If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Telegraph)   Does religion help you "Love your neighbour"? No, according to this study   (telegraph.co.uk) divider line 317
    More: Obvious, faiths  
•       •       •

10482 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Jan 2013 at 11:16 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



317 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-01-22 10:31:06 AM  
If my estranged sister is any indication, my guess would be, "no."
 
2013-01-22 10:37:35 AM  
Wait.  You mean the most simple and easy to follow doctrines like being kind to one another, turning the other cheek, not showboating your righteousness, not judging, etc. etc., are often ignored?  Who would have thunk it?
 
2013-01-22 10:51:49 AM  
Ask the Canaanites how religion made for good neighbors, or the Jews, the Gnostics, the Muslims in Spain, the Cathars, the Catholics in England, the Mormons in Missouri. et al how religion makes folks so great neighbors.
 
2013-01-22 11:01:36 AM  
religion does not make people more kind or trusting

But it sure makes them credulous.
 
2013-01-22 11:03:30 AM  
I didn't follow "love your neighbor like you love yourself" cause I didn't want to have to start jerking them off too.
 
2013-01-22 11:06:17 AM  
"Love you neighbour"

So a black Englishman wrote this headline?
 
2013-01-22 11:10:11 AM  

UberDave: You mean the most simple and easy to follow doctrines


Given the average success rate, I'd argue that they may be simple, but are not easy to follow doctrines.
 
2013-01-22 11:13:22 AM  
I believe that the study was done in earnest, and maybe it is instructive that a lot of people are hypocrites.

I spent a lot of time reading different religious texts and found a lot in those different texts to inspire me. When my focus was on that, I believe that my general attitude toward others was better than when it had been a while. It took my focus off of me and onto principles that I consider more universal. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing in itself.
 
2013-01-22 11:15:15 AM  

SmackLT: When my focus was on that, I believe that my general attitude toward others was better than when I was out of practice.


FTFM
 
2013-01-22 11:17:43 AM  
Most people just use religion to justify their own inner demons to themselves.
 
2013-01-22 11:18:53 AM  
OTOH the ridicule those that disagree with you proverb is in full force.
 
2013-01-22 11:19:44 AM  
that's because people; due to natural, tribalistic tendencies; instinctively treat it is "Love my neighbor that is also the same religion as me, and only if I really, really have to."
 
2013-01-22 11:20:50 AM  
Religion still seems like a great reason to kill your neighbor.
 
2013-01-22 11:21:09 AM  

Citrate1007: Most people just use religion to justify their own inner demons to themselves.


Like my ex-wife who uses the "don't be vain" to justify ballooning up to around 450lbs. In a way she's right. She's not enticing men into lustful thoughts.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-01-22 11:21:13 AM  
Incidentally this story is sometimes triggering a "Liberty University Online" banner ad.

Incidentally they don't teach a form of Christianity that is even recognizable to my Christian upbringing.
 
2013-01-22 11:21:45 AM  
It helps you hate them for being different and not as good as you.
 
2013-01-22 11:22:11 AM  
No......they're a bunch of farking prods!
 
2013-01-22 11:23:09 AM  
From what I see with Christianity it's sin Monday through Saturday, Ctrl-Z on Sunday. I'll pass.
 
2013-01-22 11:23:16 AM  
A bottle of Maddog and Bread's greatest hits CD helps me with my neighbor
 
2013-01-22 11:24:32 AM  
If you can't be with the one you love, love the one you got. Woot woot.
planetasymazmorras.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-01-22 11:24:34 AM  
Maybe.. Just maybe, it depends on the Religion.
 
2013-01-22 11:24:52 AM  
Oh please. Next you'll be telling us that capitalism is the belief that there is something noble and sacred about allowing the ruthless, opportunisitic fortunate barely restrained tyranny over the less ruthless, the less opportunistic and the less fortunate.
 
2013-01-22 11:24:56 AM  

skipjack: OTOH the ridicule those that disagree with you proverb is in full force.


We could be intellectual cowards, wringing our hands and pretending that all ideas about the world are equally valid and immune to criticism because they might be quite deeply held by people and we wouldn't want to offend them. Or we could heap ridicule on ridiculous beliefs where we find them.

The latter is far more honest.
 
2013-01-22 11:25:05 AM  
Any system that teaches good morals can help a person love their neighbor. The operative word here is "can". There are jerks of every stripe and sect. A jerk who says he believes in a god is still a jerk. A jerk who does not believe in a god is still a jerk.

In my case, my religious upbringing helped me. I was lucky enough not to be raised by jerks, and to grow up with a truly loving minister (he was a leftover hippie who took Jesus' command to love incredibly seriously. He was awesome).
 
2013-01-22 11:25:37 AM  
Religion helps with loving your neighbor...providing that your neighbor believes in the same deity that you do.
 
2013-01-22 11:26:42 AM  

Wadded Beef: From what I see with Christianity it's sin Monday through Saturday, Ctrl-Z on Sunday. I'll pass.


My favorite bit is those that think they can "get saved" and then keep right on sinning like nothing changed.

"Oh look at me I took a bath and now all my sins are gone! WHOOHOO! Adultery here I come!"
 
2013-01-22 11:26:44 AM  

Citrate1007: Most people just use religion to justify their own inner demons to themselves.


This is my brother. I had to work on my shiat for years to become any kind of a decent person......he found religion. Now he's both confused and still has inner demons.
 
2013-01-22 11:28:08 AM  

The number 7 and the letter Q!: Any system that teaches good morals can help a person love their neighbor


I sincerely doubt that pro-social behavior is something that can be learned. I think that human beings, by and large, instinctively engage in pro-social behaviors. There are inherent conflicts with our limitations in that regard (we're great in societies of 20ish people, we start failing in societies of thousands, and it gets all farked up when you try and build a society of millions), but that's not because we need to learn to "love our neighbor". We simply need to recognize that these strangers are our neighbor.

We are social animals, and we are inherently compassionate and kind to our peers. Those that are not are deviants, and I do not believe that education fixes it- it's a biological issue that must be treated.
 
2013-01-22 11:28:43 AM  

t3knomanser: it's a biological psychological issue that must be treated.


Fixed for accuracy.
 
2013-01-22 11:29:22 AM  

Smeggy Smurf: Wadded Beef: From what I see with Christianity it's sin Monday through Saturday, Ctrl-Z on Sunday. I'll pass.

My favorite bit is those that think they can "get saved" and then keep right on sinning like nothing changed.

"Oh look at me I took a bath and now all my sins are gone! WHOOHOO! Adultery here I come!"


*opens jacket* psst hey buddy wanna buy an indulgence
 
2013-01-22 11:29:32 AM  

The number 7 and the letter Q!: Any system that teaches good morals can help a person love their neighbor. The operative word here is "can". There are jerks of every stripe and sect. A jerk who says he believes in a god is still a jerk. A jerk who does not believe in a god is still a jerk.

In my case, my religious upbringing helped me. I was lucky enough not to be raised by jerks, and to grow up with a truly loving minister (he was a leftover hippie who took Jesus' command to love incredibly seriously. He was awesome).


By your own words, it wasn't your religious upbringing that helped you, it was that you are simply not a jerk. Or possibly that you were raised by people who are not jerks. But the religious aspect has nothing to do with it.
 
2013-01-22 11:30:07 AM  

Ennuipoet: Ask the Canaanites how religion made for good neighbors, or the Jews, the Gnostics, the Muslims in Spain, the Cathars, the Catholics in England, the Mormons in Missouri. et al how religion makes folks so great neighbors.


In each of those cases the dominate religious group so loved their neighbors that they practiced "harsh conversion" techniques.
 
2013-01-22 11:30:10 AM  

MonoChango: Maybe.. Just maybe, it depends on the Religion.


Doesn't seem to be what the study found. They even included non-religious in there, and I'd bet everyone is just as likely to fall into this. They were told they had something in common with the other person they were interacting with. That will make people more generous and trusting of the other person. I doubt it even has to be religion. You could probably do this with hobbies and get a similar result.
 
2013-01-22 11:30:33 AM  

MonoChango: Maybe.. Just maybe, it depends on the Religion.


images.sodahead.com
 
2013-01-22 11:31:06 AM  

LegacyDL: Religion helps with loving your neighbor...providing that your neighbor believes in the same deity that you do.


You mean Christians only trust other Christians and not non-believers?

SHOCKING, i say.

Next you'll be telling me that atheists don't trust religious people. Which would be unthinkable.
 
2013-01-22 11:31:31 AM  

t3knomanser: Descartes: it's a biological psychological issue that must be treated.

Fixed for accuracy.


Properly attributed.
 
2013-01-22 11:32:39 AM  

miscreant: MonoChango: Maybe.. Just maybe, it depends on the Religion.

Doesn't seem to be what the study found. They even included non-religious in there, and I'd bet everyone is just as likely to fall into this. They were told they had something in common with the other person they were interacting with. That will make people more generous and trusting of the other person. I doubt it even has to be religion. You could probably do this with hobbies and get a similar result.


A big, charbroiled and juicy hunk of THIS, served to everyone in the thread.
 
2013-01-22 11:33:33 AM  

t3knomanser: The number 7 and the letter Q!: Any system that teaches good morals can help a person love their neighbor

I sincerely doubt that pro-social behavior is something that can be learned. I think that human beings, by and large, instinctively engage in pro-social behaviors. There are inherent conflicts with our limitations in that regard (we're great in societies of 20ish people, we start failing in societies of thousands, and it gets all farked up when you try and build a society of millions), but that's not because we need to learn to "love our neighbor". We simply need to recognize that these strangers are our neighbor.

We are social animals, and we are inherently compassionate and kind to our peers. Those that are not are deviants, and I do not believe that education fixes it- it's a biological issue that must be treated.


Interesting idea. I honestly haven't studied human instinctual behavior in detail (I'm an English teacher) but now I've got something to look up online when the kids are napping. Thanks.
 
2013-01-22 11:34:05 AM  

gameshowhost: Smeggy Smurf: Wadded Beef: From what I see with Christianity it's sin Monday through Saturday, Ctrl-Z on Sunday. I'll pass.

My favorite bit is those that think they can "get saved" and then keep right on sinning like nothing changed.

"Oh look at me I took a bath and now all my sins are gone! WHOOHOO! Adultery here I come!"

*opens jacket* psst hey buddy wanna buy an indulgence


Dear Lord lead me not into temptation. I already know a shortcut
 
2013-01-22 11:35:25 AM  
My pappy used to say "follow the money" about EVERYTHING in life. Roads, schools, businesses, newspapers, milk, canned goods, religion--freakin' everything. He said money explains all human behavior.

But he was right. Money is the root of the hate throughout history. Every religion may want to do its version of the most good, but knows deep down you need money to do it, so they tribalize their thought processes to keep their flocks in line--and donating money.

I've always taught my kids we're Catholic because that's how I was raised and I'm not really in the mood to learn a new set of rules. But if they want to go Lutheran or something else that's not an outright cult (like Scientology) they won't get any weird family fighting from me.

The theatrical and made-up procedural rules is what gets people bent out of joint against each other, and all of them should be classified as ethnic & historical traditions, rather than edicts from God justifying the smiting (or just snottiness) towards one's neighbors.
 
2013-01-22 11:35:58 AM  
I don't love anyone unless we are blood related or we swap bodily fluids on a daily basis. Everyone else is just strangers when you get right down to it.
 
2013-01-22 11:36:26 AM  

mgshamster: The number 7 and the letter Q!: Any system that teaches good morals can help a person love their neighbor. The operative word here is "can". There are jerks of every stripe and sect. A jerk who says he believes in a god is still a jerk. A jerk who does not believe in a god is still a jerk.

In my case, my religious upbringing helped me. I was lucky enough not to be raised by jerks, and to grow up with a truly loving minister (he was a leftover hippie who took Jesus' command to love incredibly seriously. He was awesome).

By your own words, it wasn't your religious upbringing that helped you, it was that you are simply not a jerk. Or possibly that you were raised by people who are not jerks. But the religious aspect has nothing to do with it.


I wouldn't say that it had nothing to do with it. I would say that it was a great context for learning what I learned. I don't think it's the only context where a person could learn it, though.
 
2013-01-22 11:36:29 AM  
This reminds me of a pair of other recent papers. One was the recent study looking at how political affiliation affects charitable donations, finding that liberals and conservatives donate equally, but to different organizations. Conservatives tending to donate to religious organizations, like their own congregation, that serve typically to benefit the in-group while liberals tend to donate more to secular organizations that tend to help in-group and out-group equally (and also that people tend to donate less overall when the opposite party occupies the White House). The other was a study looking at whether or not people perceive humanity as their in-group or not, finding - among other things - that those who identify all of humanity as members of their in-group tend to donate more to humanitarian relief efforts. Citations for both are below, in case anyone is interested:

Margolis, M., & Sances, M. (2012). Who Really Gives? Partisanship and Charitable Giving in the United States. Partisanship and Charitable Giving in the United States (September 4, 2012).

McFarland, S., Webb, M., & Brown, D. (2012). All Humanity Is My Ingroup: A Measure and Studies of Identification With All Humanity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(5), 830-853.
 
2013-01-22 11:36:58 AM  

UberDave: ou mean the most simple and easy to follow doctrines like being kind to one another, turning the other cheek, not showboating your righteousness, not judging, etc. etc., are often ignored?


Simple, yes. Easy to follow, not so much.

But yes, it seems many Christians are much more concerned with  other people's sinfulness while ignoring one of the central tenets of Jesus's teachings: "Don't be an asshole."
 
2013-01-22 11:39:04 AM  
THIS IS AN OUTRAGE!


Alalalalalalalalalalalalalalala

BOOM!
 
2013-01-22 11:39:42 AM  
Not according to the footage I've seen.
 
2013-01-22 11:39:44 AM  

incendi: UberDave: ou mean the most simple and easy to follow doctrines like being kind to one another, turning the other cheek, not showboating your righteousness, not judging, etc. etc., are often ignored?

Simple, yes. Easy to follow, not so much.

But yes, it seems many Christians are much more concerned with  other people's sinfulness while ignoring one of the central tenets of Jesus's teachings: "Don't be an asshole."


But they only do that because they "love" you and want to see you saved as well. Or some kind of bullshiat like that.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-01-22 11:39:54 AM  

incendi: UberDave: ou mean the most simple and easy to follow doctrines like being kind to one another, turning the other cheek, not showboating your righteousness, not judging, etc. etc., are often ignored?

Simple, yes. Easy to follow, not so much.

But yes, it seems many Christians are much more concerned with  other people's sinfulness while ignoring one of the central tenets of Jesus's teachings: "Don't be an asshole."


This is so true. Jesus also cared about the poor and the outcast which is polar opposite to what many churches are teaching. Like the "mega Churches" in the South. "God want's you to be successful!"... and give more money to the church so the pastor can get a new Rolls.
 
2013-01-22 11:39:56 AM  

t3knomanser: skipjack: OTOH the ridicule those that disagree with you proverb is in full force.

We could be intellectual cowards, wringing our hands and pretending that all ideas about the world are equally valid and immune to criticism because they might be quite deeply held by people and we wouldn't want to offend them. Or we could heap ridicule on ridiculous beliefs where we find them.

The latter is far more honest.


It's not more honest to ridicule those that disagree with you, it's a response by someone insecure in their own beliefs.
 
2013-01-22 11:40:21 AM  

miscreant: MonoChango: Maybe.. Just maybe, it depends on the Religion.

Doesn't seem to be what the study found. They even included non-religious in there, and I'd bet everyone is just as likely to fall into this. They were told they had something in common with the other person they were interacting with. That will make people more generous and trusting of the other person. I doubt it even has to be religion. You could probably do this with hobbies and get a similar result.


Your sound, rational logic is not welcome here, good sir.

/but I'll subscribe to your newsletter
 
2013-01-22 11:40:29 AM  
I've known a few good Christians. My mother is one of them. Christ knows she was about as Christian with me when I was a kid as possible. She had the patience of.....whats his name. And when I went to church as a kid there were some really good Christian people. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they weren't taking any choir boys into the rectory.

I've also known some evil motherfarkers who called themselves Christians. In fact the ratio isn't very encouraging. A few Jehova's Witnesses come to mind as I mentioned in earlier posts. I used to think the Amish were the perfect Christians but I've read articles that they can be assholes too.

The irony is that the Jews who I know (and I work in film film so I know a lot) are the least judgmental and are least likely to try to convert you (frankly they don't want us), even though they just have the Old Testament with the fire and brimstone and genocide and locusts to fall back on. While the supposed Christians (and I'm not saying all but a lot), are the ones who supposedly have all this good shiat from Jesus about love and forgiveness and acceptance of whores and charity and sharing and whores and they're the ones always pushing the fire and brimstone and genocide and locusts. It's a mad house.
 
2013-01-22 11:41:19 AM  

Smeggy Smurf: Like my ex-wife who uses the "don't be vain" to justify ballooning up to around 450lbs. In a way she's right. She's not enticing men into lustful thoughts.


On the other hand, sloth and gluttony exhibit terrible stewardship of God's gifts (in this case, plenty of food and a working body).
 
2013-01-22 11:42:08 AM  
Well since your neighbor isn't going to heavan because he doesn't worship the right sky dragon, you can kill him with impunity

So its got that going for it.
 
