Are believers less intelligent than Atheists? Discuss

Obviously.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

hence futility arises ... or alternatively marrying empirical claims to post dated rain cheques (arguably a sub-genre of science fiction writing)

:shrug:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

i generally try to avoid applying the word "stupid" to people or their ideas, but if i see another reference (pictures or whatever) for how "religion" is the basis for torture being a tool often used by one group of power elites to inflict fear and pain upon their enemies, perceived or actual, i am going to be forced to actually call someone stupid. Power elites tortured to instill their doctrines political and religious. Anyone who doesn't understand that really needs to be reading more.

- Here is an example of a modern secular torture room - i don't need much imagination to think people have "improved" on the painfulness of torture methods over the years, or that horrible things happened there. And modern torture has also developed the use of modern medicine to prolong the agony. http://www.canstockphoto.com/khmer-rouge-torture-room-5033742.html
- here is a little survey of torture used by kings, warlords, religious leaders, and all - http://www.buzzle.com/articles/medieval-tortures-medieval-punishments-and-torture-devices.html

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You're probably thinking of the Inquisition, or possibly the Roman persecution of Christians. But there are countless examples of tortures and executions carried out by common people. The 20th century lynchings of American blacks would perhaps be analogous to the perennial stonings of "adulterers", as documented in the Bible, the colonial American persecution of women as witches by the Puritans, immolation of women in places like India as "honor killings", the massacre at Mainz, by Christian soldiers and volunteers, and the retribution, rape, homicide and genocide between warring religious factions, as between the Bosnians and Serbs, the Catholics vs Protestants of Ireland, the factional violence between Sunnis and Shiites, Sikhs and Muslims, Muslim and Buddhists, the Shinto vs the Manchurian Buddhists, and probably several dozen similar scenarios in Africa at least since the Age of Imperialism.

Certainly American slavery, with its heritage of early Gospel music, is a prime example of torture being exacted on victims under the religious pretext that whites were God's purportedly chosen people.

A similar scenario played out on the Trail of Tears, insofar as the US Amy then had official prayers and services as part of its protocol.

A similar case could be made for the maltreatment of US prisoners convicted of crimes, the execution of prisoners in the US and the torture and "extraordinary rendition" of virtually anyone who is selected by an informant, a commoner, and whose testimony may be the only evidence needed to convict. Quite similar procedures are enacted in Iran and many other countries.

The problem with trying to insulate religion from the actual history of these kinds of violence is that it is a systemic influence within the cultures which can not be peeled away and placed in formaldehyde and labeled as non-causal. You would just as soon extract every blood vessel or nerve from a piece of their flesh. It's integrated into the cultural mindset, just as we still see today among the fundamentalists who dominate right wing American politics.

According to the Bible, religious violence is as ancient as - well - the oldest profession in the world. Even Yahweh had a hand in delivering the most horrific and cruel revenge imaginable.

 

Not necessarily.

I was thinking that it's unlikely that the ultimate secret of the universe, its origin and first cause, the source of logic, mathematics and the laws of physics, and the final explanation for why anything exists at all... will turn out to be one of the characters featured in the Bible, the Gita or the Quran. If there really is some secret that unlocks all of the cosmic mysteries, it's probably going to turn out to be something that human beings have never even imagined.

The gods of mythology typically seem to be anthropomorphic and anthropocentric.They seem to be modeled on human beings, except that they are imagined as being far more powerful, glorious and regal than any of us. Given the scale of the universe, I just find it kind of unbelievable that reality's ultimate principle would just be an expanded version of... ourselves. Or even worse, a big version of an ancient blustering tribal chieftain. If that was true, then it would be a little sad.

 

Black slavery as a religious consequence?

And what were the enormous dividends of monopolizing the cotton, sugar and rubber industries of the era?
Sidelined fringe benefits that played no major part in establishing a law system segregated by race?

While you are brushing up on your history lessons you also might want to investigate spanish inquisition

Even a cursory investigation of the history of violence indicates that in all cases it is underpinned by political motives. I think you would be hard pressed to name a single instance of violence that doesn't call upon the cultural tropes of any of the involved parties ..... even if you trickle down your investigation to the school yards of the world.

