Societies worse off 'when they have God on their side'

[jonny]

Atheism seems to be the last acceptable group it`s ok to publicly disdain and I believe it`s because atheism by it`s very nature doesn`t usually organize or speak out.

Welcome to the world. Everyone feels like that about the group their in.

I'm not saying it is right, but it happens to everyone. We live in an "I'm a victim" type of society.

 

[Quiddity]

It is difficult to really compare if one is more then the other. The religious timeline/cultures far outnumber that of non-theist.
Are some theist violent? Yes
Are some non-theist violent? Yes

The questions can go on and on and you will get yes's and no's from both sides.

~Victor

 

[mr.guy]

I'm not saying it is right, but it happens to everyone. We live in an "I'm a victim" type of society.

Yeah, it's like we all bear some sort of...cross? I can't help but notice how little effort it takes to convince a christian he's been victimized...sometimes it seems like it's essential to demonstrate suffering before you join J.C. in the sky.

 

[almifkhar]

america, one of the most religious democracy??? ha ha ha ha now that is the funniest thing i have ever heard considering a good half of the population does not believe in god let alone follow an organized religion. america isn't even a democracy, its a republic on the fast track of becomming something worse. besides the vast majority of people who claim to follow a religion don't follow anything. the reason why so many americans are locked up and all the other things mentioned in the article is because this is a land where the vast majority of people are materialistic, selfish, and just plain don't think. this is the core reason why american society is worse off than the rest of the world. religon of lack there of is not even a factor. not considering the consequences of ones actions is the biggest problem.

 

[linwood]

Honestly, I have not noticed that to be the case. There seems to be equal amounts of disdain going on.

Certainly I could be overly sensitive to attacks on myself but I don`t often hear quotes such as this from the president of the USA about....any other belief system.
[font=arial,helvetica]George H.W. Bush, as Presidential Nominee for the Republican party; 1987-AUG-27: "No, I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God."[/font]

If George HW Bush had said such a thing about Hindus, Jews, Taoists, or Muslims he would have been publicly admonished by the media machine.
The timing of this quote is also remarkable in that it was prior to his election yet after his republican nomination.
A presidential nominee is cautious to the point of dishonesty about categorizing any group in such a way during this time.
He apparently felt atheists were marginalized to such an extreme in our society that it would cause him no backlash.
Unfortunately he was correct.
The only other belief systems I believe a political figure like Bush could have said such a thing about and gotten away with would be certain forms of Paganism and Wicca.

I'm not sure what you mean by this but am intrigued. What do you mean by this?

Well, considering Atheism is not so much a belief system as simply the disbelief in a god or gods atheists traditionally do not share the same logistical, cultural, and political clout the majority of other belief systems do.
We`re pretty much entirely independent in our thinking other than "There is no god".
There is no "true" atheist dogma regardless of all the debate about evolution church and state, science and the beginnings of life.
There are indeed atheists who doubt all of the above and will argue about it with other atheists and they still qualify as atheists.
You`ll never see a Christian arguing that Jesus Christ isn`t the salvation of the human race.
It just doesn`t happen it`s part of the belief system.

So atheists until recently had no real organization or groups or support system in place because there was no real common ground and we were marginalized to extreme in this society so forming such groups would have been difficult.
However the past few years I`ve been getting messages in my inbox about brights, and American Atheists, and a vast array of other atheistic organizations.
These organizations are forming to counter the marginalization I mentioned earlier.
American Atheists just last week hired a professional lobbiest in DC.
She`s the only lobbiest "atheist" have ever had for their cause and she went active 6 days ago.
I can`t think of any other religious group that doesn`t have some sort of representation in DC other than the aforementioned Wiccans and they may...I don`t know.

My fear is that eventually down the road one of these organizations will rise to the top as is usually the case and from there will begin some sort of "Atheist Dogma".
I feel the independence atheism offers me is a large part of what I like about it.
I feel that independence may have to be sacrificed to counter the marginalization.
damned if you do and damned if you don`t.
I`ve seen a similar thing happen among the gay community.

Do you really think organization and volume will change anyone's minds?