2013-01-22 11:42:36 AM  
i1.cpcache.com
 
2013-01-22 11:43:04 AM  
Frank Zappa - Dumb All Over

Whoever we are, wherever we're from, we shoulda noticed by now our behaviour is dumb
And if our chances expect to improve it's gonna take a lot more than tryin' to remove the other race or the other whatever from the face of the planet altogether
They call it "The Earth" which is a dumb kinda name but they named it right 'cause we behave the same
We are dumb all over
Dumb all over, yes we are, dumb all over, near and far, dumb all over, black 'n white, people, we is not wrapped tight
And nerds on the left, nerds on the right
Religious fanatics on the air every night, sayin' the bible tells the story and makes the details sound real gory about what to do if the geeks over there don't believe in the book we got over here
You can't run a race without no feet
And pretty soon there won't be no street for dummies to jog on or doggies to dog on
Religious fanatics can make it be all gone
I mean it won't blow up and disappear, it'll just look ugly for a thousand years
You can't run a country by a book of religion
Not by a heap or a lump or a smidgeon of foolish rules of ancient date, designed to make you all feel great while you fold, spindle and mutilate those unbelievers from a neighbouring state
To arms, to arms
Hooray! That's great, two legs ain't bad
Unless there's a crate they ship the parts to mama in
For souvenirs: two ears (Get down)
Not his, not hers but what the hey
The good book says, "It's gotta be that way"
But their book says, "Revenge the crusades"
With whips 'n chains and hand grenades
Two arms, two arms
Have another and another
Our Cod says, "There ain't no other"
Our Cod says, "It's all ok"
Our god says "This is the way"
It says in the book, "Burn and destroy"
And repent and redeem and revenge and deploy and rumble thee forth to the land of the unbelieving scum on the other side
'Cause they don't go for what's in the book and that makes 'em bad
So verily we must choppeth them up and stompeth them down
Or rent a nice French bomb to poof them out of existence while leaving their real estate just where we need it to use again for temples in which to praise our god, 'cause he can really take care of business
And when his humble TV servant with humble white hair and humble glasses and a nice brown suit and maybe a blonde wife who takes phone calls, tells us our god says it's ok to do this stuff, then we gotta do it
'Cause if we don't do it we ain't "Gwine up to hebbin"
Depending on which book you're using at the time
Can't use theirs, it don't work, it's all lies, gotta use mine
Ain't that right?
That's what they say
Every night, everyday
Hey, we can't really be dumb if we're just following god's orders
Well let's get serious, god knows what he's doin'
He wrote this book here and the book says, "He made us all to be just like him"
So, if we're dumb, then god is dumb and maybe even a little ugly on the side
Dumb all over, a little ugly on the side
Dumb all over, a little ugly on the side
Dumb all over, a little ugly on the side
Dumb all over, a little ugly on the side
 
2013-01-22 11:43:55 AM  
Repeat from 32 AD, 1095 AD, 1492 AD, and 2001 AD
 
2013-01-22 11:44:35 AM  

EddieWearsUnderoos: Your sound, rational logic is not welcome here, good sir.

/but I'll subscribe to your newsletter


Yeah... it's a religion thread, so the fact that you could probably repeat this experiment with cities, nationalities, hobbies, or sexual fetishes and get the same result will be ignored.
 
2013-01-22 11:44:37 AM  

Cymbal: I don't love anyone unless we are blood related or we swap bodily fluids on a daily basis. Everyone else is just strangers when you get right down to it.


What's your mailing address? I'll start sending you some urine...
 
2013-01-22 11:44:45 AM  
Does religion help you "Love your neighbour"? No, according to this study
No, according to all of recorded history.


FTFM
 
2013-01-22 11:45:07 AM  
Is alcoholism a religion?
 
2013-01-22 11:45:36 AM  
I love my 20yo something neighbor when she leaves her bedroom curtains open and the changes in front of the window.
 
2013-01-22 11:45:52 AM  

t3knomanser: We are social animals, and we are inherently compassionate and kind to our peers.


No, we have the capability; that does't mean we make the most of it. A lot is made of that eternal question, "Are humans inherently good or bad?" Even setting aside sociopaths, I think the truth is far more depressing than anyone realizes: All humans have the inherent capacity for empathy and cruelty. What makes humans unique is that we use our developed brains to treat empathy like it's a bad thing, and conversely justify cruelty to trigger responses typically evolved for emotional reward. Religion is a useful cudgel, but any combination of demonization, denial and logical fallacy can achieve the same results. There's plenty of evidence of cruelty among other higher mammals, even social ones, but there's a sort of honesty to it. If a gorilla starts making all kinds of noise and tries to appear as large as possible, I know to give him his space. Even rats are capable of altruism, but Orwellian hypocrisy requires humanity.
 
2013-01-22 11:45:56 AM  
Does religion help you "Love your neighbour"? No, according to this study all of human history.
 
2013-01-22 11:46:35 AM  

skipjack: It's not more honest to ridicule those that disagree with you, it's a response by someone insecure in their own beliefs.


It is very honest to ridicule ridiculous beliefs. The fact that the believers view it as a personal assault and not a statement of fact is unfortunate, but the very definition of "not my problem".
 
2013-01-22 11:46:50 AM  

germ78: Frank Zappa - Dumb All Over

Whoever we are, wherever we're from, we shoulda noticed by now our behaviour is dumb
And if our chances expect to improve it's gonna take a lot more than tryin' to remove the other race or the other whatever from the face of the planet altogether
They call it "The Earth" which is a dumb kinda name but they named it right 'cause we behave the same
We are dumb all over
Dumb all over, yes we are, dumb all over, near and far, dumb all over, black 'n white, people, we is not wrapped tight
And nerds on the left, nerds on the right
Religious fanatics on the air every night, sayin' the bible tells the story and makes the details sound real gory about what to do if the geeks over there don't believe in the book we got over here
You can't run a race without no feet
And pretty soon there won't be no street for dummies to jog on or doggies to dog on
Religious fanatics can make it be all gone
I mean it won't blow up and disappear, it'll just look ugly for a thousand years
You can't run a country by a book of religion
Not by a heap or a lump or a smidgeon of foolish rules of ancient date, designed to make you all feel great while you fold, spindle and mutilate those unbelievers from a neighbouring state
To arms, to arms
Hooray! That's great, two legs ain't bad
Unless there's a crate they ship the parts to mama in
For souvenirs: two ears (Get down)
Not his, not hers but what the hey
The good book says, "It's gotta be that way"
But their book says, "Revenge the crusades"
With whips 'n chains and hand grenades
Two arms, two arms
Have another and another
Our Cod says, "There ain't no other"
Our Cod says, "It's all ok"
Our god says "This is the way"
It says in the book, "Burn and destroy"
And repent and redeem and revenge and deploy and rumble thee forth to the land of the unbelieving scum on the other side
'Cause they don't go for what's in the book and that makes 'em bad
So verily we must choppeth them up and stompeth them down
Or rent a nice French bomb to poof them out of existence while leaving their real estate just where we need it to use again for temples in which to praise our god, 'cause he can really take care of business
And when his humble TV servant with humble white hair and humble glasses and a nice brown suit and maybe a blonde wife who takes phone calls, tells us our god says it's ok to do this stuff, then we gotta do it
'Cause if we don't do it we ain't "Gwine up to hebbin"
Depending on which book you're using at the time
Can't use theirs, it don't work, it's all lies, gotta use mine
Ain't that right?
That's what they say
Every night, everyday
Hey, we can't really be dumb if we're just following god's orders
Well let's get serious, god knows what he's doin'
He wrote this book here and the book says, "He made us all to be just like him"
So, if we're dumb, then god is dumb and maybe even a little ugly on the side
Dumb all over, a little ugly on the side
Dumb all over, a little ugly on the side
Dumb all over, a little ugly on the side
Dumb all over, a little ugly on the side


It's not 1995, and this is not an AOL chat room. Please don't think it's cool to post song lyrics. Never was cool in the first place.
 
2013-01-22 11:47:23 AM  

Random Anonymous Blackmail: Is alcoholism a religion?


It often leads to prayer at the altar of the porcelain god.
 
2013-01-22 11:47:27 AM  
And this is news to whom?
 
2013-01-22 11:48:21 AM  
One of the purposes of religion is to distinguish an in group from out groups.

A religious dictum such as thou shall not kill only applies to the in-group. Cheating or killing foreigners is fine.

This perspective makes certain moral contradictions go away. For example, if you can't kill then how can an in-group impose capital punishment on its members? Easy. Transgressions such as female adultery or disrespect of elders means that the transgressor no longer obeys the religious rules which makes them no longer part of the in group and thus ok to kill.
 
2013-01-22 11:48:57 AM  
You folks can keep arguing, but I just wanted to point out the idiocy of the study.

FTFA:
A team of behaviour experts asked a group of Malaysian people with different religious backgrounds to take part in a series of tasks involving sharing money with other participants.
In one task people were given an imaginary sum of money and given the option of sending some to another participant.
They were told that whatever they did not send they would be able to keep but also that the participant could chose to send some of it back - which would then be tripled.
They had to judge how "generous" to be.
Participants included Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist and non-religious volunteers
The team noticed that there was little difference between levels of co-operation and generosity when people knew nothing of the other person's beliefs and when they knew that they were of different persuasions.
But when told that the other person shared their religion they were markedly more trusting and generous with the money.


"Team of behavior experts," more likely grad students. And how did Nottingham University Business School find a large group of Malaysian people?

Reporting on studies, psychological or otherwise, needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Studies like this generally need to be taken with their own grain of salt. All in all, I doubt it's reflective of reality.
 
2013-01-22 11:49:12 AM  

dragonchild: No, we have the capability; that does't mean we make the most of it.


The vast majority of human beings are built with the innate ability to run. Not all of us are going to run marathons or a 4 minute mile, but we can all run. Those that can't run are considered the exceptions, the deviations.

And just because we can run doesn't mean we will (I'll do all sorts of exercises, but I refuse to run).

But we don't need to be taught to run. It's an inherent capacity that comes along with being human.
 
2013-01-22 11:50:06 AM  

hstein3: You folks can keep arguing, but I just wanted to point out the idiocy of the study.

FTFA:
A team of behaviour experts asked a group of Malaysian people with different religious backgrounds to take part in a series of tasks involving sharing money with other participants.
In one task people were given an imaginary sum of money and given the option of sending some to another participant.
They were told that whatever they did not send they would be able to keep but also that the participant could chose to send some of it back - which would then be tripled.
They had to judge how "generous" to be.
Participants included Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist and non-religious volunteers
The team noticed that there was little difference between levels of co-operation and generosity when people knew nothing of the other person's beliefs and when they knew that they were of different persuasions.
But when told that the other person shared their religion they were markedly more trusting and generous with the money.

"Team of behavior experts," more likely grad students. And how did Nottingham University Business School find a large group of Malaysian people?

Reporting on studies, psychological or otherwise, needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Studies like this generally need to be taken with their own grain of salt. All in all, I doubt it's reflective of reality.


Yeah we all know the study is flawed, but we can't let a Fark religion thread go to waste.
 
2013-01-22 11:50:22 AM  
Sounds to me like the results of religious leaders instilling their flock with a persecution complex is working as intended.
 
2013-01-22 11:50:38 AM  

HairBolus: One of the purposes of religion is to distinguish an in group from out groups.

A religious dictum such as thou shall not kill only applies to the in-group. Cheating or killing foreigners is fine.

This perspective makes certain moral contradictions go away. For example, if you can't kill then how can an in-group impose capital punishment on its members? Easy. Transgressions such as female adultery or disrespect of elders means that the transgressor no longer obeys the religious rules which makes them no longer part of the in group and thus ok to kill.


THIS. CHANGES. EVERYTHING.
 
2013-01-22 11:51:10 AM  
i realluy donut geut whuy people keeup adding the letture "U" to wourds... stop it!
 
2013-01-22 11:52:26 AM  

My neighbors dislike my ritualistic shouting of


BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD! SKULLS FOR THE SKULL THRONE!

And claim it's some kind of noise ordinance violation. Freedom of religious expression, my ass.

KILL MAIM BURN
 
2013-01-22 11:52:28 AM  

towatchoverme: miscreant: MonoChango: Maybe.. Just maybe, it depends on the Religion.

Doesn't seem to be what the study found. They even included non-religious in there, and I'd bet everyone is just as likely to fall into this. They were told they had something in common with the other person they were interacting with. That will make people more generous and trusting of the other person. I doubt it even has to be religion. You could probably do this with hobbies and get a similar result.

A big, charbroiled and juicy hunk of THIS, served to everyone in the thread.


I'd assume you're correct. But now do it with nature vs. nurture. See if it works with gender, hair color, shoe size, etc. versus those things like you mentioned which people can choose to be or do on their own.
 
2013-01-22 11:53:02 AM  
Ah yes, love everyone. Except the queers. Can't love them. Oh, and the fornicators - they're sinners you know. And that family over there doesn't tithe, so let's not include them. And I heard that guy over there skipped church last week to watch a football game - he's obviously not a true believer. I heard that lady over there voted Democrat - I saw the sticker on her car. She obviously doesn't practice what we preach. Mary is divorced - she doesn't follow god's word, so she's out, too. I heard John's daughter got an abortion when she was 15. That whole family is just nothing but trouble.

Well, I guess the ten of us can just sit here in our smugness and know that we're god's favorites because we do everything we are supposed to.
 
2013-01-22 11:53:48 AM  

tbhouston: i realluy donut geut whuy people keeup adding the letture "U" to wourds... stop it!


Since it's actually American english which removed the u from words, and you seem to prefer unchanging spelling, shouldn't you be arguing for the original versions, which included the "U"?
 
2013-01-22 11:53:53 AM  

tbhouston: i realluy donut geut whuy people keeup adding the letture "U" to wourds... stop it!


Maybe they are, or want to sound, English?

They may have "invented" the language, but we Americans got it right :)
 
2013-01-22 11:55:07 AM  

had98c: But they only do that because they "love" you and want to see you saved as well. Or some kind of bullshiat like that.


When the people of Ramat Bet Shemesh were spitting on little girls and in general making unbelievable asses of themselves, I e-mailed a former rabbi of mine to try and gain some kind of understanding. He's very Orthodox, but nowhere near as much a zealot as those farkwaffles.

I mentioned the concepts of chilul HaShem (causing others to think less of god or his rules is a HUGE no-no in Judaism), the idea that hatred between people is what caused the current Diaspora (as well as the Romans' sacking of Jerusalem and the Temple), and the concept that Jews have long celebrated - that diversity of opinion is a strength, not a weakness ("there are 70 faces of the Torah", says the Talmud).

Anyway, his response was that the zealots see it as a way of maintaining what they have, fearing that the loss of any piece of ground means a loss of the argument - which is, I suppose, why they're "zealots" in the first place. It's a lame, mealy-mouthed response, because it doesn't impart any insight.

And that's the problem. People are dicks. If it wasn't religion, it'd be politics, If it wasn't politics, it'd be sports. If it wasn't sports, it'd be laundry detergents, preferred pets, dick length/vagina depth, number of sharks shot in the face...

Part of the need to feel accepted is the need to define a group by who's not in it. Part of proving oneself to a group may mean attacking those not in it. People are dicks.
 
2013-01-22 11:55:25 AM  
I get worried when Fark goes more than 24 hours without a hate speech thread.

Seig heil!
 
2013-01-22 11:56:02 AM  

hstein3: You folks can keep arguing, but I just wanted to point out the idiocy of the study.

FTFA:
A team of behaviour experts asked a group of Malaysian people with different religious backgrounds to take part in a series of tasks involving sharing money with other participants.
In one task people were given an imaginary sum of money and given the option of sending some to another participant.
They were told that whatever they did not send they would be able to keep but also that the participant could chose to send some of it back - which would then be tripled.
They had to judge how "generous" to be.
Participants included Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist and non-religious volunteers
The team noticed that there was little difference between levels of co-operation and generosity when people knew nothing of the other person's beliefs and when they knew that they were of different persuasions.
But when told that the other person shared their religion they were markedly more trusting and generous with the money.

"Team of behavior experts," more likely grad students. And how did Nottingham University Business School find a large group of Malaysian people?

Reporting on studies, psychological or otherwise, needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Studies like this generally need to be taken with their own grain of salt. All in all, I doubt it's reflective of reality.


So we should all keep killing each other in the name of an antiquated form of government that has no basis in reality and was simply made up to explain shiat we haven't figured out yet?

Pretty barbaric if you ask me.
 
2013-01-22 11:57:09 AM  

Rapmaster2000: Not according to the footage I've seen.


You knew they were religious because they kept saying, "Oh God, Oh god, oh god," right?

dragonchild: All humans have the inherent capacity for empathy and cruelty. What makes humans unique is that we use our developed brains to treat empathy like it's a bad thing, and conversely justify cruelty to trigger responses typically evolved for emotional reward


That's brilliant. No, no, I'm serious--that fills in some holes in my brain I've been wondering about.

/I only operate from the assumption that everyone I meet has no empathy at all. And I'm not wrong as often as I'd like to be.
 
2013-01-22 11:57:26 AM  

Cymbal: It's not 1995, and this is not an AOL chat room. Please don't think it's cool to post song lyrics. Never was cool in the first place.


You know what's even worse? QUOTING THE ENTIRE SONG IN YOUR STUPID REPLY.
 
2013-01-22 11:57:42 AM  
Religion is a substitute for ethics, not a component of it.
 
2013-01-22 11:58:09 AM  

HairBolus: A religious dictum such as thou shall not kill only applies to the in-group. Cheating or killing foreigners is fine.


[citation needed], as "thou shalt not murder" applies to everyone (in the eyes of Jews, at least). I'd agree that this is true of some rules in some faiths, but as a blanket statement, it's got more holes than Grandma's handmade afghan.

// and there are still various legal ways of killing people while still not violating the commandment
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-01-22 11:58:34 AM  
cryinoutloud:
That's brilliant. No, no, I'm serious--that fills in some holes in my brain I've been wondering about.

/I only operate from the assumption that everyone I meet has no empathy at all. And I'm not wrong as often as I'd like to be.

You're easily right 99.5% of the time. At least.
 
2013-01-22 11:58:59 AM  
Love your neighbor? No

Fleece your neighbor? Absolutely. It's what Jesus would do.
 
2013-01-22 11:59:21 AM  

hstein3: And how did Nottingham University Business School find a large group of Malaysian people?


If only there was a geographical location where Malaysians congregate. Like, oh, perhaps MALAYSIA?
 
2013-01-22 11:59:24 AM  

skipjack: t3knomanser: skipjack: OTOH the ridicule those that disagree with you proverb is in full force.