 

The above are simply the kind of politically correct replies that theists tend to make to avoid the point being raised.

"Oh no, it wasn't our religion that lead us to torture people, it was just our political/economical/psychological issues."

And yet - we ordinary people have to rely unconditionally on theists for any and all input on the topic of "God", regardless of the theists' political/economical/psychological issues.

It's telling, how theists always have a convenient excuse to blame non-theists for their lack of belief in God.

 

I have to go now, but I will reply to this later.

 

hahahahaha

That is some of the most creative psuedo-history i have ever seen. like serious star wars level creativity.

The slaves were prohibited from singing slave songs NOT because it might become a tool allowing the labor force to get out of control, but RATHER to keep pious christians from letting the devil have his songs. Good one. I guess the tribes in africa that sometimes participated in the capture of slaves were christian too and the inter-tribal fighting wasn't about taking land and women and goods, but about religious persecutors as well.

The trail of tears was not motivated by land rights issues, but RATHER by religious ones, and the land was just a side thing. That stuff is too precious. Too bad the absurd in art has already had its day or you could be a real cultural phenomenon with this level of creativity.

And maybe the Nazis were just super into christianity and the bible, and the political issues were secondary there as well.
And the Khmer rouge were closet christians too attacking the evil eastern religious groups. And communists tortured their political opponents not to preserve the power structure but because they ACTUALLY were trying to keep religion from infiltrating their... now wait, that is atheists doing that, never mind, all this fictional material is hard to keep straight. This is just too ridiculous. Of course there may be a few isolated cases of torture where there was no financial or political gain, and filtering out the freakos that get off on exhibiting their power with violence, and also the sociopaths, you are going to be left with an incredible preponderance of tortures where power or money was gained and religion used as an excuse when race didn't offer an excuse.

Well, since these situations are about this deeply embedded religious ideology, jews and islam aren't really fighting over jerusalem or palestine, and if jews had chosen australia to put israel in, they would be going at it with opposing factions in the middle east the same way they do now. What a joke! EDIT - if you still have a problem with blindness on this issue, ignore all this and just think about what the "holy" wars would look like with israel on the other side of the world from the middle east.

Also, regarding "trust", as long as we have secular states the non-religious don't have to trust the religious for anything. And what is this "blame" anyway, i don't know what you are talking about.

 

If life without a conscious relation to The One Who Contextualizes Everything And Gives Meaning To Life (commonly pointed at as "God") would be an easy matter, there'd be no problem.
If living like a materialistic Stepford wife would come easily, there'd be no problem.
If living for eating, sleeping, sex, drugs and rock-and-roll would be something I would look forward to, there'd be no problem.

The thing is, I don't find those things easy or appealing.
No amount of food, drink, sex, drugs, art, romance, work, hobby or yoga can satisfy the hunger for the divine.
But this hunger also makes one vulnerable.

And given how the Universe seems to be organized, the only way to try to still this hunger is to turn to theism and theists.
Yet this is where it all stops to make sense and where all falls apart, as one ends up at the mercy of people who don't even know one's name, but nevertheless demand to have full control over one's life, demanding all the credits, while taking no responsibility for any hardship that the person taking the theist's advice may undergo.

 

Nevertheless, theists typically demand that non-theists would trust them unconditionally.

And referring to those scriptures tends to cost one one's head.
Refusal to submit to whoever happens to be the physically biggest and scariest, the angriest, in the highest formal position, usually results in being shunned or outright excommunication.

Moreover, if I were to go by the standards given in scriptures, I'd reject the very person who channelled (" ") or composed said scripture. Now that is awkward, isn't it?

Oh please. As long as theists use the same line of reasoning as the Holy Inquisition did, the physical torture is the minimal concern.

Being beaten and starved is nothing in comparison to the mental torture that humans can inflict on others.
And I know what I'm talking about, since I've experienced both.

And yes, most theistic preaching is in the same line of reasoning as that of the Holy Inquisitors - "Subject yourself to me, the theist, believe what I, the theist, tell you, or God will refuse you."