I understand that but it`s not just about changing their minds it`s about equal rights and the right to even be accepted as a part of my country.
In this very forum recently it has been said that I am not a part of my own culture because I don`t follow God.
Now this doesn`t bother me on a personal level I know it`s garbage but it bothers me on a political and cultural level.
I won`t be denied my birthrights because an intolerant or group of intolerants deem me an alien.
It will take organization to halt and reverse the marginalization.
Women were stomped on since the Dawn of time in any and every Patriarchal culture until they organized.
Gays were stomped on for two centuries in this country until they organised.
Blacks were stomped on for many more centuries until they organized.

Why should an atheist think there is any other route than organization considering it`s the one route proven to work and the groups I just mentioned have already laid the groundwork for equality ?


I think we find ourselve waaaay off topic yet again Lilithu.

If you want to discuss or debate what I`ve said just tell me and I`ll start a thread in a more appropriate forum.
It is another thing I`m on the fence about as I see the pros but I also believe there will be cons so discussion/debate on the subject is probably good for me.

I think I did start a thread about it in the atheism forum way back when.

 

[linwood]

america, one of the most religious democracy??? ha ha ha ha now that is the funniest thing i have ever heard considering a good half of the population does not believe in god let alone follow an organized religion.

Actually at last census only 14% of Americans claimed Atheist/Agnostic while a total of 30million claim "non-religious" in other polls.
The stats show that among developed democracies the USA has an abnormally high church going population.

america isn't even a democracy, its a republic on the fast track of becomming something worse.

This I can agree with as a republic is the best governmental system I can think of on this planet and we do seem to be heading towards some sort of theocracy which is the worst system I can think of

besides the vast majority of people who claim to follow a religion don't follow anything.

This is quite possibly true but don`t you find it interesting that these people would lay claim to a religion when they have none in reality?
Why might someone do that?
That answer might give a bit of insight to the OP itself.

the reason why so many americans are locked up and all the other things mentioned in the article is because this is a land where the vast majority of people are materialistic, selfish, and just plain don't think. this is the core reason why american society is worse off than the rest of the world. religon of lack there of is not even a factor. not considering the consequences of ones actions is the biggest problem.

Or misunderstandingt he consequence of ones actions or believing that what happens in this life has no meaning might contribute to that.
Both symptoms of religious thinking by the way.

But the bulk of your statement above I can agree with however that points back to education and morality which is the center of the OP.

Why as the only truly religious democracy in this world is our population the most immoral, decadent, and bankrupt of empathy?

The OP is truly about that question.


EDIT:
Changed my remark of 30% non-religios to 30 million non-religious.
The former was inaccurate..sorry.

 

[linwood]

Ok quick little study of geographical breakdown in the USA.
According to a breakdown of religious belief between states published by USA today in 2002 Alabama is the most religious state with a measly 7% Non-religious population.
Washington state is the least religious state with a whopping 25% non- religious population.

By stats collected in the year 2000
Alabama ranks 20th in the overall violent crime index of the USA.
Washington is ranked 26th in the overall violent crime index of the USA.

What the study in the OP would predict is that Washington would have the least violent crime while Alabama would have the most.
This is not the case.

This totally unscientific rapid and devoid of any real study comparison would seem to provide evidence against the study in the OP.

USA Today religion by state.
Washington Crime Stats.
Alabama Crime Stats.

 

[Pah]

The Gini index measures the distribution of wealth. The higher the Gini index, the bigger difference between the rich and poor. I used it because I believe that poverty is relative to the people around you. It doesn't measure education, religion, or even poverty really.

It correlates to religion by taking the index shown from countries and understanding the education, poverty level and crime level of the country. It seems to be just one big ball of wax.

I think there are studies that show that poverty is related to crime and others to poor education. If religiousity is related to crime (and is shown so by the study sponsered by the Kripe Center http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html ) then there is also a connection between religion and poverty.

None of this assigns a cause of the social condition. It says, in societies high in poverty, crime, and/or poor education, there is a propensity to also find a high degree of religious faith. It could well be that religion is "caused" by poverty. I would expect that when wealth distribution is greater and education levels are higher there is less need for Religion (not faith, mind you, but organized religion) and crime will decrease.separetly.

BTW, a perusal of the titles published by the Kripke Center both in their Journal of Religion and Society and from a yearly Klutznick Symposium shows to me a position that is religious. Two articles on Catholic Infallibility in a previous journal seems to track quite well with what Victor, et al, have been explaining.
http://moses.creighton.edu/CSRS/Publications.html

http://moses.creighton.edu/CSRS/projects.html

 

[Pah]

Ok quick little study of geographical breakdown in the USA.
According to a breakdown of religious belief between states published by USA today in 2002 Alabama is the most religious state with a measly 7% Non-religious population.
Washington state is the least religious state with a whopping 25% non- religious population.