We could be intellectual cowards, wringing our hands and pretending that all ideas about the world are equally valid and immune to criticism because they might be quite deeply held by people and we wouldn't want to offend them. Or we could heap ridicule on ridiculous beliefs where we find them.

The latter is far more honest.

It's not more honest to ridicule those that disagree with you, it's a response by someone insecure in their own beliefs.


You can't use logic on an illogical person. Ridicule is all that is left.

You guys are arguing over whether Batman or Iron Man would win in a fight. We're telling you that it doesn't farking matter, since they're both made up.
 
2013-01-22 11:59:32 AM  

Ennuipoet: Ask the Canaanites how religion made for good neighbors, or the Jews, the Gnostics, the Muslims in Spain, the Cathars, the Catholics in England, the Mormons in Missouri. et al how religion makes folks so great neighbors.


You mean Mormons in Illinois, not Missouri.
That all went down in Nauvoo, IL (Founding of the Mormon church, Joseph Smith getting shot, etc. etc.) and then his followers went off to Utah. The remaining non-Mormon sect (calling themselves the REORGANIZED church of Jesus Christ of Later-day Saints) then went down MO and became less Mormon-y (basically your average protestants), while the Utah branch remained the fun loving no-alchochol-no-caffeine-no-dancing-but-polygomy-is-ok bunch we all know and love today.
 
2013-01-22 11:59:48 AM  
miscreant:
Yeah... it's a religion thread, so the fact that you could probably repeat this experiment with cities, nationalities, hobbies, or sexual fetishes and get the same result will be ignored.


Indeed. And it's surprising that the researchers did not allude to that in their paper (or maybe they did and it was left out of the article). If the researchers did ignore it then I would have to question their credibility.
 
2013-01-22 12:00:11 PM  
[csb]

When I was young and my family was trying to get out of our badly designed church parking lot, my dad would laugh and point out all the "parking lot rage" that was going in. These people had literally just been inside the church, shaking hands and saying "peace be with you" and now they were ready to kill each other over who is next to leave the parking lot.

I think my father pointing out this blatant hypocrisy set me on the path to atheism. Something I will always thank him for.

[/csb]
 
2013-01-22 12:00:11 PM  

umad: You guys are arguing over whether Batman or Iron Man would win in a fight. We're telling you that it doesn't farking matter, since they're both made up.


Iron Man
 
2013-01-22 12:00:43 PM  
Religion is like sports. We always root for our team. Actually, religion is more like European "football," where matches sometimes erupt in deadly violence.

You Europeans and your deadly religions. *shakes head sadly*
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-01-22 12:01:15 PM  

SisterMaryElephant: Love your neighbor? No

Fleece your neighbor? Absolutely. It's what Jesus would do.


Jesus wants you to be successful!
 
2013-01-22 12:01:31 PM  

CheekyMonkey: hstein3: And how did Nottingham University Business School find a large group of Malaysian people?

If only there was a geographical location where Malaysians congregate. Like, oh, perhaps MALAYSIA?


IMMA FIRIN MALAYSIA
 
2013-01-22 12:02:18 PM  

sxacho: Iron Man


Batman's superpower is that he basically doesn't ever lose, even after you break his spine.
 
2013-01-22 12:02:35 PM  
A. Yeah, people are greedy, stupid, selfish, etc. Not news. The question is, are they following the principles of their religion at the time? If not, you're merely judging a sick man for needing a doctor.

B. While we're at it, let's forget about the hospitals, universities, charities, etc. that have been established on behalf of one religion or another.
 
2013-01-22 12:04:46 PM  

Smeggy Smurf: Wadded Beef: From what I see with Christianity it's sin Monday through Saturday, Ctrl-Z on Sunday. I'll pass.

My favorite bit is those that think they can "get saved" and then keep right on sinning like nothing changed.

"Oh look at me I took a bath and now all my sins are gone! WHOOHOO! Adultery here I come!"


Actually it's way more complicated (and worse) than that. Catholics think that you can be 'saved' by going to confession and through good works, the born again think it's by just saying it, and the more Calvinist think that what you do or say has nothing to do with you being saved or not. God just..picks at random?

/been a while since I actually studied it, so I might be wrong
 
2013-01-22 12:05:17 PM  

sxacho: umad: You guys are arguing over whether Batman or Iron Man would win in a fight. We're telling you that it doesn't farking matter, since they're both made up.

Iron Man


I'd pick the Amazing Screw on Head, myself.
 
2013-01-22 12:05:37 PM  

sxacho: umad: You guys are arguing over whether Batman or Iron Man would win in a fight. We're telling you that it doesn't farking matter, since they're both made up.

Iron Man


Damn straight. Black Sabbath farking rocks!
 
2013-01-22 12:06:07 PM  
Your looking at it the wrong way.
This study also proves that being an atheist doesn't make you a better person.
 
2013-01-22 12:06:10 PM  

t3knomanser: sxacho: Iron Man

Batman's superpower is that he basically doesn't ever lose, even after you break his spine.


Well then, I'd classify that as (at least) two fights.
 
2013-01-22 12:07:37 PM  

umad:

You can't use logic on an illogical person. Ridicule is all that is left.

You guys are arguing over whether Batman or Iron Man would win in a fight. We're telling you that it doesn't farking matter, since they're both made up.


If ridicule is all you have left, then you haven't communicated effectively. That you feel you need to use ridicule says more about you than the person you're ridiculing.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-01-22 12:08:00 PM  

latenite: A. Yeah, people are greedy, stupid, selfish, etc. Not news. The question is, are they following the principles of their religion at the time? If not, you're merely judging a sick man for needing a doctor.


To take a cue from your writing here, the fact the many of the pseudo-Christians believe openly that health care is "not a right" and are often openly fine with a person dying because they don't have money to pay a hospital answers your question here. There is nothing more anti-Christian or against the bible's teaching than being okay with the death of a person for want of money to pay a doctor. However this is what the loud "Christian" contingent believes and often says on a day-to-day basis.
 
2013-01-22 12:08:00 PM  
the headline was MAKE you, Subby used HELP you. Either way a persons behavior is up to themself.
 
2013-01-22 12:08:45 PM  
I'll add that one of the good things about my church is I meet and interact with a fairly diverse group of people on every end of the political spectrum that I wouldn't normally deal with. Almost none of them were in the same professional or social circles I was in.

Since I'm kinda forced to deal with them on a weekly basis, I think my tolerance and understanding of others has actually gone up.

I'm not going to call the study BS, because a sample size of 1 does not allow me to call BS, and I know there's religions out there that pretty much demand you cut off anyone who doesn't share your faith.
 
2013-01-22 12:09:10 PM  
Does religion help you "Love Kill your neighbour"? NoYes, according to this study several thousands of years of human history

/also correct
 
2013-01-22 12:10:43 PM  
When "love thy neighbor" was written, your neighbor most likely looked, acted, and believed a lot like you.
 
2013-01-22 12:11:42 PM  
Opening lines of TFA: "Religion does not make you love your neighbour - study ... It may promote messages such as "love thy neighbour" but religion does not make people more kind or trusting, a study has concluded.  Being religious only appears to make people more co-operative or unselfish when they are dealing with other people of the same faith, it suggested."


Well farking DUH.

Your problem stems from your failure to understand that "neighbor", in the Biblical / Torah context, meant exactly that: Other people of the same faith / race.

The original intent was to promote in-group altruism - preference to in-group members as opposed to out-group members. And yes, that INCLUDES Jeebus - who NEVER expressed ANY altruistic interest toward ANYONE other than his fellow JEWS.

Confused?

Here, let John Hartung explain it to you:

LOVE THY NEIGHBOR: The evolution of in-group morality
 
2013-01-22 12:12:30 PM  

skipjack: umad:

You can't use logic on an illogical person. Ridicule is all that is left.

You guys are arguing over whether Batman or Iron Man would win in a fight. We're telling you that it doesn't farking matter, since they're both made up.

If ridicule is all you have left, then you haven't communicated effectively. That you feel you need to use ridicule says more about you than the person you're ridiculing.


People have been communicating effectively since people have existed. There is a saying that goes "You can lead a horse to water, but he may burn you at the stake for it", or something like that.

Religious people are actively choosing to believe in pure nonsense, without any regard to the facts. You even have a code word for when you are doing this. It is "faith".
 
2013-01-22 12:13:28 PM  

latenite: A. Yeah, people are greedy, stupid, selfish, etc. Not news. The question is, are they following the principles of their religion at the time? If not, you're merely judging a sick man for needing a doctor.

B. While we're at it, let's forget about the hospitals, universities, charities, etc. that have been established on behalf of one religion or another.


When the number of people who use their faith as an excuse to shiat on others FAR outweigh the number of people who are truly pious, religion has failed. You know why it failed and will continue to fail? Because religion is a human invention with extreme fallibility.
 
2013-01-22 12:15:54 PM  

adrift1827: Does religion help you "Love Kill your neighbour"? NoYes, according to this study several thousands of years of human history

/also correct


Some famous religious leaders, the bastards killed 20,000,000 in recent history.

www.bunnydesign.com
 
2013-01-22 12:16:26 PM  

Dr Dreidel: HairBolus: One of the purposes of religion is to distinguish an in group from out groups.

A religious dictum such as thou shall not kill only applies to the in-group. Cheating or killing foreigners is fine.

This perspective makes certain moral contradictions go away. For example, if you can't kill then how can an in-group impose capital punishment on its members? Easy. Transgressions such as female adultery or disrespect of elders means that the transgressor no longer obeys the religious rules which makes them no longer part of the in group and thus ok to kill.

[citation needed], as "thou shalt not murder" applies to everyone (in the eyes of Jews, at least). I'd agree that this is true of some rules in some faiths, but as a blanket statement, it's got more holes than Grandma's handmade afghan.

// and there are still various legal ways of killing people while still not violating the commandment


Ah, Jewish legalistic nit-picking and weighing of how serious sins are which basically boils down to it is ok to break in group laws against someone to a degree that their behavior doesn't follow the in group standards. I don't recall anywhere in the Old Testament where there was much worry about killing sinners or exterminating outsiders. All of the discussion if any was why they deserved it.
 
2013-01-22 12:17:10 PM  

skipjack:

If ridicule is all you have left, then you haven't communicated effectively. That you feel you need to use ridicule says more about you than the person you're ridiculing.


Oh horseshiat. Ridicule is a very efficient way to indicate that something isn't worth a serious response. It goes back as far as human language.

Stop cowering behind fake rules of etiquette. Nobody is fooled.
 
2013-01-22 12:18:04 PM  
Religion should be classified as a mental illness.
 
2013-01-22 12:19:29 PM  
Q:Does religion help you "Love your neighbour"?

A: No, but it sure seems to help you love their kids, though.
 
2013-01-22 12:19:41 PM  
Cutting edge research to determine that, yes, tribal identity is still a thing in 2013.

You'll see the same thing if you swap religion with race, or country of origin, or (un)shared common interests, etc.
This is why sales people try (and lie) to find common ground in small-talk. The more you think of them as similar to you, the more you like them, the more you'll let bullshiat go unchallenged, the more you'll be willing to stretch your decision-making to help out a tribe member, etc.
 
2013-01-22 12:19:42 PM  
religion helps people justify anti-social behavior.
 
2013-01-22 12:19:55 PM  

Farking Canuck: [csb]

When I was young and my family was trying to get out of our badly designed church parking lot, my dad would laugh and point out all the "parking lot rage" that was going in. These people had literally just been inside the church, shaking hands and saying "peace be with you" and now they were ready to kill each other over who is next to leave the parking lot.

I think my father pointing out this blatant hypocrisy set me on the path to atheism. Something I will always thank him for.

[/csb]


Had the exact same experience. That and the fact that the people who gave the most to the church (these lists were printed and distributed every six months) were customarily seated in the front rows at each service they attended. Not joking, this actually happened. I was raised Catholic, went to a Catholic school through 12th grade, but in religion class would often be sent to the principal's office for arguing with the nuns over religious dogma that I disagreed with.
Was probably just a smartass little prick that knew enough to really get them pissed, but the incongruities bothered me enough that I never went back to church, and never will.
Hypocrisy, cant abide by it, wont have it.
 
2013-01-22 12:21:31 PM  
Being religious only appears to make people more co-operative or unselfish when they are dealing with other people of the same faith, it suggested.

/Ya think? Facepalms. It's not the single people who believe that i mistrust, its the whole of organized religion that scares me. Any religion that makes you such a bowing sheep that you pray to toast or stains on a wall caused by grease cant be good. Don't even get me started on the derp spewing fundies on both sides. And no, im not just talking about Islam, but whatever form fundies practice. When church teachings overcome common sense and things like tolerance and love, empathy, and acceptance of other faiths / peoples, that's when it becomes a problem.
 
2013-01-22 12:22:16 PM  

david_gaithersburg: adrift1827: Does religion help you "Love Kill your neighbour"? NoYes, according to this study several thousands of years of human history

/also correct

Some famous religious leaders, the bastards killed 20,000,000 in recent history.

[www.bunnydesign.com image 320x240]


20 million?

That is... shall we say... a conservative estimate?
 
2013-01-22 12:22:44 PM  

Deep Contact: Religion should be classified as a mental illness.


So should liberalism but neither is going to happen
 
2013-01-22 12:22:48 PM  

Deep Contact: Religion should be classified as a mental illness.


So much this. We already have brain scans that prove the brains of the religious are physically different.
 
2013-01-22 12:23:27 PM  

Mugato: The irony is that the Jews who I know (and I work in film film so I know a lot) are the least judgmental and are least likely to try to convert you (frankly they don't want us)


That's one of the things I respect about Judaism...

/ actually, isn't that something you have to be born ( or marry) into?
// laying down my "summon Tatsuma" card
/// or anyone else knowledgeable about that stuff...
 
2013-01-22 12:23:31 PM  

The My Little Pony Killer: Deep Contact: Religion should be classified as a mental illness.

So much this. We already have brain scans that prove the brains of the religious are physically different.


Religion = Superstition + $$$$$
 
2013-01-22 12:23:31 PM  

ArcadianRefugee: When "love thy neighbor" was written, your neighbor most likely looked, acted, and believed a lot like you.


I think that has something to do with it. Someone else already said it, but I don't think we have adapted to living in such huge communities and in such a large world as we do now. We evolved to live in tiny family communities, not cities, with people who were related to us. And for a lot of people, the world is crowded and gives a person a sense of being trespassed upon--so they need to defend their territory, whatever they perceive it to be. Then your "neighbor" is not like you, has nothing in common with you, and your instincts are already telling you that you're being encroached upon, so.....

The problem is only going to get worse. And then let's coat the whole thing with some illogical religious beliefs and some "rugged individualism" (a staple of our proud country), and it's like a food fight in the monkey-house.
 
2013-01-22 12:24:48 PM  

david_gaithersburg: adrift1827: Does religion help you "Love Kill your neighbour"? NoYes, according to this study several thousands of years of human history

/also correct

Some famous religious leaders, the bastards killed 20,000,000 in recent history.

[www.bunnydesign.com image 320x240]


And how many has god killed? I think Satan has killed about 10 so far.
 
2013-01-22 12:25:56 PM  

Kome: This reminds me of a pair of other recent papers. One was the recent study looking at how political affiliation affects charitable donations, finding that liberals and conservatives donate equally, but to different organizations. Conservatives tending to donate to religious organizations, like their own congregation, that serve typically to benefit the in-group while liberals tend to donate more to secular organizations that tend to help in-group and out-group equally (and also that people tend to donate less overall when the opposite party occupies the White House). The other was a study looking at whether or not people perceive humanity as their in-group or not, finding - among other things - that those who identify all of humanity as members of their in-group tend to donate more to humanitarian relief efforts. Citations for both are below, in case anyone is interested:

Margolis, M., & Sances, M. (2012). Who Really Gives? Partisanship and Charitable Giving in the United States. Partisanship and Charitable Giving in the United States (September 4, 2012).

McFarland, S., Webb, M., & Brown, D. (2012). All Humanity Is My Ingroup: A Measure and Studies of Identification With All Humanity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(5), 830-853.


Thanks for this - I might end up using this article for a thing I'm working on.
 
2013-01-22 12:29:52 PM  

umad:
People have been communicating effectively since people have existed. There is a saying that goes "You can lead a horse to water, but he may burn you at the stake for it", or something like that.

Religious people are actively choosing to believe in pure nonsense, without any regard to the facts. You even have a code word for when you are doing this. It is "faith".


Communication is key. For instance, a smart gentlemen once said "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." and also said "religion poisons everything". Both statements are used universally by many atheists yet the second statement was spoken without proper evidence, and faithfully believed by many.

Faith isn't a code word, faith is something we all will engage in, just some aren't honest enough to admit it.
 
2013-01-22 12:29:56 PM  

latenite: A. Yeah, people are greedy, stupid, selfish, etc. Not news. The question is, are they following the principles of their religion at the time? If not, you're merely judging a sick man for needing a doctor.

B. While we're at it, let's forget about the hospitals, universities, charities, etc. that have been established on behalf of one religion or another.


Interesting point on A. My counterpoint is that as religion is basically supposed to provide tenets by which to live you life, if people "need the doctor" a lot, then the system altogether probably isn't too healthy.

And for a balanced argument, including B. would make it necessary to include:

C. All the wars, murders, torture, and brainwashing that have occurred in the name of one religion or another.
 
2013-01-22 12:30:18 PM  

HairBolus: Ah, Jewish legalistic nit-picking and weighing of how serious sins are which basically boils down to it is ok to break in group laws against someone to a degree that their behavior doesn't follow the in group standards. I don't recall anywhere in the Old Testament where there was much worry about killing sinners or exterminating outsiders. All of the discussion if any was why they deserved it.


Uh, what? In every legal code, there are subsections, caveats and exceptions. "Thou shalt not murder" obviously does not include people found guilty of capital crimes, for example - some of those capital crimes (along with the specific mode of execution) being spelled out in the subsequent chapters.

