Studies Conclude: Atheism = Peace, Religion = Confliction

[Drew]

You are simply slandering good people with speculation such as "There is a temptation for the atheist to think that he is disencumbered by dogma" where exactly do you get off saying this? You obviously know absolutely nothing about atheism and what kind of people they are. I suggest you head over to that topic i was talking about and directly ask me instead of simply making insulting claims.

I am not insulting anyone.

As Logical Bob has correctly discerned, I am simply making the point that the following is a universal truth for all human beings: their account of the world is "coloured" by a matrix of "assumptions" that are generally, repeat generally, never critically examined. I use the term "worldview" to denote this matrix of beliefs / ideas through which we look at the world.

I have no basis for knowing whether you are one of the rare people who has done the hard and challenging task of really trying to disencumber themselves of the trapping of their ideological culture. I cannot say that I have fully succeeded in this task myself. But the first step is to realize that before we are old enough to even undertake such a task, we have already been deeply influenced by the environment in which we have grown up, to the point of seeing the world through a filter which we have not consciously constructed. But it is there nonetheless.

Do you really not understand this? or are you incapable of understanding this?

I think you will find that this level of personal insult will not dissuade me from engaging the issue. As many others have found (e.g. the "gun people"), I am not likely to cowed by such tactics. So let's respect each other, ok?

 

[Evointrinsic]

A religion WOULD influence someone if that someone actually followed it. But there are people, such as myself, that think it's all complete bunk.

You may well think its bunk, but I suggest that you are not accounting for the very subtle ways in which the religious history of the world you grew up in has affected you in ways that may not be discernable to you.

I am assume that, like me, you grew up somewhere in Canada. Well, whether you realize it or not, or will accept it or not, many of the values that inform our culture and our laws have a connection to the Christian wordview. For good or for bad. I really find it hard to believe that you think that the only "mode" by which Christian influence can be communicated to someone is for that someone "to have read the texts". That is an oversimplification - we are very much the product of our environments, and the Christian worldview has woven itself into (mainstream) North American culture in many subtle ways.

I have no doubts that religion has helped formed the way many societies are today. I don't deny that. But yes, if you know absolutely nothing of what a single religion is about, then it is not possible to be influenced by it. You arent fighting a battle of Influence, your fighting a battle of interaction. In which case you'd be correct virtually in all your statements. If you think otherwise, then please, give examples.

[quote"drew"]the atheist should not promote the idea that he or she is any less subject to unexamined dogma than the "religious" person[/quote]
This assumption alone is insulting whether you meant it to be so or not. I'm pretty sure I'll be the judge on what does and doesn't insult me.

I am indeed suggesting that it is monumentally difficult for someone to free themselves from all their cultural and environmental influences and adopt a position that is truly "their own". I think that you over-estimate the degree to which we are "free" in this respect. Now I am not saying that it is impossible to make some progress in the area of stepping back from your cultural context to seek a more objective stance. But it is exceedingly hard to do.

And the way that our religious heritage influences us is not through people asking themselves "what would Jesus / Muhammed / Krishna do". Things are far more subtle than this.

No actually it isn't I can take a position without it being biased because of where I live. Perhaps this task is difficult for you, but it appears incredibly easy for me. The only thing that would influence my decision would be if it offered any more proof to confirm the decision being made. That is how my mind, personally, works. Otherwise I am utterly free to make whatever decision i would like to make.

you make a lot of claims drew, but you do little to give examples for them.

As Logical Bob has correctly discerned, I am simply making the point that the following is a universal truth for all human beings: their account of the world is "coloured" by a matrix of "assumptions" that are generally, repeat generally, never critically examined. I use the term "worldview" to denote this matrix of beliefs / ideas through which we look at the world.

It's strange that now you begin to describe all human life instead of just "The Atheist", you see, I wouldnt have been offended by this if it was first stated in the manner of all human life. However, you made it seem that "the atheist" is singled out and only see's the world in such a poor fashion.

I have no basis for knowing whether you are one of the rare people who has done the hard and challenging task of really trying to disencumber themselves of the trapping of their ideological culture. I cannot say that I have fully succeeded in this task myself. But the first step is to realize that before we are old enough to even undertake such a task, we have already been deeply influenced by the environment in which we have grown up, to the point of seeing the world through a filter which we have not consciously constructed. But it is there nonetheless.

Perhaps I am? Perhaps I always have been? Perhaps that is the reason none of this makes any sense what so ever in my mind because i simply have not and cannot function in the manner you have described? could that possibly be the issue?



As for you never insulting anyone...