By stats collected in the year 2000
Alabama ranks 20th in the overall violent crime index of the USA.
Washington is ranked 26th in the overall violent crime index of the USA.

What the study in the OP would predict is that Washington would have the least violent crime while Alabama would have the most.
This is not the case.

This totally unscientific rapid and devoid of any real study comparison would seem to provide evidence against the study in the OP.

USA Today religion by state.
Washington Crime Stats.
Alabama Crime Stats.

I would assume that a regional or state US study would not lead to the same results. The study had wealth as a criteria and was conducted with a larger, more homogenous population sample

 

[linwood]

It could well be that religion is "caused" by poverty. I would expect that when wealth distribution is greater and education levels are higher there is less need for Religion (not faith, mind you, but organized religion) and crime will decrease.separetly.

This is where my own opinion leads.

I would assume that a regional or state US study would not lead to the same results. The study had wealth as a criteria and was conducted with a larger, more homogenous population sample

True Pah, but the links were pretty cool.. no?
:bounce

 

[lilithu]

Certainly I could be overly sensitive to attacks on myself but I don`t often hear quotes such as this from the president of the USA about....any other belief system.
[font=arial,helvetica]George H.W. Bush, as Presidential Nominee for the Republican party; 1987-AUG-27: "No, I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God."[/font]

Unfortunately (or fortunately) I had forgotten about that quote but can understand why you didn't. Certainly the president of your own country saying that you're not a citizen would be hard to brush off.

Otoh, it's George W. Bush, the most ignorant man to ever sit in the White House. I hope that you realize that he is extreme in his views and does not represent the majority of theists, not even of Christian theists. But I am truly sorry that you and other atheists had to experience that.

As for why there wasn't an uproar, yes, that was probably due to your lack of an organized political voice. I'm convinced that most uproars come from pundits drawing attention. Otherwise, Americans 1) don't know and 2) don't care unless it directly affects them.

Well, considering Atheism is not so much a belief system as simply the disbelief in a god or gods atheists traditionally do not share the same logistical, cultural, and political clout the majority of other belief systems do.
We`re pretty much entirely independent in our thinking other than "There is no god".
There is no "true" atheist dogma regardless of all the debate about evolution church and state, science and the beginnings of life.
There are indeed atheists who doubt all of the above and will argue about it with other atheists and they still qualify as atheists.

So Atheists are like UUs. Except we don't even have to agree that there is no god. (Nor do we have to agree that there is god.)

I had orginally thought you were talking about proselytizing like some other faith positions do, which I don't think would do any good and just annoys the crap out of me. But in the context of political representation to fight marginalization, I say go for it. I understand your concerns. I don't think you will be forced to believe anything you don't. It's not like they can kick you out. But there's always the danger of positions being pushed to extremes when lobbying and clashing are involved, and then people may say things in your name that you don't believe. Certainly, so called liberals do that to me all the time. Still, it sounds like you need it, at the very least to raise awareness.

I think we find ourselve waaaay off topic yet again Lilithu.

If you want to discuss or debate what I`ve said just tell me and I`ll start a thread in a more appropriate forum.

Well UUs have never been good about sticking to the rules. But I'm good if you are.

 

[lilithu]

I would expect that when wealth distribution is greater and education levels are higher there is less need for Religion (not faith, mind you, but organized religion) and crime will decrease.separetly.

I believe poverty,education and social status also contribute greatly to crime and immorality.

Now the question would be..

How does religiousity contribute to poverty and social status?

Yes, there is a link between poverty and religiosity, but religiosity is not the cause of poverty, it's the result of it. (Obviously, I am talking about general trends as I am not poor yet very religious.)

Affluent non-religious people like to think that poverty leads to lack of education which leads to religiosity. And therefore if everyone were better educated, religion would go away. Thomas Jefferson predicted as much over 200 years ago (he thought everyone in his lifetime would become a Unitarian, lol!) and it still hasn't happened. Lack of education is not the primary reason why poor people are religious.