I'm not sure what point you're making, other than calling Jews nit-picky about the laws.

Forbidden Doughnut: Mugato: The irony is that the Jews who I know (and I work in film film so I know a lot) are the least judgmental and are least likely to try to convert you (frankly they don't want us)

That's one of the things I respect about Judaism...

/ actually, isn't that something you have to be born ( or marry) into?
// laying down my "summon Tatsuma" card
/// or anyone else knowledgeable about that stuff...


Short answer: we don't recruit.
Longer answer: we don't actively recruit and will often attempt to convince would-be converts to stay with the god they've got (until we're convinced they know what they're doing, and then it's intense instruction until the day of your conversion). However, some sects of Jews have a hard-on for getting lapsed Jews back into the fold, so what looks like "recruiting" is really more like "recapturing".
 
2013-01-22 12:31:37 PM  

I wouldn't believe in anything if it wasn't for my Lucky Astrology Mood Watch!

- S. Martin
 
2013-01-22 12:32:13 PM  

fickenchucker: I've always taught my kids we're Catholic because that's how I was raised and I'm not really in the mood to learn a new set of rules. But if they want to go Lutheran or something else that's not an outright cult (like Scientology) they won't get any weird family fighting from me.


and what if they go outside Christianity alltogether? what if they decide that all religion is just variations of uneducated sheep herder mythology from various parts of world and that there is no god... will they get any 'weird family fighting' from you then?
 
2013-01-22 12:32:47 PM  

enry: Smeggy Smurf: Wadded Beef: From what I see with Christianity it's sin Monday through Saturday, Ctrl-Z on Sunday. I'll pass.

My favorite bit is those that think they can "get saved" and then keep right on sinning like nothing changed.

"Oh look at me I took a bath and now all my sins are gone! WHOOHOO! Adultery here I come!"

Actually it's way more complicated (and worse) than that. Catholics think that you can be 'saved' by going to confession and through good works, the born again think it's by just saying it, and the more Calvinist think that what you do or say has nothing to do with you being saved or not. God just..picks at random?

/been a while since I actually studied it, so I might be wrong


My personal experiences include my neighbors ("good," Sunday-Church-goin-folk), who would tell me some right-wing BS such as Obama is horrible, how expanding health care is "awful" and how the Iraq War is more than justified despite the previous administration's outright lies to trick the public into supporting it -- almost making George Orwell shoot up from his grave shouting "NAILED IT!"

"Would Jesus espouse ANY of these views?" I would ask them. From there I got mealy-mouthed crap about how 'Merica needs protecting, Supply-Side-Jesus, etc. I didn't even want to KNOW their views on gay people.

Everyone's mileage may vary, but I'm pretty convinced that it's some flat-out hate, disguised as 'love thy neighbor', for society other than those who look/think like they do.
 
2013-01-22 12:33:18 PM  

Dr Dreidel: HairBolus: A religious dictum such as thou shall not kill only applies to the in-group. Cheating or killing foreigners is fine.

[citation needed], as "thou shalt not murder" applies to everyone (in the eyes of Jews, at least). I'd agree that this is true of some rules in some faiths, but as a blanket statement, it's got more holes than Grandma's handmade afghan.


Okay:

QUOTE:

Thou Shalt Not Kill Who?

Specific laws which follow from the love law can be better understood by keeping the ingroup definition of neighbor in mind. Consider the proto-legal portion of The Ten Commandments (Deuteronomy 5:17-21; JPS '17 & KJV):

Thou shalt not kill.
Neither shalt thou commit adultery.
Neither shalt thou steal.
Neither shalt thou bear false witness against thy neighbour
Neither shall you covet your neighbor's wife and you shall not desire your neighbor's
house, his field, or his manservant, or his maidservant, his ox, or his ass, or anything that
is your neighbor's.


And add the realization that the scrolls from which these words were translated have no periods, no commas, and no first-word capitalization. Decisions about where sentences and paragraphs begin and end are courtesy of the translator. Accordingly, instead of being written as five separate paragraphs of one sentence each, without changing any of the words, Deuteronomy 5:17-21 could be translated:


Thou shalt not kill, neither shalt thou commit adultery, neither shalt thou steal, neither shalt thou bear false witness against thy neighbour. Neither shall you covet your neighbor's wife, and you shall not desire your neighbor's house, his field, or his manservant, or his maidservant, his ox, or his ass, or anything that is your neighbor's.


Here the question, "Thou shalt not kill who?" is answered "Thou shalt not kill thy neighbor - the children of thy people, your countrymen" … your fellow in-group member.

How unconventional is this interpretation? Not very. The rabbis of the Talmud determined that an Israelite was not liable for murder unless he intentionally killed a fellow Israelite. Indeed, if an Israelite intended to kill a non-Israelite, but killed an Israelite by mistake, he was not guilty of murder. The law (Mishna) is explicit in this regard (Sanhedrin 79a):


If he intended killing an animal but slew a man, or a heathen and he killed an Israelite … he is not liable.


And the discussion (Gemara) of this law gives a clear example:


This excludes [from liability] the case of one who threw a stone into the midst of a company of Israelites and heathens. How is this? Shall we say that the company consisted of nine heathens and one Israelite? Then his non-liability can be inferred from the fact that the majority were heathens.


So if a defendant admits to having killed a fellow in-group member by throwing a stone, his plea of innocence should be accepted if there is reason to believe that he was aiming at an out-group member. In this regard, the rabbis of the Talmud, who are traditionally designated the Sages, took an extraordinarily lenient view of what would constitute evidence of intent, extending credibility to a perpetrator even if there was only one out-group member in the company of nine in-group members (Sanhedrin 79a, Baba Kamma 44b):


And even if half and half, when there is doubt in a capital charge, a lenient attitude must be taken! ... if there were nine Jews and one heathen ... still, since there was among them one heathen, he was an essential part of the group, and essential part is reckoned as equivalent to half, and where there is doubt in a criminal charge the accused has the benefit.


As one might expect, the law for inadvertent killing was not symmetrical. If an outgroup member accidentally killed an in-group member, he was guilty of Murder One. Maimonides, whose summarizations and condensations of the Torah and the Talmud are generally accepted as authoritative, put the point succinctly (Book of Torts 5:5:4):


If a resident alien slays an Israelite inadvertently, he must be put to death in spite of his inadvertence.


The Book of Judges (Maimonides, 5:9:4) confirms this:


A Noahide [non-Jew] who kills a person, even if he kills an embryo in the mother's womb, is put to death. So too, if he kills one suffering from a fatal disease ... he is put to death. In none of these cases is an Israelite put to death.


END QUOTE.

Much more fun at the above link.
 
2013-01-22 12:37:03 PM  

punkhippie:
Oh horseshiat. Ridicule is a very efficient way to indicate that something isn't worth a serious response. It goes back as far as human language.

Stop cowering behind fake rules of etiquette. Nobody is fooled.


I've used ridicule many times, and I'll use it in the future, but doesn't make it right or effective and I've done more harm than good IMHO. It's those life lessons you learn, then forget and repeat. I
 
2013-01-22 12:37:40 PM  

t3knomanser: The number 7 and the letter Q!: Any system that teaches good morals can help a person love their neighbor

I sincerely doubt that pro-social behavior is something that can be learned. I think that human beings, by and large, instinctively engage in pro-social behaviors. There are inherent conflicts with our limitations in that regard (we're great in societies of 20ish people, we start failing in societies of thousands, and it gets all farked up when you try and build a society of millions), but that's not because we need to learn to "love our neighbor". We simply need to recognize that these strangers are our neighbor.

We are social animals, and we are inherently compassionate and kind to our peers. Those that are not are deviants, and I do not believe that education fixes it- it's a biological issue that must be treated.


Or you could explain it all with simple in-group vs out-group dynamics. Similar religion is the in-group and were nice to them. In-groups have been artifucially created with leas defining attributes.

About society: humans were never meant to operate in groups larger than roughly 150.
 
2013-01-22 12:41:43 PM  

OceanVortex: You mean Mormons in Illinois, not Missouri.


The sad thing, I wrote Illinois first and then changed it.  Which is why you always go with your first answer on the test.
 
2013-01-22 12:42:18 PM  
Atheism is a Religion.
 
2013-01-22 12:42:33 PM  
the only good christian is a dead christian...

-Foetus


Song
 
2013-01-22 12:44:13 PM  

The number 7 and the letter Q!: t3knomanser: The number 7 and the letter Q!: Any system that teaches good morals can help a person love their neighbor

I sincerely doubt that pro-social behavior is something that can be learned. I think that human beings, by and large, instinctively engage in pro-social behaviors. There are inherent conflicts with our limitations in that regard (we're great in societies of 20ish people, we start failing in societies of thousands, and it gets all farked up when you try and build a society of millions), but that's not because we need to learn to "love our neighbor". We simply need to recognize that these strangers are our neighbor.

We are social animals, and we are inherently compassionate and kind to our peers. Those that are not are deviants, and I do not believe that education fixes it- it's a biological issue that must be treated.

Interesting idea. I honestly haven't studied human instinctual behavior in detail (I'm an English teacher) but now I've got something to look up online when the kids are napping. Thanks.


You and t3knomanser may find this book interesting: The Moral Landscape. The author makes the argument that essentially, morality comes from biology and the fact that humans are social beings, and not religion. I'm not quite finished yet but it's a pretty interesting read and a position I haven't heard laid out often enough. I picked it up to further arm myself against those who tell me I have no moral compass and am a selfish, horrible person because I'm an atheist. Obviously, I know that isn't true but I like being able to argue my point beyond just pointing at myself. :-)
 
2013-01-22 12:44:47 PM  

Almea Tarrant: latenite: A. Yeah, people are greedy, stupid, selfish, etc. Not news. The question is, are they following the principles of their religion at the time? If not, you're merely judging a sick man for needing a doctor.

B. While we're at it, let's forget about the hospitals, universities, charities, etc. that have been established on behalf of one religion or another.

Interesting point on A. My counterpoint is that as religion is basically supposed to provide tenets by which to live you life, if people "need the doctor" a lot, then the system altogether probably isn't too healthy.

And for a balanced argument, including B. would make it necessary to include:

C. All the wars, murders, torture, and brainwashing that have occurred in the name of one religion or another.


How much health care a person needs has more to do with how sick the person is rather than the quality of the health care.

Also, I mentioned (B.) because all I see posted in regards to religion is (C.). But how much sense does it make to judge God based on the faults of His followers in the first place?
 
2013-01-22 12:47:22 PM  

Amos Quito: The rabbis of the Talmud determined that an Israelite was not liable for murder unless he intentionally killed a fellow Israelite.


You're excluding so much context, it's almost unfair.

1. Intention is such a major part of capital crime. In order to be liable for capital murder, so many conditions have to be met that in any capital murder case we know that the accused intended to kill the victim. If anyone else was killed - Israelite or no - that person is generally not liable for the death penalty. Maybe life imprisonment, but not execution. Tractate Sanhedrin says that any court that carried out more than 1 death sentence in a generation was a bloody court.
2. We're talking about a situation where in-group and out-group crime were treated differently the world over. I don't know of any modern opinion that would support that interpretation being applied (though there are no batei din these days that would hear a capital case, so perhaps the point is moot), and there were many court systems that had separate rules for tiers of citizens. That doesn't make it right, but there's at least some context. The fact that Jews could not enforce any judgement against Roman citizens, for example (during the time the Talmud was beginning to be compiled), may have played a role in how they were seen by Jews.
3. There's also an idea that runs throughout Tractate Sanhedrin that "in-group" crimes are much more heinous than inter-group crime.

Plus, you know, the fact that Noahide law says murder is out as well, meaning NO ONE's allowed to kill ANYONE.

// no I'm not reading your link
// quote-mining a 2,000 year old tome is fun, but ultimately teaches you very little - hence my objection that context is missing
// did you know that the Talmud's "answer" is often at odds with how Jews practice today?
 
2013-01-22 12:47:53 PM  

Dr Dreidel: HairBolus: A religious dictum such as thou shall not kill only applies to the in-group. Cheating or killing foreigners is fine.

[citation needed], as "thou shalt not murder" applies to everyone (in the eyes of Jews, at least). I'd agree that this is true of some rules in some faiths, but as a blanket statement, it's got more holes than Grandma's handmade afghan.

// and there are still various legal ways of killing people while still not violating the commandment


Deuteronomy 17:12 The man who acts presumptuously by not obeying the priest who stands to minister there before the LORD your God, or the judge, that man shall die. So you shall purge the evil from Israel.
 
2013-01-22 12:49:38 PM  

FeFiFoFark: I wouldn't believe in anything if it wasn't for my Lucky Astrology Mood Watch!

- S. Martin


Not as on point unless you site the entire quote:

"It's so hard to believe in anything anymore. I mean, it's like, religion, you really can't take it seriously, because it seems so mythological, it seems so arbitrary...but, on the other hand, science is just pure empiricism, and by virtue of its method, it excludes metaphysics. I guess I wouldn't believe in anything anymore if it weren't for my lucky astrology mood watch."


/Still voted funny
 
2013-01-22 12:52:24 PM  

SpaceBison: Deuteronomy 17:12 The man who acts presumptuously by not obeying the priest who stands to minister there before the LORD your God, or the judge, that man shall die. So you shall purge the evil from Israel.


Which supports my point - that even though the text says "Don't kill", the rest of the text lists no fewer than 40 capital crimes.
 
2013-01-22 12:53:01 PM  

Random Anonymous Blackmail: Is alcoholism a religion?


1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-01-22 12:53:19 PM  
The article seems to indicate that your religion functions like, and has essentially the same effect on your behavior as, "team colors".
 
2013-01-22 12:54:38 PM  
diagoras.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-01-22 12:55:26 PM  

FarkinHostile: FeFiFoFark: I wouldn't believe in anything if it wasn't for my Lucky Astrology Mood Watch!

- S. Martin

Not as on point unless you site the entire quote:

"It's so hard to believe in anything anymore. I mean, it's like, religion, you really can't take it seriously, because it seems so mythological, it seems so arbitrary...but, on the other hand, science is just pure empiricism, and by virtue of its method, it excludes metaphysics. I guess I wouldn't believe in anything anymore if it weren't for my lucky astrology mood watch."


/Still voted funny


you are correct --- much better.
 
2013-01-22 12:55:30 PM  

Haliburton Cummings: the only good christian is a dead christian...

-Foetus

Song


The epitome of tolerance.
 
2013-01-22 12:55:58 PM  
Thou shalt not kill murder.
Seriously.
 
2013-01-22 12:59:17 PM  
The two worst problems I've had in the last year were because of the two most devout Christians I've been unfortunate enough to have to deal with this year. Both did everything they could to ruin my life because I wasn't one of them. And I am one of the nicest guys you've ever met, did absolutely nothing to provoke them. They just didn't like that I was "different" and therefore should be marginalized and eliminated.

I take the Buddhist approach to religion, if they are good people then who am I to care what God they worship? Unfortunately I usually find that they aren't really good people, just people with such poor morals that they need a God club to join to feel as if they are worthy human beings and since people like me, who need no threats to be good aren't part of their club then I must be a threat.

/There are close to 5000 human made Gods throughout the ages
//if there is a God, humans could not understand it and therefore should concentrate on living the best life they can
///I don't trust man, and man invented the Gods that he commands you to worship, if you can't see the problem with that...
 
2013-01-22 12:59:29 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Amos Quito: The rabbis of the Talmud determined that an Israelite was not liable for murder unless he intentionally killed a fellow Israelite.

You're excluding so much context, it's almost unfair.

1. Intention is such a major part of capital crime. In order to be liable for capital murder, so many conditions have to be met that in any capital murder case we know that the accused intended to kill the victim. If anyone else was killed - Israelite or no - that person is generally not liable for the death penalty. Maybe life imprisonment, but not execution. Tractate Sanhedrin says that any court that carried out more than 1 death sentence in a generation was a bloody court.
2. We're talking about a situation where in-group and out-group crime were treated differently the world over. I don't know of any modern opinion that would support that interpretation being applied (though there are no batei din these days that would hear a capital case, so perhaps the point is moot), and there were many court systems that had separate rules for tiers of citizens. That doesn't make it right, but there's at least some context. The fact that Jews could not enforce any judgement against Roman citizens, for example (during the time the Talmud was beginning to be compiled), may have played a role in how they were seen by Jews.
3. There's also an idea that runs throughout Tractate Sanhedrin that "in-group" crimes are much more heinous than inter-group crime.

Plus, you know, the fact that Noahide law says murder is out as well, meaning NO ONE's allowed to kill ANYONE.

// no I'm not reading your link
// quote-mining a 2,000 year old tome is fun, but ultimately teaches you very little - hence my objection that context is missing
// did you know that the Talmud's "answer" is often at odds with how Jews practice today?



Don't get butthurt. I'm not picking on Jews in particular.

As you know ALL of the Abramic religions are heavily into the in-group vs out-group "thing".

Hence the Crusades, and the Jihads, and the Zionism, etc.


And OF COURSE you're not going to read Dr. Hartung's excellent essay - it might pop your bubble.
 
2013-01-22 01:00:28 PM  

SpectroBoy: [diagoras.files.wordpress.com image 800x600]


I don't know why fellow atheists use this macro. House was an interesting character for a TV show, but he's interesting partially because he's a pretty horrible person most of the time. He doesn't seem like somebody you should aspire to be like.
 
2013-01-22 01:02:29 PM  

Lochsteppe: Kome: This reminds me of a pair of other recent papers. One was the recent study looking at how political affiliation affects charitable donations, finding that liberals and conservatives donate equally, but to different organizations. Conservatives tending to donate to religious organizations, like their own congregation, that serve typically to benefit the in-group while liberals tend to donate more to secular organizations that tend to help in-group and out-group equally (and also that people tend to donate less overall when the opposite party occupies the White House). The other was a study looking at whether or not people perceive humanity as their in-group or not, finding - among other things - that those who identify all of humanity as members of their in-group tend to donate more to humanitarian relief efforts. Citations for both are below, in case anyone is interested:

Margolis, M., & Sances, M. (2012). Who Really Gives? Partisanship and Charitable Giving in the United States. Partisanship and Charitable Giving in the United States (September 4, 2012).