I will anticipate that the atheist will reply that "we atheists would have developed those 'good' religious values even if we were embedded in an entirely secular society".

You tried to save yourself from all the scrutiny by stating "this is speculation" afterwords, none the less the insult was made.

it is impossible to say that the otherwise "positive" behaviour of atheists has not been informed by "religious" values.

Although it wouldn't appear to be, this assumption in itself is insulting.

It is simply impossible to disentangle all sorts of influences - religious ones included - from what "comes naturally".

Same statement, different wording.

Now, you may not find any of these insulting, and you may not have intended it to be that way. But i find all these quotes increasingly insulting. I'm not looking for an apology, just be cautious on how you phrase things.

 

[Evointrinsic]

Forgot to add that Logical Bob said what i am trying to say in my earlier post when he stated "You two are talking at cross purposes."

 

[Drew]

But yes, if you know absolutely nothing of what a single religion is about, then it is not possible to be influenced by it.

I do not see how you can say this. As far as I can recall, I was never explicitly taught that "men go out and make money" while "women stay home and cook and raise children". And yet, as a 50 + male, I confess that, when I entered the workforce at age 21, I very much looked at the world this way and was surprised when, say, I saw a female airplane pilot.

In my own defence, I never intentionally adopted such a world view. Nor was it ever explicitly taught to me. And yet I "absorbed" this worldview through subtle means.

Same idea with religion. In England, one of the major people instrumental in promoting the concept that slavery was bad (Wilberforce) grounded his views in the Bible. And many people were influenced by Wilberforce. Such people may think that they recognized the evils of slavery of their own "free will", but they simply did not "see" the subtle connection to the Christian concept that all men are "equal in Christ".

Now please do not misread me. I am not saying that the only route to opposing slavery is a Christian one. But, people influenced by Wilberforce in particular were "leveraging" an idea that was grounded in a particular religous worldview. So "religion" does indeed permeate and influence our thinking in subtle ways.

And, of course, there will always be Biblically illiterate people who will use the BIble to endorse slavery. But that's not the point.

 

[Drew]

the atheist should not promote the idea that he or she is any less subject to unexamined dogma than the "religious" person

This assumption alone is insulting whether you meant it to be so or not. I'm pretty sure I'll be the judge on what does and doesn't insult me.

Obviously you are insulted by what you are insulted by.

I can take a position without it being biased because of where I live. Perhaps this task is difficult for you, but it appears incredibly easy for me.

I suggest that you are simply mistaken here, but this is not something we can settle in a discussion.

you make a lot of claims drew, but you do little to give examples for them.

An unfair statement. I have indeed given one example. And by the nature of the beast, it would be very difficult for me to give a detailed argument as to how religious ideas influence people. That would be a Phd dissertation. Beside, you make the extraordinary claim that you are somehow immune to the cultural influences. A most remarkable claim - and yet you give no "proof" of this. And that's fair - it would be very hard to make such a case even if your self-appraisal is correct. So please - grant me the same courtesy: it is very hard to argue my position without having to provide a lengthy and complex treatment. But my failure to give such an argument does not mean that I am wrong.

 

[Drew]

As Logical Bob has correctly discerned, I am simply making the point that the following is a universal truth for all human beings: their account of the world is "coloured" by a matrix of "assumptions" that are generally, repeat generally, never critically examined. I use the term "worldview" to denote this matrix of beliefs / ideas through which we look at the world.

It's strange that now you begin to describe all human life instead of just "The Atheist", you see, I wouldnt have been offended by this if it was first stated in the manner of all human life. However, you made it seem that "the atheist" is singled out and only see's the world in such a poor fashion.

Untrue. From my own words, it is clear that I was not singling out the atheist, but merely suggesting that s/he is in the same boat as the rest of us:

To be fair though, the atheist should not promote the idea that he or she is any less subject to unexamined dogma than the "religious" person. There is a temptation for the atheist to think that he is disencumbered by dogma, but this is an illusion. Just because a set of ideas can be neatly bundled up and named as the Christian worldview, and then possibly "adopted" uncritically by someone, does not mean that the same is not true for the atheist.

This is so even if there is no "label" to slap onto "atheist dogma" - unexamined assumptions and pre-conceptions that an atheist might have adopted.

Everybody has unexamined assumptions - its part of the nature of being a human being. To see the world, we need to "look at it" through a "worldview". Every one has a worldview, no exceptions. This does not mean that it is impossible to stand back and examine your worldview, but relatively few people are able or willing to do this.

My words are clear - I was in no sense "singling out" the atheist.