It's because poor people suffer. They feel need, and they are forced to recognize early on that they can't make it all by themselves. Whereas affluent people are under the illusion that what they have is entirely of their own doing, without taking into account the circumstances into which they've been born. If you think you can do it all by yourself, God and church become superfluous. If you recognize that you can't do it all by yourself, God and church are necessities. As liberation theologians point out, the most pressing theological question in the wealthy West is whether or not there is god. In the poorer parts of the world like Latin America, this is not an issue. The most pressing theologial question there is what does God mean in an world full of suffering.

Like voluntary vegetarianism and environmentalism, atheism is a byproduct of wealth, a stance taken because one has the luxury to do so. A poor person may eat no meat because he has no access to it, but he never says "I am a vegetarian." Vegetarianism is not even an issue. Survival is. Let me be clear, by calling atheism a byproduct of wealth, I'm not saying that it's "wrong" or less valid. I like to think I'm an environmentalist and border on vegetarianism, but I consider these to be by-products of wealth as well. I'm just saying that all these stands that we take, upon which we are so certain that we're right, are as much influenced by our circumstances as any inherent rightness.

 

[gtrsgrls]

I believe if people truely had God on their sides than our country would be a much better place.But today we have people who don't want God totally on their side.People want to be "Godly" only on Sundays...and even then only during church.People have often asked "where was God on Sep. 11,2001," or maybe "where was God when hurricane Katrina hit?"I can't tell you where he was but I can tell you where he wasn't.He wasn't in our schools,we kicked him out the same time we did prayer.He wasn't in our court system,we threw him out along with the Ten Commandments.He's not in our homes anymore,MTV replaced God a few years ago.I could go on and on and on.I think if people were truely devoted to God than our crime rate and everything else you listed would be in a lot better shape.But we're not.Please reply! :jam:

 

[lilithu]

This totally unscientific rapid and devoid of any real study comparison would seem to provide evidence against the study in the OP.

Imo, you're losing the big picture by looking at too small a level. Just because you're an atheist doesn't mean that you haven't been influenced by Judeo-Christian attitudes. Western Humanist ethics is based on Judeo-Christian ethics, just without the god. And even when one reacts against something, one is still very much influenced by it. So just looking at the percentage of atheists versus Christians in each state will not give you an indication about tendencies towards violence. The culture of violence that results from the "God on our side" mentality permeates our entire society. We've all grown up steeped in it. That mentality is there, even amongst those who have rejected religion.

 

[Sunstone]

I looked at the figures of the study, but I'm not fully convinced that increased religiosity tends to cause social dysfunction.

The data does clearly show, however, that low levels of religiosity do NOT correspond to high levels of social dysfunction. I myself thought that that was the case, but apparently I was wrong.

EDIT: In other words, I don't think this study convincingly shows that religiosity makes society "worse off", though it clearly refutes the idea that secularism makes society "worse off".

Spinks, I have to agree with you on this one. The study provides more support for the notion that religion has nothing to do with morality than it does for the notion that religion is detrimental to morality. Comparing secualar democracies to god drenched America is a little bit flimsy, since there could be numerous factors besides religion which account for the dysfunction of American society.

 

[Pah]

Spinks, I have to agree with you on this one. The study provides more support for the notion that religion has nothing to do with morality than it does for the notion that religion is detrimental to morality. Comparing secualar democracies to god drenched America is a little bit flimsy, since there could be numerous factors besides religion which account for the dysfunction of American society.

We've discussed correlaions and causes and may even agree that the root cause of the dysfunction is poverty. But we haven't dicussed blame.

While poverty is not caused by religion, it certainly seems to me that religion has not done enough to "cure" poverty. I'm not really talking about the direct support religion gives to the poor, I'm thinking that the mindset taught by religion is not conducive to sufficient charity verses a comfortable life style and the mad drive for profits.

 

[linwood]

The study provides more support for the notion that religion has nothing to do with morality than it does for the notion that religion is detrimental to morality.

That is actually the entire point of the study and I think it supports its point very well.
We`ve just been poking at it from alot of different unintended angles because..well..it`s what we do here isn`t it?

 

[Quiddity]

I'm thinking that the mindset taught by religion is not conducive to sufficient charity verses a comfortable life style and the mad drive for profits.

Give me an example of something taught that would give such results.

~Victor

 

[Sunstone]

That is actually the entire point of the study and I think it supports its point very well.

Yes. I agree it supports that point quite well.

 

[Pah]

Give me an example of something taught that would give such results.

~Victor

It's something NOT taught