McFarland, S., Webb, M., & Brown, D. (2012). All Humanity Is My Ingroup: A Measure and Studies of Identification With All Humanity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(5), 830-853.

Thanks for this - I might end up using this article for a thing I'm working on.


That one in particular is related to something I'm working on as well. Might I ask what you're working on?
 
2013-01-22 01:03:51 PM  

Fast Moon: The article seems to indicate that your religion functions like, and has essentially the same effect on your behavior as, "team colors".


which is why you see so much of the big tent CHRISTIANITY... inclusive of anything that has 'jesus' in it... protestant, catholic, mormon, JW, 7thday adventist... all one big happy christian family (ignore the differences between us... we're all CHRISTIANS) it makes their 'team' look bigger than the 'other team'... but if the non-christian religion were gone they'd go back to hating and killing each other... the same way the muslims are with their various sects... if there is an 'other' religion to hate/kill then they are all kind of one big happy group... but take away the 'outsiders'... and they'll happily return to killing each other for obscure divergences from scripture or whether or not god wants you to shave and get a haircut... or not.
 
2013-01-22 01:06:08 PM  

Amos Quito: And OF COURSE you're not going to read Dr. Hartung's excellent essay - it might pop your bubble.


I'm not religious, and haven't been for some time now. If your goal is to get me to leave the faith, I beat you to it.

However, I can't unlearn things I learned in my youth, and some of that means the interpretations I learned are different from what others have learned/come up with on their own. Some of that is simply factual (no, we don't have sex through a be-holed sheet), and some is interpretation (I have never heard a modern opinion reflecting the notion that a "heathen" who attacks/kills a Jew gets death every time, and the converse gets you a slap on the wrist; though I have heard a multitude of explanations for why the Talmudic editors felt that way).

Part of the reason I stopped being religious is because of arguments like these. I spent 16 years learning the rules in school, and I feel like every philosophical question was asked, answered, then re-asked for the hell of it. So no, I don't really care what Scholar #984628608 says about it - chances are that I've heard it already or don't really care to delve into the topic AGAIN.
 
2013-01-22 01:06:54 PM  

SmackLT: I believe that the study was done in earnest, and maybe it is instructive that a lot of people are hypocrites.

I spent a lot of time reading different religious texts and found a lot in those different texts to inspire me. When my focus was on that, I believe that my general attitude toward others was better than when it had been a while. It took my focus off of me and onto principles that I consider more universal. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing in itself.


I spent a lot of time reading the bible and found a lot in those various texts to inspire me. When my focus was on that, I believe that my general attitude toward rape, incest and murder was better than when it had been a while. It took my focus off of me and onto those heathens who tried to take my guns.,
 
2013-01-22 01:07:31 PM  

genner: Your looking at it the wrong way.
This study also proves that being an atheist doesn't make you a better person.


Atheism isn't a moral position.
 
2013-01-22 01:08:13 PM  

Rich Cream: Thou shalt not kill murder.
Seriously.


quit quote mining 2000 year old tomes

Space_Poet: I take the Buddhist approach to religion


are you a level 5 vegan?

Space_Poet: if there is a God, humans could not understand it and therefore should concentrate on living the best life they can


if there is a god, what is living the best life?
 
2013-01-22 01:08:22 PM  

Sofa King Smart: fickenchucker: I've always taught my kids we're Catholic because that's how I was raised and I'm not really in the mood to learn a new set of rules. But if they want to go Lutheran or something else that's not an outright cult (like Scientology) they won't get any weird family fighting from me.

and what if they go outside Christianity alltogether? what if they decide that all religion is just variations of uneducated sheep herder mythology from various parts of world and that there is no god... will they get any 'weird family fighting' from you then?


Nah--I just want them to be better people than I am.

If they go Buddhist, Jewish, Islamian, or whatever, to find their way I don't really care. Just so long as they don't twist whatever they gravitate towards into what we're discussing here--the excess judgmentalism and ostracizing of us and their friends because of silly things like eating beef or pork.
 
2013-01-22 01:08:57 PM  

Mugato: whores


You said "whores" twice. You must really like em. :-)
 
2013-01-22 01:08:57 PM  
I guess this explains why religious leaders disapprove of youth in Asia.
 
2013-01-22 01:09:28 PM  
...and I was kidding about Islamian--I know it's Muslim.
 
2013-01-22 01:09:50 PM  

david_gaithersburg: I get worried when Fark goes more than 24 hours without a hate speech thread.

Seig heil!


I honestly don't know what you are trying to accomplish. There is no official title bestowed for "Worst Poster on Fark", and even if there was, you know Drew's cheap ass wouldn't be giving out any kind of worthwhile prize for it. Why do you bother?
 
2013-01-22 01:11:52 PM  

letrole: Atheism is a Religion.


So is trolling.
 
2013-01-22 01:11:58 PM  

skipjack: umad:

You can't use logic on an illogical person. Ridicule is all that is left.

You guys are arguing over whether Batman or Iron Man would win in a fight. We're telling you that it doesn't farking matter, since they're both made up.

If ridicule is all you have left, then you haven't communicated effectively. That you feel you need to use ridicule says more about you than the person you're ridiculing.



This is simply untrue. What you're relying on here is false equivalence. Not all ideas are of equal merit or value. Some are simply ridiculous and if you do not treat them as ridiculous (note the root of the word "ridiculous") you lend them the veneer of legitimacy that they do not deserve.

Take religions for example. People treat them VERY seriously, even though they pretty much all are absolutely, hilariously, ridiculously, idiotic when you break them down in to what people are actually asking you to believe as fact. But because religions went virtually unchallenged for millenia (and are still seen as valuable tools to control and harvest wealth from masses of people) by non-believers these ancient myths run many, many, many peoples' lives around the world. We even have lawmakers who want to put their religious beliefs and teachings in to LAW! It's insane, but that's what you get when you're not allowed to ridicule that which is deserving of it.

But if I told you today to believe me when I said that everyone has an invisible thing called a "wathan" which carries our mind magically and was gifted to us by a mysterious creator with magic powers who saw all and was judging us all from his home in the sky. That this creator and his cohorts promised us an eternal life after we die so long as we agree to follow the rules.... Well you'd laugh at me, because what I was describing would sound like some kind of fantasy novel - which it is. That's a very broad description of Riverworld by Philip Jose Farmer. But change "wathan" to "soul" and that's also the "Abrahamic" religions too. Riverworld was penned in a time that you wouldn't necessarily get stoned to death for questioning it, so it hasn't had a few thousand years to be mistaken as fact and go unchallenged until it has a comfy nest in a place between our unconcious and societal acceptance. That's the difference between fantasy we believe as fact and fantasy we still understand is fantasy.
 
2013-01-22 01:13:36 PM  

I should be in the kitchen: The number 7 and the letter Q!: t3knomanser: The number 7 and the letter Q!: Any system that teaches good morals can help a person love their neighbor

I sincerely doubt that pro-social behavior is something that can be learned. I think that human beings, by and large, instinctively engage in pro-social behaviors. There are inherent conflicts with our limitations in that regard (we're great in societies of 20ish people, we start failing in societies of thousands, and it gets all farked up when you try and build a society of millions), but that's not because we need to learn to "love our neighbor". We simply need to recognize that these strangers are our neighbor.

We are social animals, and we are inherently compassionate and kind to our peers. Those that are not are deviants, and I do not believe that education fixes it- it's a biological issue that must be treated.

Interesting idea. I honestly haven't studied human instinctual behavior in detail (I'm an English teacher) but now I've got something to look up online when the kids are napping. Thanks.

You and t3knomanser may find this book interesting: The Moral Landscape. The author makes the argument that essentially, morality comes from biology and the fact that humans are social beings, and not religion. I'm not quite finished yet but it's a pretty interesting read and a position I haven't heard laid out often enough. I picked it up to further arm myself against those who tell me I have no moral compass and am a selfish, horrible person because I'm an atheist. Obviously, I know that isn't true but I like being able to argue my point beyond just pointing at myself. :-)


I'll try to grab a used one online (kinda poor right now). I don't get the "atheists have no moral compass" argument. My compass may be different than yours, but that doesn't mean yours doesn't exist.

With every point of view there are things that are unexplained. We fill them in with some kind of faith. I know people who believe that science will one day answer every question, and get frustrated when science winds up with a small answer and a bunch of new questions (I think that's the coolest thing about science, myself. That, and air-conditioning.). I also know people who are afraid that science will kill God. It all depends on the premises you accept and the basis of your faith in whatever.

Can't guarantee I'll agree with the book, but I love learning new stuff. Thanks.
 
2013-01-22 01:13:41 PM  

Rich Cream: Thou shalt not kill murder.
Seriously.

And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb yielding seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat:


Seriously. So put down the McMurderBurger, fatty.
 
2013-01-22 01:14:03 PM  

fickenchucker: ...and I was kidding about Islamian--I know it's Muslim.


Or if they're laid-back and genuinely nice atheists, I wouldn't really care. I'm not much into evangelizing a belief system anymore or finding reasons to be annoyed at everyone.
 
2013-01-22 01:15:16 PM  
walk the middle path.
live and let live.
leave it better than you found it.
do no harm.
 
2013-01-22 01:15:18 PM  
But what if your neighbour is an altar boy?

SpectroBoy: What a religious person loving his neighbor may look like

/ NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition!!!!!


Allow me to provide a counter-point:
msnbcmedia.msn.com
 
2013-01-22 01:15:33 PM  

latenite: Almea Tarrant: latenite: A. Yeah, people are greedy, stupid, selfish, etc. Not news. The question is, are they following the principles of their religion at the time? If not, you're merely judging a sick man for needing a doctor.

B. While we're at it, let's forget about the hospitals, universities, charities, etc. that have been established on behalf of one religion or another.

Interesting point on A. My counterpoint is that as religion is basically supposed to provide tenets by which to live you life, if people "need the doctor" a lot, then the system altogether probably isn't too healthy.

And for a balanced argument, including B. would make it necessary to include:

C. All the wars, murders, torture, and brainwashing that have occurred in the name of one religion or another.

How much health care a person needs has more to do with how sick the person is rather than the quality of the health care.

Also, I mentioned (B.) because all I see posted in regards to religion is (C.). But how much sense does it make to judge God based on the faults of His followers in the first place?


No one is judging God. We are judging religion. Which is a human invention, and thus extremely fallible. All your misdirection does is show us all how illogical your argument is.
 
2013-01-22 01:16:57 PM  

I drunk what: if there is a god, what is living the best life?


Well, I guess that's personal but to me it's a basic, simple approach: be happy and do what makes you happy without making others unhappy. Live without hurting others, in fact live and make others' lives better if possible, that's true success. Give back to what gives you life (yes I am a serious environmentalist because of this rule), treat all life as sacred but do what you must to survive so you can continue to do more good. There's other ideas to living a good life but that's the basics.
 
2013-01-22 01:17:13 PM  
Religion is used to justify why the person hates their neighbor so much.

Besides, those who distrust completely, are distrustful themselves.
 
2013-01-22 01:18:06 PM  

Kome: Lochsteppe: Kome: This reminds me of a pair of other recent papers. One was the recent study looking at how political affiliation affects charitable donations, finding that liberals and conservatives donate equally, but to different organizations. Conservatives tending to donate to religious organizations, like their own congregation, that serve typically to benefit the in-group while liberals tend to donate more to secular organizations that tend to help in-group and out-group equally (and also that people tend to donate less overall when the opposite party occupies the White House). The other was a study looking at whether or not people perceive humanity as their in-group or not, finding - among other things - that those who identify all of humanity as members of their in-group tend to donate more to humanitarian relief efforts. Citations for both are below, in case anyone is interested:

Margolis, M., & Sances, M. (2012). Who Really Gives? Partisanship and Charitable Giving in the United States. Partisanship and Charitable Giving in the United States (September 4, 2012).

McFarland, S., Webb, M., & Brown, D. (2012). All Humanity Is My Ingroup: A Measure and Studies of Identification With All Humanity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(5), 830-853.

Thanks for this - I might end up using this article for a thing I'm working on.

That one in particular is related to something I'm working on as well. Might I ask what you're working on?


My specialization exam (paper) in technical communication. I'm focusing partly on ethics and open-source or collaborative projects. McFarland's article might be helpful in discussing how an in-group can be (and should be, I think) much broader than just the corporation a tech writer works for. That, in turn, helps me talk about a tech writer's ethics as something larger in scope than just corporate or professional ethics. We'll see.
 
2013-01-22 01:18:13 PM  

SpectroBoy: [diagoras.files.wordpress.com image 800x600]


do you have any cute pics of what an anti-religious person loving his neighbor may look like? lulz
 
2013-01-22 01:18:46 PM  
My parents believe that they are religious because they go to church. I swear they truly believe that there's a chart somewhere that will indicate they are OK to enter heaven because they were in the 98% percentile. Meanwhile after church, they go to a restaurant for breakfast and treat the server and staff like servants and tip 5% because they 'never really get go service there'. Yea religion!
 
2013-01-22 01:19:45 PM  

meat0918: that's because people; due to natural, tribalistic tendencies; instinctively treat it is "Love my neighbor that is also the same religion as me, and only if I really, really have to."


Thread over. Also study over, give this man a research grant.
 
2013-01-22 01:20:42 PM  

skipjack: That you feel you need to use ridicule says more about you than the person you're ridiculing.


Does not, doodyhead.
 
2013-01-22 01:21:54 PM  

I drunk what: Rich Cream: Thou shalt not kill murder.
Seriously.

quit quote mining 2000 year old tomes



Well, if we're talking about what he-said-He-said then let's get back to the original "quote" and not some made-up thing.
 
2013-01-22 01:21:59 PM  

Space_Poet: be happy and do what makes you happy without making others unhappy


what should we do with all the sadists?

Space_Poet: Live without hurting others


no vaccines for your society?

also do you mean other life or just people?

Space_Poet: treat all life as sacred


are you against abortion?

do you eat meat?
 
2013-01-22 01:23:02 PM  

Rich Cream: Well, if we're talking about what he-said-He-said then let's get back to the original "quote" and not some made-up thing.


the whole thing is made up, they are all myths, only science is real
 
2013-01-22 01:23:30 PM  

skipjack: punkhippie:
Oh horseshiat. Ridicule is a very efficient way to indicate that something isn't worth a serious response. It goes back as far as human language.

Stop cowering behind fake rules of etiquette. Nobody is fooled.

I've used ridicule many times, and I'll use it in the future, but doesn't make it right or effective and I've done more harm than good IMHO. It's those life lessons you learn, then forget and repeat. I


How does one criticize a paranoid without making them feel that they are being "ridiculed", or "persecuted"?
Or should people with paranoid belief systems be held above criticism?
if I were to opine that the world is a behavioral lab being run by invisible unicorns who live on the other side of the Moon, would those who pointed out that the belief is ridiculous be somehow "intellectually insecure"?
It is not "ridicule' to point out that that which is ridiculous, is, in fact, ridiculous. Ridiculous things are ridiculous due to their own ridiculous natures - not to the external observations of those with the wit to perceive that they are ridiculous.
You are trying to make up your own, arbitrary rules of human social intercourse - and they don't apply in the real world. Leave the "fair and balanced" delusion to the Faux News crowd - it fails in actual reality.
 
2013-01-22 01:25:41 PM  
I don't want to detract from the derp in this derptastic thread, but as hstein3 pointed out:

"A team of behaviour experts asked a group of Malaysian people with different religious backgrounds to take part in a series of tasks involving sharing money with other participants" means this study is only valid within Malaysian culture of Malaysians actually living in Malaysia, and that's assuming their selection pool was large enough and spread enough across Malaysian culture to even accurately reflect that.

I find it amusing, though, that they are purporting to convey these results from a small, very insular culture in the South Pacific to the entire world. This is how to lie with statistics - don't understand them in the first place, and them report them to a bunch of other people who don't understand them either.

Classic.
 
2013-01-22 01:27:16 PM  

Lochsteppe: Kome: Lochsteppe: Kome: This reminds me of a pair of other recent papers. One was the recent study looking at how political affiliation affects charitable donations, finding that liberals and conservatives donate equally, but to different organizations. Conservatives tending to donate to religious organizations, like their own congregation, that serve typically to benefit the in-group while liberals tend to donate more to secular organizations that tend to help in-group and out-group equally (and also that people tend to donate less overall when the opposite party occupies the White House). The other was a study looking at whether or not people perceive humanity as their in-group or not, finding - among other things - that those who identify all of humanity as members of their in-group tend to donate more to humanitarian relief efforts. Citations for both are below, in case anyone is interested:

Margolis, M., & Sances, M. (2012). Who Really Gives? Partisanship and Charitable Giving in the United States. Partisanship and Charitable Giving in the United States (September 4, 2012).

McFarland, S., Webb, M., & Brown, D. (2012). All Humanity Is My Ingroup: A Measure and Studies of Identification With All Humanity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(5), 830-853.

Thanks for this - I might end up using this article for a thing I'm working on.

That one in particular is related to something I'm working on as well. Might I ask what you're working on?

My specialization exam (paper) in technical communication. I'm focusing partly on ethics and open-source or collaborative projects. McFarland's article might be helpful in discussing how an in-group can be (and should be, I think) much broader than just the corporation a tech writer works for. That, in turn, helps me talk about a tech writer's ethics as something larger in scope than just corporate or professional ethics. We'll see.


Ah, very cool. Best of luck!
 
2013-01-22 01:27:43 PM  

mongbiohazard:

This is simply untrue. What you're relying on here is false equivalence. Not all ideas are of equal merit or value. Some are simply ridiculous and if you do not treat them as ridiculous (note the root of the word "ridiculous") you lend them the veneer of legitimacy that they do not deserve.