 

[Evointrinsic]

In my own defence, I never intentionally adopted such a world view. Nor was it ever explicitly taught to me. And yet I "absorbed" this worldview through subtle means.

Same idea with religion. In England, one of the major people instrumental in promoting the concept that slavery was bad (Wilberforce) grounded his views in the Bible. And many people were influenced by Wilberforce. Such people may think that they recognized the evils of slavery of their own "free will", but they simply did not "see" the subtle connection to the Christian concept that all men are "equal in Christ".

Now please do not misread me. I am not saying that the only route to opposing slavery is a Christian one. But, people influenced by Wilberforce in particular were "leveraging" an idea that was grounded in a particular religous worldview. So "religion" does indeed permeate and influence our thinking in subtle ways.

I would agree with you, accept i dont see things like that. I personally dont see a difference between a female or male nurse or pilots or what have you. I really only see people. That's one reason why i am not objective towards gay men or women as well. I can honestly say that I cannot find a difference between a African man and an Asian one other than genetics. Hell, I've even been to Gay bars as a heterosexual male and not feel uncomfortable at all. Perhaps I am an exception? I dont really know. I find the most unusual things that tend to scare the hell out of the most people to be absolutely fascinating. I actually could care less about dogs and cats and would rather go diving with sharks (outside of a cage mind you) and get 5 feet from a venomous snake that's 6+ feet long. I'm not trying to prove anything on the lines of bravery. I just happen to like those things better than the usual furry creatures people refer to as "cute". I assume you also grew up in Canada? Although in a different part, it's the same country and admittedly a different time as well. But I come from a family that is religious, and yet I never have believed in god or scripture. And even though I see Churches and have gone to school with numerous religious children and even am dating a Chatholic raised girl, I simply do not think in the manner you do. I am not saying that is incorrect or anything! I'm just saying that's how I think.

Why is it exactly necessary to have a god in the picture for us to guide our decisions? I realize that Religion is integrated in current society at a certain degree, but how do we get this quote "but they simply did not "see" the subtle connection to the Christian concept that all men are "equal in Christ"." to people who are absolutely 100% ignorant of Christianities teachings? Religion in this case is an object, you may walk right by it, but that doesnt mean you understand it or know about it. This also assumes that biological interference has no place what so ever in mood, decisions, or even something like how easily one can and can't be depressed or how easily one can and can't be happy. We have this wonderful tool in our heads that biologically determine the ease it is for an individual to function in manners like i've said. And although your surrounding can have an impact, Ultimately it is your brain that is the heaviest on the weigh scale.

 

[Drew]

I would agree with you, accept i dont see things like that. I personally dont see a difference between a female or male nurse or pilots or what have you. I really only see people.

In the context of our discussion, this (and other things you have written) sounds like a statement that you are somehow "above" being influenced by your environment.

Well, I cannot prove you are wrong. I can only ask to consider whether you are giving yourself more credit than you ought to. It is really very hard to believe that you have this ability to entirely develop your own worldview, unalloyed by the influences that surround you.

Why is it exactly necessary to have a god in the picture for us to guide our decisions?

Good question. I hope to say something about this later.

 

[Evointrinsic]

In the context of our discussion, this (and other things you have written) sounds like a statement that you are somehow "above" being influenced by your environment.

Well, I cannot prove you are wrong. I can only ask to consider whether you are giving yourself more credit than you ought to. It is really very hard to believe that you have this ability to entirely develop your own worldview, unalloyed by the influences that surround you.

I wouldn't necessarily say I am "above the influence", I am not trying to be arrogant. And I am not claiming that nothing will influence me or anyone. I dont kill people because we have laws or religious views that state that we shouldn't, If there were no laws all of a sudden, i wouldnt massacre a city. If I'm only making my decisions based on those than i wouldnt be a very good person. If I watch a ton of shows like Saw, or Hostel or any other gore/torture film I am not being influenced by it simply because it's surrounds me. To be influenced by something you still need to make the decision at least partly by your own judgment, But the influence doesn't control you. I may agree that specific teachings of Christianity are valuable, but that doesn't mean i was influenced by them to come up with that decision. If you dont work on the sabbath and your reasons are because of religious reasons, then yes, I agree, that is religious influence. But simply making general decisions that just so happen to also relate to any religion doesn't necessarily mean i was influenced by that information.

 

[logical bob]

I agree with Drew. It's not that you're taking decisions for religious reasons (obviouly, as you're an atheist). It's more subtle.

