Two wrongs don't make a right!
New Study Contradicts Religious Bias
- Thread starter PureX
- Start date
Two wrongs don't make a right!
PureX
Well-known member
What is puzzling to me, is how hard you're working at dismissing it when the evidence is all around you. And IN you, even.
Let me ask you this: what do you see as being the negative effects of being religious? If an accurate study had been done, what do you believe it would find to be the negative characteristics of religiosity, regarding human interaction?
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
:noid:
I'd like to correct what I believe is a misconception
religious and conservatives are not necessarily against the redistribution of wealth, they're against the forced redistribution of wealth by government
studies have shown that those who identify as conservative and religious give significantly more to charity than those who identify as liberal
PureX
Well-known member
I used that language in reference to these characteristics as we find them here on TOL.
No, but I do think it's representative of contemporary absolutist religiosity.
What you and others are ignoring is the difference between wanting to stop the abuse, and wanting to punish the abuser.
The religionists on this thread, and in the study, presumed that those who do not want to punish the abuser, did not care about stopping the abuse. It seems to be inconceivable to them that the abuse could be stopped by any other means, or for any other reason, than punishing the abuser. And because this is inconceivable to them, they just assumed the worst of the non-religious people here and in the study (just as the study asserted). And the exact same thing occurs on TOL all the time. For the religionist, punishment is presumed automatic. For the non-religionist, it is not.
Likewise, for the religionist, judgment is passed on the "abuser" automatically, as refraining from such judgment is inconceivable for them. Yet to the non-religious, refraining from judgment is much more commonplace. Yet again, because the religionists can't conceive of this possibility, they assume that the non-religious restraint must be a lack of empathy, when it's not.
These observations are what the study is pointing out. And the religionists, here and elsewhere, can't see it because they can't conceive of any other way of responding to the world except through judgment and punishment. Because that is the essence of their religiosity.
Yes.
It's not disappointing because it's kids and stickers. It's disappointing because we all know that when they grow up, it will be EVERYTHING ELSE that they won't want to share, not just some meaningless stickers.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
by all means, give the abuser a cookie
while we're at it, let's stop isis from burning people to death by listening to their troubles and patting them on the back
Huckleberry
New member
Well, at least you admit the study was not accurate. Yet, you're still pointing to the self evident to support the conclusions of the bogus study.
Do you really not see how prejudicial and bigoted you're being? You just know religious people are unkind and want to be mean to everyone. And even if the study was bogus...well, they're conclusions are still accurate. It's self evident, just look around, you say. Look within yourself, you say.
Well, I say look at yourself, Purex. You're the one being a prejudicial bigot here.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
no, he doesn't
i've been reading his nonsense for twelve years and he never realizes (or admits to realizing) that he's the biggest hypocrite imaginable
Are you reading the journal article, or this?
When one says, “Religiousness predicts parent-reported child sensitivity to
injustices and empathy” we have an opinion, and when the research measures altruism, which is not well defined, then the findings are apt to reveal discrepancies between ideas/ concepts of judging and so called altruism. Take the work of Richard Dawkins, “ The Selfish Gene” as an example of altruism, reciprocal altruism, in the case of altruism as self enhancing, where it is considered a behaviour to increase a more positive personal outcome for oneself. Any judgement would be tempered by what may bring the best outcome for oneself. We would assume that any judgement would possibly run the risk of decreasing personal advantage, while the judgement itself would be congruent with the religious attitude, while not to the appeasement of the majority. In essence, the greatest appeasement would come when one has no judgement and therefore has no negative effect on oneself.
We are also looking at religious attitude, not spiritual awareness, as Pate makes his stance in nearly every thread he starts, yet we all know religion is not spirituality and to belabour the issue is only necessary when we examine those who assume religion is the measure of being spiritually enlightened.
Surly the authors are motivated by this basic confusion; they consider religion to be the measure of all spiritual persons, yet, like most secular academics, miss this important difference. They also take the measure of altruism as more than what it is, a means to appease others for the sake of oneself, thus being morally neutral is bound to be the least resistive, where no judgements are voiced and no condemnations are given. This is to say the morally natural are bound to increase their chances of receiving the least judgements form others, including these researchers.
When one says, “Religiousness predicts parent-reported child sensitivity to
injustices and empathy” we have an opinion, and when the research measures altruism, which is not well defined, then the findings are apt to reveal discrepancies between ideas/ concepts of judging and so called altruism. Take the work of Richard Dawkins, “ The Selfish Gene” as an example of altruism, reciprocal altruism, in the case of altruism as self enhancing, where it is considered a behaviour to increase a more positive personal outcome for oneself. Any judgement would be tempered by what may bring the best outcome for oneself. We would assume that any judgement would possibly run the risk of decreasing personal advantage, while the judgement itself would be congruent with the religious attitude, while not to the appeasement of the majority. In essence, the greatest appeasement would come when one has no judgement and therefore has no negative effect on oneself.