Incorrect. I don't have to ridicule someone in order to note that their idea is ridiculous. For instance, I don't have to ridicule you for your ridiculous notion that people aren't allowed ridicule that which you think is deserving. I can just point out the many people that have, the greatest being, IMHO, Mark Twain.

/also, ridicule...I just wanted to type it out once more.
 
2013-01-22 01:28:46 PM  

Deucednuisance: skipjack: That you feel you need to use ridicule says more about you than the person you're ridiculing.

Does not, doodyhead.


Meanypants.
 
2013-01-22 01:28:46 PM  

Cymbal: No one is judging God. We are judging religion. Which is a human invention, and thus extremely fallible. All your misdirection does is show us all how illogical your argument is.


If you are judging religion, which is about man's relationship to God, and religion is a human invention, are you saying that God is also a human invention? If so, how then are you not judging God when you judge religion?
 
2013-01-22 01:30:16 PM  

I drunk what: Rich Cream: Well, if we're talking about what he-said-He-said then let's get back to the original "quote" and not some made-up thing.

the whole thing is made up, they are all myths, only science is real


For someone who's quit posting on Fark ... you're really stirring up the shiat today!

/to everyone else: Don't take IDW seriously ... all his posts are designed to spin you around in circles. He has no point to make.
 
2013-01-22 01:31:52 PM  

latenite: Cymbal: No one is judging God. We are judging religion. Which is a human invention, and thus extremely fallible. All your misdirection does is show us all how illogical your argument is.

If you are judging religion, which is about man's relationship to God, and religion is a human invention, are you saying that God is also a human invention? If so, how then are you not judging God when you judge religion?


What do you mean by "judging God"?
 
2013-01-22 01:32:18 PM  

Haliburton Cummings: the only good christian is a dead christian...

-Foetus

Song


Whoa... thread officially Thurwelled.

Noice.

TAKE IT OUTSIDE, GOD BOY!
 
2013-01-22 01:32:50 PM  
Religion also indicates that a person is untrustworthy. If a person can so easily lie to themselves, how difficult do you think it is for them to lie to you?

You may know the sweetest kindest people who are religious, but believe me...they will lie to your face so convincingly, because they're experts at making themselves believe their own lies.

Then when you catch them in the lie, the anger bursts forth, and sometimes violence.
 
2013-01-22 01:33:25 PM  

latenite: Cymbal: No one is judging God. We are judging religion. Which is a human invention, and thus extremely fallible. All your misdirection does is show us all how illogical your argument is.

If you are judging religion, which is about man's relationship to God, and religion is a human invention, are you saying that God is also a human invention? If so, how then are you not judging God when you judge religion?


To be honest, many of us criticize both but it is fair to point out that they are two completely different things.

Theism is believing in an unprovable concept without any evidence. Religion is snake-oil salesmen preying on theists.
 
2013-01-22 01:35:35 PM  

I drunk what: Rich Cream: Well, if we're talking about what he-said-He-said then let's get back to the original "quote" and not some made-up thing.

the whole thing is made up, they are all myths, only science is real



You only believe in science. It's not tangible either.
 
2013-01-22 01:35:46 PM  

skipjack: Communication is key. For instance, a smart gentlemen once said "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." and also said "religion poisons everything". Both statements are used universally by many atheists yet the second statement was spoken without proper evidence, and faithfully believed by many.


Perhaps it was spoken without simultaneously stating evidence, but that doesn't mean that the evidence for the veracity of the statement is not plentiful.

Frankly, this is a situation where another oft-spoken phrase is apropos:

"It goes without saying".
 
2013-01-22 01:36:10 PM  
I find that a bottle of wine is much more effective than religion when I attempt to love my neighbor. Rum works too, but she doesn't drink beer.
 
2013-01-22 01:37:10 PM  

Egoy3k: I find that a bottle of wine is much more effective than religion when I attempt to love my neighbor. Rum works too, but she doesn't drink beer.


A $20 also works
 
2013-01-22 01:37:16 PM  

Rich Cream: I drunk what: Rich Cream: Well, if we're talking about what he-said-He-said then let's get back to the original "quote" and not some made-up thing.

the whole thing is made up, they are all myths, only science is real


You only believe in science. It's not tangible either.


Tell that to the elderly residents of Hiroshima or Nagasaki.
 
2013-01-22 01:38:24 PM  

The Southern Dandy: Egoy3k: I find that a bottle of wine is much more effective than religion when I attempt to love my neighbor. Rum works too, but she doesn't drink beer.

A $20 also works


Well, yeah, in your part of town.
 
2013-01-22 01:41:12 PM  

jso2897: latenite: Cymbal: No one is judging God. We are judging religion. Which is a human invention, and thus extremely fallible. All your misdirection does is show us all how illogical your argument is.

If you are judging religion, which is about man's relationship to God, and religion is a human invention, are you saying that God is also a human invention? If so, how then are you not judging God when you judge religion?

What do you mean by "judging God"?


I mean evaluating both (though independently) the existance and morality of a God that one claims to serve.
 
2013-01-22 01:41:35 PM  

jso2897:
How does one criticize a paranoid without making them feel that they are being "ridiculed", or "persecuted"?
Or should people with paranoid belief systems be held above criticism?
if I were to opine that the world is a behavioral lab being run by invisible unicorns who live on the other side of the Moon, would those who pointed out that the belief is ridiculous be somehow "intellectually insecure"?
It is not "ridicule' to point out that that which is ridiculous, is, in fact, ridiculous. Ridiculous things are ridiculous due to their own ridiculous natures - not to the external observations of those with the wit to perceive that they are ridiculous.
You are trying to make up your own, arbitrary rules of human social intercourse - and they don't apply in the real world. Leave the "fair and balanced" delusion to the Faux News crowd - it fails in actual reality.


Pointing out something is ridiculous and ridiculing someone are not the same thing. Your premise is built on your misunderstanding of the original point.

People will continue to use ridicule, it's not something I would encourage because there have been very few situations of ridicule that aren't meant to make the ridiculer* feel better about what they believe and by extension themselves, by tearing into the ridiculee*. Engage in it all you want, but your intellectual prowess isn't as strong as you think if that's all you can bring to the table.

/*I make up words for fun.
 
2013-01-22 01:41:55 PM  

skipjack: Communication is key. For instance, a smart gentlemen once said "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." and also said "religion poisons everything". Both statements are used universally by many atheists yet the second statement was spoken without proper evidence, and faithfully believed by many.


Religion poisons everything was asserted in a book that was in itself a collection of evidence in defense of that point. When you read that single line did you somehow miss the fact that it was in a bound collection of paper with other words written on it?
 
2013-01-22 01:42:57 PM  

jso2897: Rich Cream: I drunk what: Rich Cream: Well, if we're talking about what he-said-He-said then let's get back to the original "quote" and not some made-up thing.

the whole thing is made up, they are all myths, only science is real


You only believe in science. It's not tangible either.

Tell that to the elderly residents of Hiroshima or Nagasaki.


Or look at the damn cell phone in his pocket.
 
2013-01-22 01:43:04 PM  

latenite: If you are judging religion, which is about man's relationship to God, and religion is a human invention, are you saying that God is also a human invention? If so, how then are you not judging God when you judge religion?


nature is god and we have no free will, cuz nature controls us so we are nature and cannot be judged, just like the light bulb is an invention by man so it doesn't judge man, but if you are a light bulb then nature judges god who is an invention of nature, which is how man's relationship to nature judges our inventions
 
2013-01-22 01:43:44 PM  

Farking Canuck: For someone who's quit posting on Fark ... you're really stirring up the shiat today!

/to everyone else: Don't take IDW seriously ... all his posts are designed to spin you around in circles. He has no point to make.


OmniPal doesn't lie, man. But listen -
there's plenty of 'tards out there
living really kickass lives. My
first wife was retarded and she's a
pilot.
 
2013-01-22 01:46:10 PM  

Deucednuisance: skipjack: Communication is key. For instance, a smart gentlemen once said "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." and also said "religion poisons everything". Both statements are used universally by many atheists yet the second statement was spoken without proper evidence, and faithfully believed by many.

Perhaps it was spoken without simultaneously stating evidence, but that doesn't mean that the evidence for the veracity of the statement is not plentiful.

Frankly, this is a situation where another oft-spoken phrase is apropos:

"It goes without saying".


Proving religion poisons everything is a mighty task. It's a statement that I somewhat agree with, and it was used as a rhetorical device, but it was a statement made none the less that doesn't have the evidence behind it. There are plenty of organizations that do good and are not "poisoned".

/especially that zoolander school.
 
2013-01-22 01:46:38 PM  

Rich Cream: I drunk what: the whole thing is made up, they are all myths, only science is real

You only believe in science. It's not tangible either.


First: IDW is a religious ... he is intentionally misrepresenting non-religious people to yank your chain.

Second: Nobody "believes" in science. Many of us feel that it is the best method for understanding our universe and the objects inside of it. Science only ever offers possible answers and, with these answers, science also provides the evidence that supports these answers.

It is religion that claims to know for sure and offers zero evidence to support these claims.
 
2013-01-22 01:46:57 PM  

The Southern Dandy: Egoy3k: I find that a bottle of wine is much more effective than religion when I attempt to love my neighbor. Rum works too, but she doesn't drink beer.

A $20 also works


"Want to come in for a drink?" Tends to be more profitable than, "Hey here's twenty dollars, lets screw."

YMMV
 
2013-01-22 01:47:35 PM  

Rich Cream: I drunk what: Rich Cream: Well, if we're talking about what he-said-He-said then let's get back to the original "quote" and not some made-up thing.

the whole thing is made up, they are all myths, only science is real

You only believe in science. It's not tangible either.


Science is a method, not a conclusion. Most importantly, science changes in the face of evidence. Religion doesn't.
 
2013-01-22 01:47:51 PM  

Farking Canuck: Theism is believing in an unprovable concept without any evidence. Religion is snake-oil salesmen preying on theists.


What do you call believing in an unprovable concept with evidence?
 
2013-01-22 01:49:08 PM  

Rich Cream: You only believe in science. It's not tangible either.


says the guy who is typing on a computer because of science!!1!

how many computers are here because of religion? 0

for the smartest guy on fark you sure are dumb
 
2013-01-22 01:49:09 PM  

Egoy3k: The Southern Dandy: Egoy3k: I find that a bottle of wine is much more effective than religion when I attempt to love my neighbor. Rum works too, but she doesn't drink beer.

A $20 also works

"Want to come in for a drink?" Tends to be more profitable than, "Hey here's twenty dollars, lets screw."

YMMV


Maybe in your part of town.
 
2013-01-22 01:50:50 PM  

Egoy3k: The Southern Dandy: Egoy3k: I find that a bottle of wine is much more effective than religion when I attempt to love my neighbor. Rum works too, but she doesn't drink beer.

A $20 also works

"Want to come in for a drink?" Tends to be more profitable than, "Hey here's twenty dollars, lets screw."

YMMV


But you can buy multiple drinks with $20. Does not compute.
 
2013-01-22 01:51:26 PM  

jso2897: Tell that to the elderly residents of Hiroshima or Nagasaki.


umad: Or look at the damn cell phone in his pocket.


Pitabred: Science is a method, not a conclusion.


I drunk what: for the smartest guy on fark you sure are dumb



Like shooting fish in a barrel today.

/throws all the little ones back.
 
2013-01-22 01:51:54 PM  

Egoy3k: The Southern Dandy: Egoy3k: I find that a bottle of wine is much more effective than religion when I attempt to love my neighbor. Rum works too, but she doesn't drink beer.

A $20 also works

"Want to come in for a drink?" Tends to be more profitable than, "Hey here's twenty dollars, lets screw."

YMMV


So...what you're telling me is....I could save some money with a bottle of 2 buck Chuck, rather than a $20 bill?
 
2013-01-22 01:53:21 PM  

Rich Cream: Like shooting fish in a barrel today.

/throws all the little ones back.


Have you ever actually tried to shoot a fish in a barrel? It isn't as easy as it sounds due to the refraction of the light. You would know that if you knew science.
 
2013-01-22 01:53:21 PM  

Farking Canuck: It is religion that claims to know for sure and offers zero evidence to support these claims.


that's what i said!!

I drunk what: how many computers are here because of religion? 0


Farking Canuck: IDW is a religious ... he is intentionally misrepresenting non-religious people to yank your chain.


i think your tha one misrepresentn non-religious ... to yank his chain

you should get plenty of rest

just because you hate science doesn't mean you speak for the rest of us
 
2013-01-22 01:53:34 PM  

latenite: Farking Canuck: Theism is believing in an unprovable concept without any evidence. Religion is snake-oil salesmen preying on theists.

What do you call believing in an unprovable concept with evidence?


Usually this is the case when someone confuses their inability to explain something as evidence of something else.

Or, from another angle, there is a difference between unprovable and unable to prove at this time.
 
2013-01-22 01:54:38 PM  

skipjack: jso2897:
How does one criticize a paranoid without making them feel that they are being "ridiculed", or "persecuted"?
Or should people with paranoid belief systems be held above criticism?
if I were to opine that the world is a behavioral lab being run by invisible unicorns who live on the other side of the Moon, would those who pointed out that the belief is ridiculous be somehow "intellectually insecure"?
It is not "ridicule' to point out that that which is ridiculous, is, in fact, ridiculous. Ridiculous things are ridiculous due to their own ridiculous natures - not to the external observations of those with the wit to perceive that they are ridiculous.
You are trying to make up your own, arbitrary rules of human social intercourse - and they don't apply in the real world. Leave the "fair and balanced" delusion to the Faux News crowd - it fails in actual reality.

Pointing out something is ridiculous and ridiculing someone are not the same thing. Your premise is built on your misunderstanding of the original point.

People will continue to use ridicule, it's not something I would encourage because there have been very few situations of ridicule that aren't meant to make the ridiculer* feel better about what they believe and by extension themselves, by tearing into the ridiculee*. Engage in it all you want, but your intellectual prowess isn't as strong as you think if that's all you can bring to the table.

/*I make up words for fun.


Yeah - but the problem is that the paranoid mentality perceives anything that isn't 100% agreement as persecution and/or ridicule - and the more bizarre and absurd people's beliefs are, the more likely they are to be that way. So while you are right that there is little percentage in deliberately "ridiculing' people, there are many cases where avoiding the perception that one is engaging in ridicule would require one either to lie or remain silent.
 
2013-01-22 01:55:41 PM  

I drunk what: i think your tha one misrepresentn non-religious ... to yank his chain

you should get plenty of rest

just because you hate science doesn't mean you speak for the rest of us


I see we are way off the meds today. At least you are entertaining when you are in this mode.
 
2013-01-22 01:56:14 PM  

Rich Cream: jso2897: Tell that to the elderly residents of Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

umad: Or look at the damn cell phone in his pocket.

Pitabred: Science is a method, not a conclusion.

I drunk what: for the smartest guy on fark you sure are dumb


Like shooting fish in a barrel today.

/throws all the little ones back.


i18.photobucket.com
 
2013-01-22 01:56:47 PM  

umad: Rich Cream: Like shooting fish in a barrel today.

/throws all the little ones back.

Have you ever actually tried to shoot a fish in a barrel? It isn't as easy as it sounds due to the refraction of the light. You would know that if you knew science.



Solution: Put the fish in the barrel of the gun.
 
2013-01-22 01:57:34 PM  

skipjack: Incorrect. I don't have to ridicule someone in order to note that their idea is ridiculous. For instance, I don't have to ridicule you for your ridiculous notion that people aren't allowed ridicule that which you think is deserving. I can just point out the many people that have, the greatest being, IMHO, Mark Twain.



Actually, it was your argument that ridicule isn't the proper response to ridiculous ideas. I was arguing the exact opposite. If you're going to argue that I'm wrong you're going to have to start by getting which of us is arguing what correct first. I also didn't say you HAD to, only that there was nothing wrong with it and that it is indeed a good response to a ridiculous (root word: ridicule) idea.

So as I was saying, when you treat a ridiculous idea as a serious one - instead of ridiculing it as is perfectly proper - you give the idea false merit. Some ideas ARE ridiculous - which literally means worthy of ridicule. For instance, if I tried to sell you on any of the Abrahamic religions - but changed the names so you thought I was just inventing a new one - the details would be so blatantly stupid that you simply could not take me seriously. You'd laugh in my face. But because religion in general has had a few thousand years without serious challenges (other then one religion competing against another of course) these same idiotic, dumbshiat, "ideas" have attained a level of legitimacy that allows them to dictate to the people who write our laws and lead our country.
 
2013-01-22 01:58:06 PM  

The Southern Dandy: Egoy3k: The Southern Dandy: Egoy3k: I find that a bottle of wine is much more effective than religion when I attempt to love my neighbor. Rum works too, but she doesn't drink beer.

A $20 also works

"Want to come in for a drink?" Tends to be more profitable than, "Hey here's twenty dollars, lets screw."

YMMV

So...what you're telling me is....I could save some money with a bottle of 2 buck Chuck, rather than a $20 bill?


You could just wait until she needs some routine home maintenance done and use that as a free ice breaker if you like.

/now I feel like I'm writing the script for a cheap 80's skin flick
 
2013-01-22 01:58:46 PM  

Rich Cream: Like shooting fish in a barrel today.


woah not cool dude, space poet said to treat all life as sacred

religion may cause you to hate your neighbor but science is the way to reach a peaceful utopia, where everyone's happiness will be guaranteed

because of science i can watch ow my balls and order a pizza at the same time, all religion does is get people killed, which totally sucks

i like money
 
2013-01-22 02:00:12 PM  

Farking Canuck: I drunk what: i think your tha one misrepresentn non-religious ... to yank his chain

you should get plenty of rest

just because you hate science doesn't mean you speak for the rest of us

I see we are way off the meds today. At least you are entertaining when you are in this mode.


I actually agree. It's certainly better than his usual boring crap.

I withdraw my "One trick pony" label. He's up to two.
 