You said you were dating a girl who was raised as a Catholic. I presume you mean one girl and I presume you'd accept that she has the right to expect you to be faithful. You come from a culture with a Christian history. If that history was Islamic or Mormon or classical would we make the same monogamous assumptions? I doubt we've come to this arrangement for purely rational reasons. I suggest that we have one to one relationships in the post-Christian west as a consequence of Christian teaching, whose legacy remains embedded in our culture long after the Christianity itself has ceased to be a direct influence.

Our culture tends to see sex as "naughty" or as a forbidden pleasure because of the Church's preoccupation with sexual sin through the centuries. People with no Christian thoughts whatsoever often take this imagery of sin for granted.

It may be that our whole conception of ourselves as autonomous moral agents responsible for our own destinies is fundamentally Christian, or at least embedded in our culture by Christianity. Other cultures with their belief in unavoidable fate and gods who aren't interested in personal morality wouldn't have produced that.

It may also be that science emerged most strongly in the Christian world because the universe was seen there as the deliberate creation of a rational mind, making it possible to understand it using reason. Ancient and Eastern cultures never shared that view.

You and I certainly wouldn't identify ourselves as atheists if it wasn't for our cultures Christian history.

I'm sure there are other examples, but those spring to mind. I'm aware that I'm speculating somewhat.

 

[NestForASparrow]

Poor logic on their part. Most of the problems are due to economic isolation and resource scarcity exasperated by those "Atheist" nations.

 

[Evointrinsic]

You said you were dating a girl who was raised as a Catholic. I presume you mean one girl and I presume you'd accept that she has the right to expect you to be faithful. You come from a culture with a Christian history. If that history was Islamic or Mormon or classical would we make the same monogamous assumptions? I doubt we've come to this arrangement for purely rational reasons. I suggest that we have one to one relationships in the post-Christian west as a consequence of Christian teaching, whose legacy remains embedded in our culture long after the Christianity itself has ceased to be a direct influence.

Actually there may be other reasons behind the notion to have only one partner. In the animal world you see many species that only mate with a single partner for their entire lives. It is quite possible that humans have acquired this to a degree as well. I honestly can say that I am not interested what so ever in anyone else but her. I do realize what you are saying and I am not disagreeing with Christianity being integrated into our modern, north American society. And I for one want to get married, which is a religious tradition. In this way, yes, religion is influential. But drew is lightly touching on influence with morality. Which is what I am against.

It may be that our whole conception of ourselves as autonomous moral agents responsible for our own destinies is fundamentally Christian, or at least embedded in our culture by Christianity. Other cultures with their belief in unavoidable fate and gods who aren't interested in personal morality wouldn't have produced that.

As you say later, this part consists of a bit of speculation. I have recently read a very interesting article from Yale University.

Here is the first bit of the article:

Where does morality come from? The
modern consensus on this question
lies close to the position laid out by the
eighteenth-century Scottish philosopher David
Hume. He thought moral reason to be “the slave
of the passionsâ€. Hume’s view is supported by
studies that suggest that our judgements of good
and evil are influenced by emotional reactions
such as empathy and disgust. And it fits nicely
with the discovery that a rudimentary moral
sense is universal and emerges early. Babies as
young as six months judge individuals on the
way that they treat others and even one-yearolds
engage in spontaneous altruism.
All this leaves little room for rational deliberation
in shaping our moral outlook. Indeed,
many psychologists think that the reasoned
arguments we make about why we have certain
beliefs are mostly post-hoc justifications for gut
reactions. As the social psychologist Jonathan
Haidt puts it, although we like to think of
ourselves as judges, reasoning through cases
according to deeply held principles, in reality
we are more like lawyers, making arguments
for positions that have already been established.
This implies we have little conscious
control over our sense of right and wrong.
I predict that this theory of morality will be
proved wrong in its wholesale rejection of reason.
Emotional responses alone cannot explain
one of the most interesting aspects of human
nature: that morals evolve. The extent of the
average person’s sympathies has grown substantially
and continues to do so. Contemporary
readers of Nature, for example, have different
beliefs about the rights of women, racial minorities
and homosexuals compared with readers
in the late 1800s, and different intuitions about
the morality of practices such as slavery, child
labour and the abuse of animals for public entertainment.
Rational deliberation and debate have
played a large part in this development.
Emotional and non-rational processes are
plainly relevant to moral change. Indeed, one
of the main drivers of moral change is human
contact. When we associate with other people
and share common goals, we extend to them
our affection. Increases in travel and access to
information as well as political and economic
interdependence mean that we associate with
many more people than our grandparents and
even our parents. As our social circle widens,
so does our ‘moral circle’.

and the entire pdf paper if you'd like to continue http://www.yale.edu/minddevlab/papers/bloom-morals.pdf

as I stated in an earlier post, morality is very possibly biological.