Whether this is accompanied by whipping and having salt poured on open wounds is inconsequential.

 

you clearly do not understand religious experience if you think it is, or is even supposed to be, some type of nirvana. Some sects teach this available nirvana, some teach you get it later when you die and you even have to suffer MORE now.

If you are saying the only way to still the hunger is by seeing things differently than you do now, I would suggest that there are other ways to do that besides theism. Zen is not theistic and it seems to work well for some people. Of course then you would probably have to do much more serious adjusting if you want to fit into the "orthodox" process. I would suggest that you may not be the kind of person who accepts an orthodox process and therefore are not going to be aided or approved of by the fundamentalists of any group. You don't really fit in with fundamentalist unbelievers, unless you count cosmetically, by posting pictures of torture, which is clearly not representing a burning (no pun intended) question in modern religion. Perhaps you just want to be accepted by some (any?) group of people and the theism/atheism thing is not the issue. I don't know what your deal is, so don't take any of this as an attack on you.

Also, if the hunger is a hunger to think, it shouldn't be stilled but rather suffered through like taking some medicine. If it is a hunger to "know" by anything other than removing categories, it isn't going to happen. Also, there are a lot of categories that have to be removed, too many to remain functionally living a human life. It is "intellectually dishonest" to borrow from athei-speak to say, "this God category has to go, because i don't want to use false data gathered unscientifically, but the love category gets to stay, although i have to function in it using information that is not scientifically gathered". I find the absolute materialist ideology as inconsistent logically as the fundamentalist, anti-science religionist one.

if a theist takes credit for changing your life or demands control over it, they have serious logic issues, and also psychological ones.

 

I think the driving factor with slavery was economic gain. Humans were a valuable commodity. I watched a documentary, in the past year or so, about the African Gold Coast, which highlighted the fact that the local chieftains sourced and sold slaves, that they caught inland, to the Europeans. In fact the use of slaves had been going on long before the Europeans arrived, again driven by acquisition of wealth. If you have free labour you have free wealth.

It's a bit like sending your wife out to work and then spending all the money

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

(tongue firmly in cheek).

 

There's no such thing as free labour. It costs money to feed, house and clothe slaves, not to mention overseeing them. Arguably, mistreated free (non-slave) labour is cheaper.

There's profit in stealing people and selling them into slavery, just like there's profit in stealing a TV and selling it, but it isn't any cheaper to run a stolen TV. And of course, mistreated free (non-slave) labour has no purchase price at all.

So I'm dubious about the economic motivation behind slavery - from the white slave-owners' viewpoint, that is.

 

Rather pedantic, but I'll answer. I was referring to labour where no wages are paid.

Also slaves in many cases were expected to make their own ramshackle hovels. The food was generally farmed by the slaves themselves so while this meant slightly less profit, it wasn't an outlay as such. Clothes I am not so sure about, but I can imagine slaves having to make and/or repair their own garments from scraps, or just wore cast-offs from paid or more privileged white workers/slaves etc. Paying someone to oversee them is cheaper than paying all the slaves and paying someone to manage them.

To say that the use of slaves didn't create wealth is a bit ignorant. If it didn't save and create money why do it?

So having labour you don't pay is cheaper than labour you do pay? If you are referring to say white people forced to work for nothing, I'll think you'll find this was slavery too. The important point is that a landowner having more labour available boosted his coffers if done right.

You can be as dubious as you like but it was economic reasons all the way. If you have a country people wish to travel to you'll find the population rising quickly. This increased population will create more wealth than a smaller population if growth conditions are conducive. Just like having more slaves or less slaves. If you run a plantation and it creates more wealth to have 20 slaves as compared to having 10, then this proves that the use of slaves is profitable? I can't imagine any modern farmer complaining if he didn't have to pay his pickers and instead he was just feeding them and letting them sleep in the hay barn at night.

Why do people still do it today, make people work for a pittance in cramped conditions, charging them over the odds for accommodation?

