mean, everybody golfs!"

Non-Golfer: "Not me."

Golfer: "What do you have against golf?"

Non-Golfer: "Nothing, I just don't."

Golfer: "You think golfers are stupid, don't you?"

Non-Golfer: "No! You golf, I don't. Can't it be as simple as that?"

Golfer: "What don't you like about golf? Is it the fresh air? Is it the exercise? Is it the fellowship of friends?"

Non-Golfer: "Listen, I like all those things! I just get them without golfing."

Golfer: "Without golfing?! You think the world would be better off WITHOUT GOLFING?!?!"

Non-Golfer: "That's not what I said...."

Golfer: "You non-golfers are all alike! You need to be more sensitive about who you're ridiculing! Stop picking on golf and stop persecuting golfers!"

[Jagella]

Have you considered the possibility that they were responding with exasperation out of concern for your health and wellbeing?

 

I considered that possibility, and I have concluded that they did not ridicule me because they were concerned for my health. None of them suggested standard medical care or did anything else that would suggest that they acted out of goodwill.

 

That perhaps they were hoping to shock you out of your belief that God would heal you, if you were not seeking medical help or care for your cancer and if you were instead relying solely on prayer?

I don't have cancer (my example was hypothetical), but I do have an injury that I sought a remedy for.

Why would he say that? I find it strange that anyone would try to have someone evicted because of their religious beliefs. How did he even know what your religion was?

I don't know why he lied to me.

In any case, although faith healing may be harmful, ridiculing desperate people is also harmful because in addition to being disrespectful it probably won't dissuade people from seeking religious solutions to their problems.

Jagella

[iNow]

People are challenging your assertion that what occurred was ridicule. People are asking why it matters even if it was.

[Strange]

In any case, although faith healing may be harmful, ridiculing desperate people is also harmful because in addition to being disrespectful it probably won't dissuade people from seeking religious solutions to their problems.

 

I don't think you have mentioned faith healing before. If that is what was being ridiculed, then it is entirely reasonable. (Unlike some here, I don't approve of ridiculing religious people just for being religious. Only when they are ridiculous.) If you had said you were going for homeopathic treatment (which has no religious connotations) then I assume you would have been equally ridiculed.

 

So you weren't being ridiculed because they were atheists, you were being ridiculed because they were rational.

[Acme]

Heretic, denouncer. I always get those two mixed up.

...

Golfer: "You non-golfers are all alike! You need to be more sensitive about who you're ridiculing! Stop picking on golf and stop persecuting golfers!"

Golf has too much walking to be a good game, and just enough game to spoil a good walk. ~Unattested Denouncing Heretic

[MonDie]

It is easy for me to deflect that ridicule and point out that, from my point of view, they are acting like grown-ups who still believe in Santa Claus.

I can still remember the pro/anti- Santa Claus factions that we formed in elementary school. It was a passionately divisive issue!

Did I miss a citation to support the 'Religious youth exhibit fewer delinquent behaviors' claim? Even if true, a new study finds religious kids are less altruistic.

 

The Negative Association between Religiousness and Childrens Altruism across the World

 

http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780195396607/obo-9780195396607-0177.xml

 

"However, according to reviews of existing researchwhether based on a method of traditional literature review, systematic review, or meta-analysisa majority of studies tend to confirm significant negative associations between religion and crime and drug use. The negative associations have been found in research conducted at both micro and macro levels."

 

I think the more specific review I read was "Religion and its effects on crime and delinquency", but I'm no longer sure I downloaded a unaltered, peer-reviewed document. It basically said that only the link to juvenile delinquency is well established.

[Jagella]

 

I don't think you have mentioned faith healing before. If that is what was being ridiculed, then it is entirely reasonable. (Unlike some here, I don't approve of ridiculing religious people just for being religious. Only when they are ridiculous.) If you had said you were going for homeopathic treatment (which has no religious connotations) then I assume you would have been equally ridiculed.

 

Really? You would ridicule sick and desperate people for seeking healing through religious faith? I'd recommend caution because if there are any able-bodied people around, then you might be picking yourself up off the floor.

 

So you weren't being ridiculed because they were atheists, you were being ridiculed because they were rational.

 

I see nothing rational about ridicule. Ridicule is devoid of reason and has no capacity to arrive at the truth. I prefer calm, rational arguments backed up by evidence. If somebody seeks healing through faith, I would ask her why she is taking that route and try to steer her in what I hope is a more promising direction.

 

Jagella

[Bells]

 

I considered that possibility, and I have concluded that they did not ridicule me because they were concerned for my health. None of them suggested standard medical care or did anything else that would suggest that they acted out of goodwill.

 

 

 

Do you believe they ridiculed you because they thought your belief in faith healing was irrational and dangerous?

 

Why would they suggest what medical treatment you should seek? Are they doctors or medical professionals?

 

Could it be that they had considered you knew of the medical care and that you had ignored it because of your faith?

 

There seems to be a lot of context missing from this story. How did they come around to start insulting you for your faith? What led to it? Is there some background that you have left out?

 

 

 

I don't have cancer (my example was hypothetical), but I do have an injury that I sought a remedy for.

 

Medical help?

 

Or religious help?

 

And your wording made it seem as though you suffered from cancer.

 

 

I don't know why he lied to me.