 

[jasoncran]

quick note :crazy

i will counter that morality claim later when i think of a good argument against that.

 

[Evointrinsic]

quick note :crazy

i will counter that morality claim later when i think of a good argument against that.

hahaha, ok I was lucky that I found that paper when I did

 

[jasoncran]

ah i do know of someone who can take you on go here and look for anything on moral relativism, naturalism and so on

www.rzim.org
ravi zacharias phd philosophy and he does know the toe.

 

[jasoncran]

forgot to add that ravi is a christian and ordain pastor.

 

[Evointrinsic]

I'm no expert on the matter, It would be interesting if the writers of the paper from Yale had a talk with them though

 

[Nick]

Excuse me if I step in and not read all 100 or so posts.

I'm not completely sure that based on those statistics that religion is the only or the most powerful factor at work here in the trend. It is interesting the pattern that we see, however those three major groups of countries - Muslims, Christians and Athiests - did you notice that in those three groups the economy is managed in three different ways? Muslim is more of a traditional monarchy style or whatever. Christian seems more capitalist, and Athiest seems more socialist. Just have a look again. The economy and probably the political atmosphere and structure have a big role to play as well. The country's geographical locations are also forming an interesting pattern. Those muslim countries are in the areas of the world in which there is gross conflict, which has not been helped by the Western powers. Lots of the Athiest countries are in Euorpe, where things are relatively stable. We all know that those scaninavian countries are among the most peaceful in the world, and that does not necessarily have much to do with religion.

However, Satan tries to win over our souls. So I think it is fairly safe to assume that he wants us to be athiests. So one could imagine he might be more at work in non-athiest countries.

If you take a census (and I assume this is where many of the statistics of internal country information came from), people tend to answer the religious question(s) based on what they have been brought up in. Not everyone who calls themselves a Christian is actually a Christian. I know many Catholic families for instance that grew up in a Catholic family but do not actually practice their religion - but they would put down on their census that they are Catholic.

So called 'Christian' nations, aka the Western nations (in general) in the past and currently have the power. In the period of a few hundred years ago - the period of colonisation - these 'Christian' countries invaded other countries, waged war on the indigenous inhabitants and introduced slavery and oppression and fought many wars over this. I'm not calling Christian nations innocent by any stretch - the Western natiosn have a pretty bad history - but just because someone says they're a Christian does not make them so, and does not mean that they do not make mistakes.

But regardless of these statistics, does this constitute a conversion to Atheism? Absolutely not, as we know the eternal peace and security brought by Jesus' blood.

I think it is clear from the Bible that Christians are to practice peace. So regardless of what so-called 'Chrisitan' nations are doing, they may not be doing what the Bible tells them to do.

Finally, brothers, good-by. Aim for perfection, listen to my appeal, be of one mind, live in peace. And the God of love and peace will be with you. - 2 Corinthians 13:11

Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devil's schemes. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the saints. - Ephesians 6:10-18

You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature; rather, serve one another in love. The entire law is summed up in a single command: "Love your neighbor as yourself." If you keep on biting and devouring each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other. - Galations 5:13-15

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other. - Galations 5:22-26

(NIV)

:amen

 

[logical bob]

I just watched the video in the OP. I don't believe for a second that Sweden is 85% atheist, it sounds very implausible to me. Via wikipedia I got to this European Union survey from 2005 in which 23% of Swedes said they believed in a god and 53% in a spirit or life force while only 23% thought neither of those things existed. I'm skeptical about your information.

And then at the end of the video it classifes countries as Christian, Moslem or atheist represented by the cross, crescent and red "A" symbol. Now I don't know what an atheist country would be (China perhaps?) but given Evointrinsic's views on how atheism isn't a religion I would have expected him to avoid something that uses the red A as equivalent to the cross or the crescent.

 

[Evointrinsic]

good post nick! I would have to agree with you on your first paragraph. This specific study by these people seems to be becoming less and less accurate. It may not be able to say that specific religions cause conflict, but it can certainly bring up conversation :D

as for your next paragraph however, I dont really understand the evidence behind that. shouldn't the countries with a good amount of atheists be less stable than the religious ones? also, any nation with the least number of christians would fall under that category as well. Not only that, but we would have to make assumptions on what is the devils work, versus Gods plan. so I don't think we could actually bring that into account.