We are also looking at religious attitude, not spiritual awareness, as Pate makes his stance in nearly every thread he starts, yet we all know religion is not spirituality and to belabour the issue is only necessary when we examine those who assume religion is the measure of being spiritually enlightened.
Surly the authors are motivated by this basic confusion; they consider religion to be the measure of all spiritual persons, yet, like most secular academics, miss this important difference. They also take the measure of altruism as more than what it is, a means to appease others for the sake of oneself, thus being morally neutral is bound to be the least resistive, where no judgements are voiced and no condemnations are given. This is to say the morally natural are bound to increase their chances of receiving the least judgements form others, including these researchers.
brewmama
New member
You are a riot! You think secularists and atheists are less judgmental and less into retribution?? Just look at what's happening with political correctness! What happens when you dare to question the AGW dogma! Or, God forbid, become the Republican frontrunner! Oh you guys have your own religion alright, much much more judgmental than Christianity! The sad part is how you can't even see it.
You ignore all the valid criticisms of your little study, and simply go by your own prejudices to validate your own feelings of superiority.
You are part of them for taking their ideology so serious. This makes you a half-breed, a cross between the secular and what remains free of it. Essentially, you are caught up in the same existential nihilism and metaphysical solipsism as all those who are willing to submit and surrender their own minds for the sake of baseless self-sacrifice.
To be free, you need to be rational, and to accomplish this one need to to be able to freely discriminate the material world from the rootless idealism of Utopian delusions. We naturally live by our prejudices and habits, which makes possible, human action.
Utopian delusions deny your human individualism. To deny yourself is to fail to offer to God any substantial being-ness worthy of his creation.
an academic educatoid could not say it any better
Good.
It depends on the issue for me. I have been called both a liberal and a conservative at different times.
I think the “You’re an elite and I am a victim” dynamic comes from an old American dichotomy between the innocent country bumpkin and the clever city slicker.
The dichotomy came about when the largely rural character of America began to become more industrial. The same conflict is played out in the Cain and Abel myth. One brother had livestock and the other brother was basically a farmer who tended his crops.
I think you are right on.
We tend to treat others in ways that we ourselves have been treated.
Parenthood is all about realizing this and asking forgiveness for ourselves and our own parents.
Only then can we stop the cycles that keep us in bad behavior and passing that along to our children.
Jesus preached a God who “desired mercy, not sacrifice.”
Protecting children from harm does not mean being abusive to them.
When a child runs out into the street, many parents grab the child and hit them several times and say things like “You are bad.”
What does the child pick up after hearing this? That they are bad and deserve to be hit.
Other parents remove their child from danger, kneel down and hug them and look into their eyes and say:
“I was really, really scared when I saw you run into the street. I am afraid because if a car would hit you, it might cause you to be badly hurt or even die.”
Hitting a child or yelling at them “to be kind” only makes problems.
:yawn: "Truth is hate to those who hate the truth." ~ Bob Enyart
As a reminder PureX is number 37 on Satan, Inc. (TOL Heretics list) in "The 'Jesus is not God' people (Non-trinitarians) category. :burnlib:
and a radical one at that
“I’m punitive because I’m kind. I want bad behavior punished...Can morality exist objectively if there is no God--the question [that] they do not follow.” ~ Dennis Prager Eccl 10:2, Jn 10:10, Nu 35:31
See:
God and the Death Penalty by Bob Enyart
See:
God and the Death Penalty by Bob Enyart
You and your ilk are moral relativists (Eccl 10:2, Jn 8:44, 10:10). :reals: Christians are not (1 Jn 3:14). :straight:
As a reminder PureX is number 37 on Satan, Inc. (TOL Heretics list) in "The 'Jesus is not God' people (Non-trinitarians) category. :burnlib:
Last edited:
Punishing bad behavior does not work. Otherwise, with all the war that has been fought should have resulted in world peace.
As for morality, even atheists raise up children with good values.
The idea of a jealous, punishing God comes from attributing forces in the universe to a capricious higher being. But God’s creation has always been operating through the eternal and unchanging laws of physics. There is a divine consistency in nature. What is true now was true then.
Death and natural cataclysms happen. The primitive mind has always attributed misfortune to punishment by God or attributed fortune to God as well.
This comment sounds like a bias against all things academic, scientific or intellectual.
Not a great way to run a railroad.