Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Shinotsa]

Deathworks: Great argument, I think we've pointed out the flaws in the study and in order to make any more progress we really need to see more data from more experiments conducted by other groups. One thing I have to say is that since only an estimated 10% of the population is comprised of atheists, it would make sense for a great deal of any group to be religious compared to those who are not. This, of course, does not take into account "fence sitters" and the like, so I can honestly say I have no clue if 10% of the population is actually very religious. I'm simply assuming, with little evidence, that a larger portion of the population is religious than those who are not, leading to more individuals in any profession that are religious verses those who are not.

On the topic of type face, I believe that test had some relevance. Using a face that takes more time to process causes a higher degree of thinking and comprehension, as has been shown by previous experiments.

Note: Crap, I used honestly. Anyone who read the rage thread honestly... edition now has permission to begin jeering

[Wayward Device]

So, the next logical step would be to get as many copies of The Thinker made and setup in major world cities as possible and observe if there was any noticeable drop in religious belief. Hmm, thinking about it, that would also be the logical first step of any non-violent atheist terror campaign...   

[Deathworks]

Hi!

Shinotsa: A good point you have made about my physicist remark. I guess I can only hope for mercy based on my usage of "intuitive" as I was more expressing an impression there.

Anyhow, I agree that further evaluating this issue is neigh impossible for us, although one step before referring to tests by other groups would also be actually getting more detailed information on how the tests in that specific study were actually designed. After all, we are talking about potential pitfalls and about things that may interfere, but the actual probability of such interference depends on what actually happens...

Wayward Device: You know, you kind of remind me of the bus campaigns that happened a little while ago in London, I think :) :) :)

Yours,
Deathworks

[Wayward Device]

Wayward Device: You know, you kind of remind me of the bus campaigns that happened a little while ago in London, I think

Do you mean the "Not Gay! Ex-gay, post gay and proud! Get over it!" ones that got banned before they even started? Hehe, I see your point, although for a perfect analogy they would have to have been some scientific evidence that they actually decreased...um gayness? Homosexual tendencies? However you want to phrase it (I'm pretty sure all they did was piss people off, be they religious or atheist, straight or gay).

On a related note, Stonewall (a charity that promotes gay, lesbian and bisexual issues) created adds in the exact same style/font etc, saying "Some people are gay. Get over it!" way before the unpleasant ones. Because of this, all the anti gay "organization" managed to achieve with their bus-based hate-mongering was to raise awareness of a pro-gay campaign. Sometimes life isn't an entirely evil bitch...   

[Deathworks]

Hello!

Actually, I was thinking about the busses advertising atheism and busses advertising theism. There had been a little bit of a battle there, but in the end, I think, media interest died off quickly probably revealing such missionary work (on both sides) as highly ineffective.

Anyhow, given that the "Thinker" allegedly works more indirectly, it stands in direct competition with hundreds if not thousands of other images that bombard your average citizen on a daily basis, so just adding the "Thinker" next to "Albert Einstein", "Homer Simpson" and hundreds of others may not make much of a change (^_^;;

Yours,
Deathworks

[bitesh]

Wayward Device: You know, you kind of remind me of the bus campaigns that happened a little while ago in London, I think

Do you mean the "Not Gay! Ex-gay, post gay and proud! Get over it!" ones that got banned before they even started? Hehe, I see your point, although for a perfect analogy they would have to have been some scientific evidence that they actually decreased...um gayness? Homosexual tendencies? However you want to phrase it (I'm pretty sure all they did was piss people off, be they religious or atheist, straight or gay).

On a related note, Stonewall (a charity that promotes gay, lesbian and bisexual issues) created adds in the exact same style/font etc, saying "Some people are gay. Get over it!" way before the unpleasant ones. Because of this, all the anti gay "organization" managed to achieve with their bus-based hate-mongering was to raise awareness of a pro-gay campaign. Sometimes life isn't an entirely evil bitch...   

The difference between "stop being gay!" and "we're just gay"

But overall, people, just stop thinking you're right, and let it be.

[Fenrir]

But overall, people, just stop thinking you're right, and let it be.

I see no reason to do this.

[Leafsnail]

EDIT: Something I forgot to mention beforehand and which also helps with my skepticism: It seems to be common knowledge that a lot of physicists and the like are also very religious, which makes the alleged results of the study somewhat counter-intuitive.

...Is it?  I'm pretty sure physicists tend to be a lot less religious than the general population (although in strongly religious countries like the US there are still a fair few physicists who are).