You still have not addressed how he knew your religious beliefs to begin with and what would lead him to lie about trying to have you evicted from your home because of your religious beliefs.

 

Once more, there is a lot of context and history missing from the story. Were you preaching to others? Were you trying to convert your neighbours? Were there loud prayer meetings in your home that disturbed your neighbours? What led him to say you are of this religion and therefore, tried to threaten you with eviction or lie about eviction? What is missing from this narration?

 

 

 

In any case, although faith healing may be harmful, ridiculing desperate people is also harmful because in addition to being disrespectful it probably won't dissuade people from seeking religious solutions to their problems.

 

No offense, but you are being disrespectful towards atheists in this thread by labeling all with one brush. Not to mention appearing to enjoy the prospect of violence against an atheist for not believing as others do:

 

 

 

Really? You would ridicule sick and desperate people for seeking healing through religious faith? I'd recommend caution because if there are any able-bodied people around, then you might be picking yourself up off the floor.

 

Is this respectful? Is the threat of violence supposed to garner respect?

 

Would I ridicule sick or desperate people for seeking healing through religious faith? Probably not. But I would question their rationality and I would wonder whether they were possibly harming themselves or others in the process. Many children have died as a result of faith healing, because their parents deliberately chose to withhold treatment for their sick children in favour of faith healing and prayer. Do you think such individuals deserve to be respected?

 

 

 

I see nothing rational about ridicule. Ridicule is devoid of reason and has no capacity to arrive at the truth. I prefer calm, rational arguments backed up by evidence. If somebody seeks healing through faith, I would ask her why she is taking that route and try to steer her in what I hope is a more promising direction.

Words cannot kill you. But contemplating that someone could be beaten for words can lead to injury or death. You may believe that ridicule is devoid of reason, but your contemplating violence against the person doing the ridicule or the belief that someone would respond with violence is also devoid of reason, just as it is not calm or rational. Attempting to silence someone's opinion, be it through ridicule or not, by reminding them they could be bashed and end up on the floor is not rational.

 

This whole thread seems to be a leading thread, with bizarre hypothetical's that are completely lacking on context, aimed at painting atheists as being some sort of monsters. And I am sorry, but literally saying that religion is being picked on because 'someone was mean to me' is not enough to prove that all atheists behave this way, nor is it enough to prove that religion is the target of any form of malicious campaign from atheists.

 

If we were to look at a broader picture, religion plays a role in elections in many countries around the world and potential leaders have to somehow prove that they belong to a religious faith, that they practice said faith, laws are often enacted to protect the freedom of said religious beliefs, often to the detriment of others in the populace who do not share the same beliefs. From my stand point, religious beliefs are often protected while those without beliefs are treated like social pariah's. War on religion has become a popular cry from the religious right in many countries and there is little evidence to support it.

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Everyone,

 

This thread has become rather off-topic. A reminder that primary questions asked in the OP were as follows:

 

 

So is religion being unfairly excluded from the arena of modern thought? Is any mention of gods automatically to be censored from scientific discourse

!

Moderator Note

The last few pages have had very little to do with the above. As per the OP, this is not a thread about whether or not religious groups have been picked on or in other ways been attacked in the name of atheism. It is certainly not a thread about the many ways in which Jagella feels they have been wronged by atheists (although it seems like that was the underlying intention in many ways). It's not even really about faith healing.

Any more off topic posts will be remove without further comment.

[Strange]

So is religion being unfairly excluded from the arena of modern thought?

 

No.

 

There is a vast amount said and written about religion by philosophers, poets, politicians, theologians, musicians, scientists, artists, atheists, priests and prophets.

 

 

Is any mention of gods automatically to be censored from scientific discourse?

 

No.

 

Although it is irrelevant to subjects such as physics, there is a large and fascinating amount of scientific study of religion.

https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=scientific+study+of+religion

[John Cuthber]

 

Really? You would ridicule sick and desperate people for seeking healing through religious faith? I'd recommend caution because if there are any able-bodied people around, then you might be picking yourself up off the floor.

Do you think these guys need a bodyguard, or do you accept that, for the most part, the understanding of the freedom of speech keeps them safe?

And, to avoid the wrath of the mods...

 

"So is religion being unfairly excluded from the arena of modern thought?"

No, it is being given the coverage that many think it deserves- That video isn't strictly about religion, but it shows that people are discussing these sorts of issues and have concluded that there is no reason to "protect" religion from criticism.

 

What previously happened was that religion was unfairly excluded from the arena of modern thought, which includes rational criticism and debate.

[Phi for All]

To me, strictly from a "picking on" POV which requires one side to demonize the other, it seems clear that this is an issue where one side uses reason and rational thinking to approach the explanation of various phenomena, and the other side uses faith in a deity and religious doctrine as a basis for those explanations. Faith is defined as belief without reason, so theists rely on a much more emotion-laden process to explain their world.

 

Science is trying to appeal to the head, religion to the heart. Given the nature of the two sides involved, and the way they approach their views on reality, which side is more likely to claim they're being "picked on"?

 

That's a very loaded phrase when you think about it, "picked on". It automatically assumes a) the person(s) doing the "picking" are being bullies/cruel/unfair, b) the person being picked on doesn't deserve it, and c) if you're a good person, you will take the side of whoever is being picked on. Using a phrase like that removes any choice.