What do you imagine happened to the commodities produced by slavery? Do you think they were given away? No, they were sold back in Europe and the Americas for huge profits.

http://www.slavenorth.com/profits.htm
http://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/ism/slavery/europe/profits.aspx

 

Those slave owners lived the lifestyles coincident with great wealth. Unless you can show there is a trend among owners to ignore an available and understandably more profitable system, i.e that they went with slave labor for religious or racial reasons, i would say your dubious is dubious. Do you think there would be many crop growers working with slaves if leasing workers land to farm on was possible and demonstrably more profitable? I don't.

EDIT - a discussion on religious abuses of power or slavery not being based on wealth seems much more easily defined, and argued, (and won haha), than any of this God stuff anyway. I will try to avoid getting caught up in the easily answerable. I am sorry if this sounds condescending towards the mention made of being "dubious", i actually think being dubious brings a lot of good questions to the surface.

 

Then I guess you have to explain how people ever become religious since it appears to require something that they are constitutionally incapable of producing.

once again , what to speak of being hard pressed to open a scripture at random and find a passage that doesn't deal specifically with the qualities of who or what should be trusted and how to identify it
I've encountered many passages explaining how to identify and why not to trust the sort of person yu are describing. Dunno, maybe we aren't reading the same things ....

I guess things become tough if one can't find a person with better qualities than one's self.

If its simply the timeless reasoning you have gripes with why call upon historical caricatures to make your point?

I guess that defaults you to a John Wayne "I-bow-down-to-no-man" cowboy type of philosophy.
good luck ...

deferment to authority is simply a natural consequence of civilized life ... regardless whether the subject has religious overtones or is simply about traffic safety. This is why people besieged by the pangs of misanthropy (regardless whether the state is catalyzed by the torturous hands of others or simply the torturous hands of their own mental outlook) tend to be hermits

 

I will just jump in from the top and say that I know some people of religious conviction who have done very well in life. I'm not certain that financial security is a measure of intelligence, but it does show that the survival instinct and ability to function in complex environments are intact.

 

Simply by being born into a religious family. As has been the norm for the greater part of human history.

Children unconditionally trust their parents, they have no choice not to.
By the time they are old enough to have serious doubts about their parents and what they have taught them, whatever the parents did teach them is so firmly ingrained that it is very difficult to abandon it or to reason independently of it.


Generally, the older one gets and the more experience with religious people one has, the more difficult it becomes to join a religion.

You joined your current religion when you were around 20, and had no significant previous experience with religions and religious people.
I was in my early 30's and already with a lot of mileage, and baggage.
I'd say that already makes a considerable difference between the two of us.

Not to mention that you being male has certain important advantages in most theistic religions. There, men don't get treated as stupid by default, while women tend to. A woman has to deal with a lot more opposition than men, especially, if she is neither young nor pretty.

You may have experienced mistreatment by devotees, but at least in this lifetime, you simply do not know what the mistreatment is like that the not so young and not pretty enough female novices experience.


I mean - even just look at how you treat me: After all this time, you still put me in with the fundamentalist atheists, like in this comment here
"I guess that defaults you to a John Wayne "I-bow-down-to-no-man" cowboy type of philosophy.
good luck ..."

I am sure we are reading the same things.
The difference is that you seem to have an almost automatic trust for the founder acharya, while I don't.

And now you mock me?

To illustrate it.

No, it doesn't.

I just want to subject myself to people whom I actually deem trustworthy and reliable.

As opposed to being expected - at the threat of being refused by God - to put my life into the hands of someone whom I wouldn't trust to take care of a grain of sand.

Strawman. I was never arguing against the notion of authority and submission to it as such.

 

What, and you clearly do understand religious experience, and I should just defer to you? Oh rly?

Sure, the more traditional Buddhist schools offer a refuge from many life problems.

I am quite sure it has to do with God.

The issue of acceptance and belonging is connected to this, though - in the sense that I do not think it is possible to somehow be a theist all on one's own, in the midst of atheists. That would be a kind of solipsistic insanity.

I don't understand what you mean by these categories here.

How do you know that? I don't know God, I don't know what God wants. So as far as I am concerned, I have to consider it a possibility that, for example, fundamentalist fideism is the only path to God, or that subjecting myself to any self-appointed theist is what God wants.