2013-01-22 02:00:24 PM  

umad: Have you ever actually tried to shoot a fish in a barrel? It isn't as easy as it sounds due to the refraction of the light. You would know that if you knew science.


It's much easier to just shoot the barrel, let the water drain out, and pick up the fish.
 
2013-01-22 02:00:40 PM  

Egoy3k: The Southern Dandy: Egoy3k: The Southern Dandy: Egoy3k: I find that a bottle of wine is much more effective than religion when I attempt to love my neighbor. Rum works too, but she doesn't drink beer.

A $20 also works

"Want to come in for a drink?" Tends to be more profitable than, "Hey here's twenty dollars, lets screw."

YMMV

So...what you're telling me is....I could save some money with a bottle of 2 buck Chuck, rather than a $20 bill?

You could just wait until she needs some routine home maintenance done and use that as a free ice breaker if you like.


What? Like fixing the cable?
 
2013-01-22 02:01:38 PM  

umad: Rich Cream: Like shooting fish in a barrel today.

/throws all the little ones back.

Have you ever actually tried to shoot a fish in a barrel? It isn't as easy as it sounds due to the refraction of the light. You would know that if you knew science.


Actually that's a reference to fish that are packed in a barrel for preservation like so;

mcgreggorsback.files.wordpress.com

Which would be pretty easy to shoot when compared to regular fish.

/hotlinked
 
2013-01-22 02:02:13 PM  

Farking Canuck: At least you are entertaining when you are in this mode.


it's cool man, you thought i was one of them religious ... but i'm on youre side dude, i mean we both like brawndo right? it's got electrolites

do you like money?
 
2013-01-22 02:03:00 PM  

Seraphym: I don't want to detract from the derp in this derptastic thread, but as hstein3 pointed out:

"A team of behaviour experts asked a group of Malaysian people with different religious backgrounds to take part in a series of tasks involving sharing money with other participants" means this study is only valid within Malaysian culture of Malaysians actually living in Malaysia, and that's assuming their selection pool was large enough and spread enough across Malaysian culture to even accurately reflect that.

I find it amusing, though, that they are purporting to convey these results from a small, very insular culture in the South Pacific to the entire world. This is how to lie with statistics - don't understand them in the first place, and them report them to a bunch of other people who don't understand them either.

Classic.


On the other hand, there is another recent article showing much the same thing across 3 studies using quite a diverse sample. If you're interested, the citation is below, as well as a description of their samples across the three studies.

Saslow, L. R., Willer, R., Feinberg, M., Piff, P. K., Clark, K., Keltner, D., & Saturn, S. R. (2012). My brother's keeper? Compassion predicts generosity more among less religious individuals. Social Psychological and Personality Science.

Description of samples:
Study 1: 1337 adults in the US - 1076 white, 158 black, 103 other.
Study 2: 101 adults recruited through Amazon's Mechanical Turk - sample included 78 European Americans, 8 Asian Americans, 6 African Americans, the rest other or mixed ethnicity.
Study 3: 210 college students - 64 European/European American, 97 Asian/Asian American, the rest mixed, other, or did not report ethnicity.

In fact, the results of the Saslow et al. article I just mentioned are so similar to those described in TFA that based on the headline that's the study I thought it was about.

While I understand the general criticism against inductive reasoning, one must also make sure that other work on this question either (a) has not been done or (b) has been done and found null results before launching off into a quite casual dismissal of the results of a single study. As it stands, other research (e.g. what I just cited) has found much the same general conclusion from a different cultural background. More to the point, though, is that even from this single study we could theoretically posit that it doesn't matter what cultural background they come from if religious dogmas are supposed to be (as adherents claim) invariant. That is to say, if Christianity or Islam or Hinduism or whatever contributes to people behaving in a moral way, it should do so regardless of if the Christian/Muslim/Hindu is from Malaysia or the US or India or wherever. To dismiss it in the way several people in the thread - yourself included - have is to then say that religion (whichever flavor you like) works differently than has been pushed by every ardent religious supporter, i.e. that the values and virtues of religion X supersede any cultural baggage in making people good, upstanding, moral, whatever (the converse for negative attributes is also true, that religion supersedes cultural baggage in making people xenophobic, racist, authoritarian, etc.).

My biggest complaint about all this is that I cannot find the actual article to review it. I've found a couple of press releases discussing it (almost verbatim from this one) but not the actual published (or pre-print of the) study. There is nothing to let me know how to find it except that a Dr. Robert Hoffmann is a co-author. His own website at Nottingham University isn't much help either. The closest I can find is a reference to a working paper titled "Religious biases in cooperation" where they found that "[k]nowledge of co-player's same religious affiliation raises cooperation. Religiosity and religious fundamentalism do not affect contributions independently, but enhance the religious ingroup effect" from a sample of Malaysians. And the citation for where I got that information is:

Hoffmann, R.(2012). The Experimental Economics of Religion. Journal of Economic Surveys. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6419.2011.00716.x

But still, I want the actual damn paper.
 
2013-01-22 02:03:16 PM  

Amos Quito: umad: Rich Cream: Like shooting fish in a barrel today.

/throws all the little ones back.

Have you ever actually tried to shoot a fish in a barrel? It isn't as easy as it sounds due to the refraction of the light. You would know that if you knew science.


Solution: Put the fish in the barrel of the gun.



I believe I read somewhere that this saying developed from shooting diseased fish over the walls of middle-aged castles so as to introduce pestilence within the fortification.
 
2013-01-22 02:03:56 PM  

The Southern Dandy: Egoy3k: The Southern Dandy: Egoy3k: The Southern Dandy: Egoy3k: I find that a bottle of wine is much more effective than religion when I attempt to love my neighbor. Rum works too, but she doesn't drink beer.

A $20 also works

"Want to come in for a drink?" Tends to be more profitable than, "Hey here's twenty dollars, lets screw."

YMMV

So...what you're telling me is....I could save some money with a bottle of 2 buck Chuck, rather than a $20 bill?

You could just wait until she needs some routine home maintenance done and use that as a free ice breaker if you like.


What? Like fixing the cable?


Hey, look - we've already got one clown doing the Idiocracy all over the thread - don't you start with the Lebowski.
 
2013-01-22 02:03:57 PM  

Amos Quito:
Solution: Put the fish in the barrel of the gun.


Oh yeah!
t3.gstatic.com
 
2013-01-22 02:04:21 PM  

Rich Cream: middle-aged castles


lol
 
2013-01-22 02:09:20 PM  
Here in Utah, as in most locations that have a concentration of a particular Religious majority, it turns them into mob mentality self righteous jack asses.

Fun to poke though...they get all wound up.
 
2013-01-22 02:09:49 PM  

jso2897: we've already got one clown doing the Idiocracy all over the thread


is it farkin hostile? cuz that dude needs to chill out
 
2013-01-22 02:11:41 PM  

incendi: UberDave: ou mean the most simple and easy to follow doctrines like being kind to one another, turning the other cheek, not showboating your righteousness, not judging, etc. etc., are often ignored?

Simple, yes. Easy to follow, not so much.

But yes, it seems many Christians are much more concerned with  other people's sinfulness while ignoring one of the central tenets of Jesus's teachings: "Don't be an asshole."


Matthew chapter 5: 43-48

43 "You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Goddamn liberal.  That ain't no real American Jesus!
 
2013-01-22 02:11:42 PM  

Egoy3k: The Southern Dandy: Egoy3k: I find that a bottle of wine is much more effective than religion when I attempt to love my neighbor. Rum works too, but she doesn't drink beer.

A $20 also works

"Want to come in for a drink?" Tends to be more profitable than, "Hey here's twenty dollars, lets screw."

YMMV


holding chloroform soaked rag in hand, 'hey does this smell like chloroform to you?'
 
2013-01-22 02:14:30 PM  

Farking Canuck: latenite: Farking Canuck: Theism is believing in an unprovable concept without any evidence. Religion is snake-oil salesmen preying on theists.

What do you call believing in an unprovable concept with evidence?

Usually this is the case when someone confuses their inability to explain something as evidence of something else.

Or, from another angle, there is a difference between unprovable and unable to prove at this time.


I don't know about "usually", but I'd agree with "sometimes". It certainly happens on both sides of the fence, though. The Big Bang is an example. Many scientists hope to explain how something came to be from nothing without the existence of God, but can't do it at this time. Science of the gaps.
 
2013-01-22 02:20:26 PM  

latenite: Haliburton Cummings: the only good christian is a dead christian...

-Foetus

Song

The epitome of tolerance.


failtard is failtard

100/100

why should i tolerate the intolerant?
 
2013-01-22 02:22:35 PM  

Parthenogenetic: incendi: UberDave: ou mean the most simple and easy to follow doctrines like being kind to one another, turning the other cheek, not showboating your righteousness, not judging, etc. etc., are often ignored?

Simple, yes. Easy to follow, not so much.

But yes, it seems many Christians are much more concerned with  other people's sinfulness while ignoring one of the central tenets of Jesus's teachings: "Don't be an asshole."

Matthew chapter 5: 43-48

43 "You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Goddamn liberal.  That ain't no real American Jesus!


A man came to Shamai (the Sage) and said: "Teach me the whole Torah whilst I stand on one leg!" Shamai, exasperated, threw the man out.

The man then approached Hillel (the Sage) and said: "Teach me the whole Torah whilst I stand on one leg!" Hillel responded: "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. The rest is extrapolation; go and learn it!"

Seems that the question of how to be "moral" while still being "religious" was asked and answered - or at least addressed philosophically - many times over in founding religious documents.

// there's a bit of debate over who was to actually stand on one leg during the teaching - teacher or student - but that's not really important to the story
 
2013-01-22 02:25:43 PM  

latenite: Farking Canuck: latenite: Farking Canuck: Theism is believing in an unprovable concept without any evidence. Religion is snake-oil salesmen preying on theists.

What do you call believing in an unprovable concept with evidence?

Usually this is the case when someone confuses their inability to explain something as evidence of something else.

Or, from another angle, there is a difference between unprovable and unable to prove at this time.

I don't know about "usually", but I'd agree with "sometimes". It certainly happens on both sides of the fence, though. The Big Bang is an example. Many scientists hope to explain how something came to be from nothing without the existence of God, but can't do it at this time. Science of the gaps.


Know how I know you don't know anything about the Big Bang, or Occam's Razor?

Hint: The Big Bang has significant evidence that we have observed that correlates with the theory. Secondly, if goddidit(tm), then who made god? Turtles all the way down is a silly answer.
 
2013-01-22 02:26:52 PM  

latenite: I don't know about "usually", but I'd agree with "sometimes". It certainly happens on both sides of the fence, though. The Big Bang is an example. Many scientists hope to explain how something came to be from nothing without the existence of God, but can't do it at this time. Science of the gaps.


However, with regards to "how something came to be from nothing", the science explanation is "we don't know and currently don't have a solid hypothesis, I can blather on about my personal thoughts on the matter if you like but don't take it as fact" while the religious explanation is "scientists don't know, therefore I'm going to apply faith until scientists make it blindingly obvious how stupid that is... and then maybe a little longer, too."
 
2013-01-22 02:27:27 PM  

latenite: The Big Bang is an example. Many scientists hope to explain how something came to be from nothing without the existence of God, but can't do it at this time. Science of the gaps.


Wow ... this might be the most concise misunderstanding of science I've ever seen. Bravo.

You understand that the following is true:

- atheism has nothing to do with the big bang theory

- many religious people believe the big bang theory is a well supported theory and may be true

- science has absolutely nothing to do with god(s) - it is simply a method of discovery

- science is 100% about explaining the gaps (just like religion) - the difference being that science uses independently verified evidence

- to say science "can't do it at this time" doesn't make sense. You can say that you feel that a scientific theory, like the big bang theory, lacks sufficient evidence to convince you that it is correct at this time. Of course, you should probably look at the evidence and make sure you have enough background in the field to understand it before you make this claim.
 
2013-01-22 02:30:48 PM  
Okay, so let me see if I've read this correctly.

Business school does study.

Finds out that if someone isn't part of your faith that you're not more likely to be charitable.

But doesn't that imply that if they ARE part of your faith that you are more likely to be charitable?

Considering that a neighbor is someone that you likely share things in common with (you're more likely to share many things in common with a neighbor, diet, faith, etc. since you have cultural and social norms more often in common than not when compared to someone say 5000 miles away) it stands to reason that you're statistically likely to share a faith in common and thus the study would indicate that it DOES promote loving your neighbor more.

Or are we using some definition of neighbor to always mean "someone with which you have little in common with simply to illustrate a belabored point"

I mean are we using some socially obtuse model of the word neighbor akin to the concept of neighboring countries or something?
 
2013-01-22 02:39:11 PM  
i141.photobucket.com
 
2013-01-22 02:39:39 PM  

Bell-fan: I mean are we using some socially obtuse model of the word neighbor akin to the concept of neighboring countries or something?


Maybe where you are from the neighborhoods are all homogenous wrt religion. Around here chances are your neighbors are not the same religion as you.

Things are truly multicultural in my area and it works quite well.
 
2013-01-22 02:41:22 PM  
The major beef I have with all religions is the CONVICTION required. Really? You and your group of friends figured out the entire Universe already?

The arrogance and audacity it takes to 'know' one group is the best, and to hell with the rest is disgusting.
 
2013-01-22 02:51:08 PM  

Rich Cream: Rich Cream: middle-aged castles

lol


AKA "MILF's"
 
2013-01-22 03:20:52 PM  

I drunk what: Space_Poet: be happy and do what makes you happy without making others unhappy

what should we do with all the sadists?

They can do whatever they want to do with each other and the people that don't care about being hurt by them. when they cross the line and hurt me or others like me then they can be arrested for their crimes or mitigated, ignored, and shunned.

Space_Poet: Live without hurting others

no vaccines for your society?

Huh? Vaccines? I really don't have an opinion about them for the most part unless you want to ask something a little more specific.

also do you mean other life or just people?

I mean all life, but you have to be obtuse to realize that life takes other life to sustain, so you take only what you need. And when you take more than you need you should try to give back in anyway you can.

Space_Poet: treat all life as sacred

are you against abortion?

Nope.

do you eat meat?

Yep. If you have more specific questions about "why" that would be preferable but I feel your tactic is just trying to paint me as a hypocrite, which we all are to some degree, I just try to mitigate my degree to being a better person compared to someone that cares nothing of the esoteric values of life, or worse, acts against them.

 
2013-01-22 03:22:42 PM  

mongbiohazard:
Actually, it was your argument that ridicule isn't the proper response to ridiculous ideas.


That's not what I said at all. I've said multiple times that ridicule isn't a great form of communication and that if all you have to offer is ridicule that says more about you than the person you are ridiculing. I'll go a step further and say if all you have is ridicule then you're most likely engaging in some type of ad hominem, strawman, red herring argument.
 
2013-01-22 03:23:02 PM  

Space_Poet: but I feel your tactic is just trying to paint me as a hypocrite


His tactic is to endlessly ask questions to parade you around by the nose. There is no other goal.
 
2013-01-22 03:23:39 PM  
You mean a book that is okay with slavery, teaches that gays are evil and women should shut the fark up isn't the best thing to encourage loving behavior?

who'd a thunk it?
 
2013-01-22 03:28:44 PM  
I love by neighbor by not bothering them in the slightest. I say hello and ask how they are doing when I happen to see them in their driveways, and am polite if they ever knock on my door. Frankly, if I didn't see them coming out of their houses occasionally I wouldn't know them at all and I probably wouldn't be able to pick any of them out of a lineup if I tried. I just try not to bug people.

/In person, obviously.
 
2013-01-22 03:33:48 PM  

I drunk what: nature is god


aaawwwh! You were listening.
 
2013-01-22 03:35:04 PM  

Space_Poet: They can do whatever they want to do with each other and the people that don't care about being hurt by them. when they cross the line and hurt me or others like me then they can be arrested for their crimes or mitigated, ignored, and shunned.


i like the idea of ignoring our problems, that usually fixes stuff

Space_Poet: Huh? Vaccines? I really don't have an opinion about them for the most part unless you want to ask something a little more specific.


vaccines cause pain (harm), so then? yea or neigh

Space_Poet: Nope.


so then human life isn't sacred?

Space_Poet: I mean all life, but you have to be obtuse to realize that life takes other life to sustain, so you take only what you need. And when you take more than you need you should try to give back in anyway you can.


do you need happiness?

Space_Poet: Yep. If you have more specific questions about "why" that would be preferable


why do you eat meat if you consider harm to any life bad and said that we should treat all life as sacred? which is it?

Space_Poet: but I feel your tactic is just trying to paint me as a hypocrite


i was merely asking about your beliefs. if you find your beliefs disturbing your quarrel is not with me

Space_Poet: which we all are to some degree


speak for yourself, i'm not an idiot like the people posting in this thread

Space_Poet: I just try to mitigate my degree to being a better person compared to someone that cares nothing of the esoteric values of life, or worse, acts against them.


i'm still unclear about what a better person is? can someone give me a hint?

i like money
 
2013-01-22 03:37:34 PM  

vactech: aaawwwh! You were listening.


i'm natural cuz i was born in the forest, and i swam in a river, so that means i'm god?!?

that's awesome, now sacrifice some virgins to me
/just the hot ones
 
2013-01-22 03:41:46 PM  

I drunk what: i'm still unclear about what a better person is? can someone give me a hint?

i like money


Ergo, a better person is someone that gives you money.
 
2013-01-22 03:44:22 PM  

jso2897:

Yeah - but the problem is that the paranoid mentality perceives anything that isn't 100% agreement as persecution and/or ridicule - and the more bizarre and absurd people's beliefs are, the more likely they are to be that way. So while you are right that there is little percentage in deliberately "ridiculing' people, there are many cases where avoiding the perception that one is engaging in ridicule would require one either to lie or remain silent.


And ridiculing someone who is paranoid helps how? It will accomplish at least one thing and that is further entrenchment.
 
2013-01-22 03:49:11 PM  

Cymbal: I don't love anyone unless we are blood related or we swap bodily fluids on a daily basis.