Actually, I was thinking about the busses advertising atheism and busses advertising theism. There had been a little bit of a battle there, but in the end, I think, media interest died off quickly probably revealing such missionary work (on both sides) as highly ineffective.

It wasn't really a "battle".  An atheist group ran "there probably is no God/ So stop worrying and get on with your life" and then the Christian Party (AKA the anti-abortion party that nobody cares about) ran "there definitely is a God / So join the Christian Party and get on with your life".  I feel like it's good to have a nonreligious message out there once in a while to balance the very strongly religious messages coming from state institutions, even if it gets branded as "militant secularism" for some strange reason.

But overall, people, just stop thinking you're right, and let it be.

Well... no.  There are cases where people are being harmed or marginalised and you can't just "let it be".

[bitesh]

Well... no.  There are cases where people are being harmed or marginalised and you can't just "let it be".

Not if THEY let it be too. I meant a general "you" as in "you, me, everybody". If nobody got all mental about being right, no one would be harmed or marginalised, because there wouldn't be a (perceived) reason to do so.

[Fenrir]

I feel like it's good to have a nonreligious message out there once in a while to balance the very strongly religious messages coming from state institutions, even if it gets branded as "militant secularism" for some strange reason.

Militant Atheism:


Militant Theism:

[Leafsnail]

Not if THEY let it be too. I meant a general "you" as in "you, me, everybody". If nobody got all mental about being right, no one would be harmed or marginalised, because there wouldn't be a (perceived) reason to do so.

Why would not getting mental about being right cause you to default to a position of tolerance?  You could be not particularly concerned about being right yet still discriminate against gay people or whatever.

[bitesh]

Not if THEY let it be too. I meant a general "you" as in "you, me, everybody". If nobody got all mental about being right, no one would be harmed or marginalised, because there wouldn't be a (perceived) reason to do so.

Why would not getting mental about being right cause you to default to a position of tolerance?  You could be not particularly concerned about being right yet still discriminate against gay people or whatever.

Why would you discriminate against anyone if you did not think your position is the only valid one?

[EveryZig]

Not if THEY let it be too. I meant a general "you" as in "you, me, everybody". If nobody got all mental about being right, no one would be harmed or marginalised, because there wouldn't be a (perceived) reason to do so.

Beliefs can effect behavior in ways other than persecution.
For instance, take the provably false claims of the anti-vaccination crowd. When they are not actively debunked, well meaning parents believe them children die.

[Leafsnail]

"Hey, if my position of discrimination is equally valid to your position of non-discrimination then it's personal choice, right?  Therefore I will discriminate against gays."

You seem to be assuming that people will adopt your position if they aren't sure of theirs.

[Lord Dullard]

I was agnostic for a good many years. Ironically I now think that the biggest reason for faithlessness is a lack of balls - to put it bluntly - within the intellectual community. I don't support religiousness, or any dogmatic faith, really, although I consider myself Christian - but this is more because it's the easiest way for me to contextualize my faith in something bigger than 'this' into the framework of reality I've grown up with, not because I would elevate the Bible or what's contained in it above anyone else's faith... as long as they have faith. That goes directly against Abrahamic beliefs, I know, but screw it. The Bible itself is full of contradictions, and my own personal tendency is to accept the fact that human beings have been mucking around with it for over 2000 years, not to mention ripping entire segments out (cough cough, Martin Luther), so while I feel connected to the basic message, I think accepting any of it literally - or accepting ANYONE else's interpretation of it, barring a message from God Himself - would be ludicrous and putting more faith in men than God.

As far as the idea that critical thinking tends to weaken religious indoctrination, I don't find that surprising at all. Religious people are those who claim to have faith because they want a social comfort zone, which is pretty much the opposite of what 'faith' is really about, at least when you start talking about faith around other people. I would say a faithful person would probably basically accept that conversations about faith are going to be uncomfortable for them, but would feel impelled to take part in them anyway regardless of that.

Anyway, on to my point: having been agnostic for a long time, I think part of the problem with the atheist/agnostic lean of the intellectual community is that it is just as biased, if not more so, than any given religious community. Religion is dying out because it is becoming less and less socially comfortable to be religious, not because any specific tenets of any given religion have been 'disproved'. There is a HUGE amount of social pressure within most groups of intelligent people to mock faith and faithfulness in general, and because most people are weak-willed (and please, don't debate THAT point with me - look how successful religion was before the advent of the industrial age and it becomes obvious), they will succumb to social pressure rather than looking inward and trying to actually analyze and examine their own thoughts about the scarier and least known-about parts of whatever this thing we call 'life' is.