Can't it be both?
 
2013-01-22 03:50:09 PM  

I drunk what: vactech: aaawwwh! You were listening.

i'm natural cuz i was born in the forest, and i swam in a river, so that means i'm god?!?

that's awesome, now sacrifice some virgins to me
/just the hot ones


Eww necrophilia
 
2013-01-22 04:04:05 PM  

skipjack: And ridiculing someone who is paranoid helps how? It will accomplish at least one thing and that is further entrenchment.


This, from a guy who still can't seem to distinguish "ridicule" from "being worthy of ridicule" and "having only ridicule at one's disposal".

Just because one engages in ridicule doesn't mean (or even imply) that they have nothing else. And even so, ridicule is a hell of a lot more than what you're bringing. Which (so far) is "nothing".

Well, a little platitude and passive/aggressive condescension, but that still amounts to pretty much "nothing".
 
2013-01-22 04:06:55 PM  

trappedspirit: Ergo, a better person is someone that gives you money.


go on

Lanadapter: Eww necrophilia


hey! is this about my happiness or your happiness??
 
2013-01-22 04:08:37 PM  
This thread is starting to remind me a lot of when i was younger.
 
2013-01-22 04:15:19 PM  
Religion is about as effective at spreading love and tolerance as the Catholic church is about cleansing the world of pedophiles.

But what does spread love and tolerance?
pinkie.mylittlefacewhen.com
 
2013-01-22 04:25:44 PM  

Deucednuisance:
This, from a guy who still can't seem to distinguish "ridicule" from "being worthy of ridicule" and "having only ridicule at one's disposal".


So you say. Your assertion is bare.

Deucednuisance:
Just because one engages in ridicule doesn't mean (or even imply) that they have nothing else. And even so, ridicule is a hell of a lot more than what you're bringing. Which (so far) is "nothing".


I haven't said that because one engages in ridicule that it's all they have. That you have to distort what I've said shows that my point has been made just fine.
 
2013-01-22 04:28:01 PM  

Too Pretty For Prison: Ah yes, love everyone. Except the queers. Can't love them. Oh, and the fornicators - they're sinners you know. And that family over there doesn't tithe, so let's not include them. And I heard that guy over there skipped church last week to watch a football game - he's obviously not a true believer. I heard that lady over there voted Democrat - I saw the sticker on her car. She obviously doesn't practice what we preach. Mary is divorced - she doesn't follow god's word, so she's out, too. I heard John's daughter got an abortion when she was 15. That whole family is just nothing but trouble.

Well, I guess the ten of us can just sit here in our smugness and know that we're god's favorites because we do everything we are supposed to.


Are you my mother in law? If you aren't a 55yo bigot from Montgomery, AL, you may need to be checked for possession, because you channelled her too easily.
 
2013-01-22 04:28:54 PM  

encyclopediaplushuman: Religion is about as effective at spreading love and tolerance as the Catholic church is about cleansing the world of pedophiles.

But what does spread love and tolerance?
[pinkie.mylittlefacewhen.com image 850x478]


Pony-lover commenting on pedophilia...ironic.
 
2013-01-22 04:35:51 PM  

genner: Your looking at it the wrong way.
This study also proves that being an atheist doesn't make you a better person.


Both sides are bad, vote theist? There's a new one...
 
2013-01-22 04:37:09 PM  

miscreant: MonoChango: Maybe.. Just maybe, it depends on the Religion.

Doesn't seem to be what the study found. They even included non-religious in there, and I'd bet everyone is just as likely to fall into this. They were told they had something in common with the other person they were interacting with. That will make people more generous and trusting of the other person. I doubt it even has to be religion. You could probably do this with hobbies and get a similar result.


Possibly, but the study could have perhaps invalidated that conclusion, or at least made it a less likely explanation had they told the participants that the others followed competing/conflicting religions.

Then we would have possibly seen how religion can be a divisive factor.
 
2013-01-22 04:46:23 PM  
In other news, living things tend to gravitate or show bias towards others of similar appearances/beliefs/culture etc..

SHOCKING I TELLS YA SHOCKING!!!


PS: Has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with human nature and our natural tendencies.
 
2013-01-22 04:51:15 PM  

I drunk what: if there is a god, what is living the best life?


geektastical.com
 
2013-01-22 04:51:51 PM  

encyclopediaplushuman: Religion is about as effective at spreading love and tolerance as the Catholic church is about cleansing the world of pedophiles.

But what does spread love and tolerance?
[ponies]


that's what i heard
 
2013-01-22 04:53:52 PM  

skipjack: So you say. Your assertion is bare.


Not so, all necessary evidence exists upthread. You may hoist yourself thither by your own petard.

skipjack: I haven't said that because one engages in ridicule that it's all they have.


Your readers are not responsible for your artless presentation of your intended point.
 
2013-01-22 05:25:25 PM  
fc00.deviantart.net

My devotion to my god (pictured above) has no negative or adverse affects upon any of my neighbors save for Penny the Peasant four houses down.

/Burninatingly Hot
 
2013-01-22 05:29:18 PM  

I should be in the kitchen: The number 7 and the letter Q!: t3knomanser: The number 7 and the letter Q!: Any system that teaches good morals can help a person love their neighbor

I sincerely doubt that pro-social behavior is something that can be learned. I think that human beings, by and large, instinctively engage in pro-social behaviors. There are inherent conflicts with our limitations in that regard (we're great in societies of 20ish people, we start failing in societies of thousands, and it gets all farked up when you try and build a society of millions), but that's not because we need to learn to "love our neighbor". We simply need to recognize that these strangers are our neighbor.

We are social animals, and we are inherently compassionate and kind to our peers. Those that are not are deviants, and I do not believe that education fixes it- it's a biological issue that must be treated.

Interesting idea. I honestly haven't studied human instinctual behavior in detail (I'm an English teacher) but now I've got something to look up online when the kids are napping. Thanks.

You and t3knomanser may find this book interesting: The Moral Landscape. The author makes the argument that essentially, morality comes from biology and the fact that humans are social beings, and not religion. I'm not quite finished yet but it's a pretty interesting read and a position I haven't heard laid out often enough. I picked it up to further arm myself against those who tell me I have no moral compass and am a selfish, horrible person because I'm an atheist. Obviously, I know that isn't true but I like being able to argue my point beyond just pointing at myself. :-)


Thanks for the book recommendation, I just found it online and it is a very interesting read as you suggested. And that's coming from a Christian lol.
 
2013-01-22 05:34:30 PM  

fickenchucker: Pony-lover commenting on pedophilia...ironic.


denver.mylittlefacewhen.com
 
2013-01-22 05:36:34 PM  
 
2013-01-22 05:40:24 PM  

Ray_Peranus: Thanks for the book recommendation, I just found it online and it is a very interesting read as you suggested. And that's coming from a Christian lol.


don't waste your time worrying about morality, since there is no free will, it doesn't matter if people feel good or bad about how nature makes you do stuff anyway

no free will, it's a scientific FACT
 
2013-01-22 05:43:50 PM  
The article seems to describe ethnic nepotism more than religion itself, although the two are tied to the hilt.
 
2013-01-22 06:15:35 PM  

Nurglitch: t3knomanser: Descartes: it's a biological psychological issue that must be treated.

Fixed for accuracy.

Properly attributed.


anyone finding humor that someone with the avatar of "descartes" finding humor in his/her statement?
 
2013-01-22 06:26:09 PM  

encyclopediaplushuman: I drunk what: that's what i heard

here's what they said


ok first question, since the the video is titled bronies react, and there was (what appeared to be) a chick responding does that mean this is going to turn into the crying game?

2nd question, does this video refute or further prove the first video, i'm not sure
 
2013-01-22 06:34:28 PM  

Farking Canuck: Bell-fan: I mean are we using some socially obtuse model of the word neighbor akin to the concept of neighboring countries or something?

Maybe where you are from the neighborhoods are all homogenous wrt religion. Around here chances are your neighbors are not the same religion as you.

Things are truly multicultural in my area and it works quite well.


Mine as well. We have hillbillies, rednecks and white trash all living toge... hold on. GODDAMNED EARL QUIT FARKING YOUR DOG IN THE FRONT LAWN! living together in peace and relative harmony.
 
2013-01-22 06:34:49 PM  

encyclopediaplushuman: Religion is about as effective at spreading love and tolerance as the Catholic church is about cleansing the world of pedophiles.

But what does spread love and tolerance?


Honest question here. What, for you, is the appeal of the pony thing? My kids love the show (not said as an insult. They love Phineas and Ferb too, and I can certainly enjoy that show) but I can't seem to connect to it. Does the show have some kind of pedigree, or contain in-jokes, that I'm not getting?

Thanks for answering if you've got the time. I'm new here, and figure I probably missed a lot of pony discussion in the past.
 
2013-01-22 07:02:13 PM  

The number 7 and the letter Q!: encyclopediaplushuman: Religion is about as effective at spreading love and tolerance as the Catholic church is about cleansing the world of pedophiles.

But what does spread love and tolerance?

Honest question here. What, for you, is the appeal of the pony thing? My kids love the show (not said as an insult. They love Phineas and Ferb too, and I can certainly enjoy that show) but I can't seem to connect to it. Does the show have some kind of pedigree, or contain in-jokes, that I'm not getting?

Thanks for answering if you've got the time. I'm new here, and figure I probably missed a lot of pony discussion in the past.


there is a long documentary if you're interested, but you might learn more than you wanted to know
 
2013-01-22 07:03:33 PM  
Religion poisons everything, so no.
 
2013-01-22 07:14:30 PM  
Religion is really about death to the infidels, not love thy neighbor. What religious people do proves this in spite of what they say.
 
2013-01-22 07:15:15 PM  

I drunk what: The number 7 and the letter Q!: encyclopediaplushuman: Religion is about as effective at spreading love and tolerance as the Catholic church is about cleansing the world of pedophiles.

But what does spread love and tolerance?

Honest question here. What, for you, is the appeal of the pony thing? My kids love the show (not said as an insult. They love Phineas and Ferb too, and I can certainly enjoy that show) but I can't seem to connect to it. Does the show have some kind of pedigree, or contain in-jokes, that I'm not getting?

Thanks for answering if you've got the time. I'm new here, and figure I probably missed a lot of pony discussion in the past.

there is a long documentary if you're interested, but you might learn more than you wanted to know


Like when I read the Necronomicon?

Thanks for the link. I'll give it a watch.
 
2013-01-22 07:17:57 PM  

randomjsa: Religion poisons everything, so no.


agreed
 
2013-01-22 07:21:52 PM  

The number 7 and the letter Q!: encyclopediaplushuman: Religion is about as effective at spreading love and tolerance as the Catholic church is about cleansing the world of pedophiles.

But what does spread love and tolerance?

Honest question here. What, for you, is the appeal of the pony thing? My kids love the show (not said as an insult. They love Phineas and Ferb too, and I can certainly enjoy that show) but I can't seem to connect to it. Does the show have some kind of pedigree, or contain in-jokes, that I'm not getting?

Thanks for answering if you've got the time. I'm new here, and figure I probably missed a lot of pony discussion in the past.


It's not just the show. Yes, it's great. It has a lot of references only adults (or teens) would probably get. They're hidden in the background and all around but you generally have to look for them or just notice them. There's a ton of interesting things in the show that are cool. But what is coolest is the fandom. Honestly I've met more people, done more things, and learned the most from the fandom than any other specific engagement I've been attached to. Moreover, the show interacted with the fans a lot in Season 2, and besides that, the animation they do is always cool.

There's a lot more to it than that, and honestly if you want some info on personal stories (which give a lot of clarity into it), and that can be found all around. Try asking some people who are serious (not trying to troll or anything).

Oh and I drunk what posted the wrong link, this is the actual long documentary.
 
2013-01-22 07:27:48 PM  

encyclopediaplushuman: The number 7 and the letter Q!: encyclopediaplushuman: Religion is about as effective at spreading love and tolerance as the Catholic church is about cleansing the world of pedophiles.

But what does spread love and tolerance?

Honest question here. What, for you, is the appeal of the pony thing? My kids love the show (not said as an insult. They love Phineas and Ferb too, and I can certainly enjoy that show) but I can't seem to connect to it. Does the show have some kind of pedigree, or contain in-jokes, that I'm not getting?

Thanks for answering if you've got the time. I'm new here, and figure I probably missed a lot of pony discussion in the past.

It's not just the show. Yes, it's great. It has a lot of references only adults (or teens) would probably get. They're hidden in the background and all around but you generally have to look for them or just notice them. There's a ton of interesting things in the show that are cool. But what is coolest is the fandom. Honestly I've met more people, done more things, and learned the most from the fandom than any other specific engagement I've been attached to. Moreover, the show interacted with the fans a lot in Season 2, and besides that, the animation they do is always cool.

There's a lot more to it than that, and honestly if you want some info on personal stories (which give a lot of clarity into it), and that can be found all around. Try asking some people who are serious (not trying to troll or anything).

Oh and I drunk what posted the wrong link, this is the actual long documentary.


Thanks twice. Kids are here, so I'm sober. Enjoy.
 
2013-01-22 08:11:43 PM  

encyclopediaplushuman: Oh and I drunk what posted the wrong link, this is the actual long documentary.


yeah my link was no where near an hour long, this one is probably much more fascinating

sorry my bad, i'll watch it right after ow my balls
 
2013-01-22 08:20:56 PM  

encyclopediaplushuman: fickenchucker: Pony-lover commenting on pedophilia...ironic.

[denver.mylittlefacewhen.com image 512x512]


Just to reiterate...Bronies are attention whores and pedophiles.
 
2013-01-22 08:31:29 PM  
There is a biblical passage that warns against lukewarm attitudes. It is better to be an impassioned atheist than a religious hypocrite who does not really try.
I think the fire I see from the atheists who post here is a healthy thing. They have the most to gain spiritually, because they care. They care a lot.

Religion cannot accurately depict how we are connected to one another. Some spiritual texts get very close, but few people know them well. Humanity is connected to one another as well as we are to the world around us. We need harmony to survive. You do not need to believe in God to understand this. No matter how we get there we need to find that sweet spot of harmony where we and nature can survive together. Whatever works is a good starting point.
 
2013-01-22 08:46:09 PM  

rev. dave: We need harmony to survive.


Which brings us right back to the ponies.

images.wikia.com
 
2013-01-22 09:08:57 PM  

The number 7 and the letter Q!: t3knomanser: The number 7 and the letter Q!: Any system that teaches good morals can help a person love their neighbor

I sincerely doubt that pro-social behavior is something that can be learned. I think that human beings, by and large, instinctively engage in pro-social behaviors. There are inherent conflicts with our limitations in that regard (we're great in societies of 20ish people, we start failing in societies of thousands, and it gets all farked up when you try and build a society of millions), but that's not because we need to learn to "love our neighbor". We simply need to recognize that these strangers are our neighbor.

We are social animals, and we are inherently compassionate and kind to our peers. Those that are not are deviants, and I do not believe that education fixes it- it's a biological issue that must be treated.

Interesting idea. I honestly haven't studied human instinctual behavior in detail (I'm an English teacher) but now I've got something to look up online when the kids are napping. Thanks.


There was an article in either Discover magazine or scientific American recently that discussed the evolution of cooperation. Interesting read.
 
2013-01-22 09:16:41 PM  

RobSeace: I drunk what: if there is a god, what is living the best life?

[geektastical.com image 850x606]


Hot water, good dentistry and soft lavatory paper.

/Well, it's nothing very special. Try to be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations.
 
2013-01-22 09:24:27 PM  

Novart: encyclopediaplushuman: fickenchucker: Pony-lover commenting on pedophilia...ironic.

[denver.mylittlefacewhen.com image 512x512]

Just to reiterate...Bronies are attention whores and pedophiles.


i18.photobucket.com
 
2013-01-22 11:43:22 PM  
Or, as Mr Gandhi once said, "Christianity is such a wonderful, magnificent idea; It's a shame no one's ever tried it."

/Bada-BOOM!!
 
2013-01-22 11:48:21 PM  

Novart: Just to reiterate...Bronies are attention whores and pedophiles.


dashie.mylittlefacewhen.com
 
2013-01-22 11:51:02 PM  

Gregosaurus: Or, as Mr Gandhi once said, "Christianity is such a wonderful, magnificent idea; It's a shame no one's ever tried it."

/Bada-BOOM!!


Ghandi was kind of a dick.
 
2013-01-23 12:48:53 AM  

Hyjamon: The number 7 and the letter Q!: t3knomanser: The number 7 and the letter Q!: Any system that teaches good morals can help a person love their neighbor

I sincerely doubt that pro-social behavior is something that can be learned. I think that human beings, by and large, instinctively engage in pro-social behaviors. There are inherent conflicts with our limitations in that regard (we're great in societies of 20ish people, we start failing in societies of thousands, and it gets all farked up when you try and build a society of millions), but that's not because we need to learn to "love our neighbor". We simply need to recognize that these strangers are our neighbor.

We are social animals, and we are inherently compassionate and kind to our peers. Those that are not are deviants, and I do not believe that education fixes it- it's a biological issue that must be treated.

Interesting idea. I honestly haven't studied human instinctual behavior in detail (I'm an English teacher) but now I've got something to look up online when the kids are napping. Thanks.

There was an article in either Discover magazine or scientific American recently that discussed the evolution of cooperation. Interesting read.


I will look for it, thanks.
 
2013-01-23 01:39:02 AM  

Amos Quito: The original intent was to promote in-group altruism


Actually, Luke leads directly from that saying to the parable of the Good Samaritan, which has pretty much the opposite message about in groups. (Luke 10:25-37)
 
2013-01-23 01:55:03 AM  
Well, I'll say one thing...I'm not about to read all the arguments going on about all the religious stuff, but I will say this:

If your religion is worth killing for, please start with yourself.

That is all.
 
2013-01-23 02:05:16 AM  

The Southern Dandy: If a person can so easily lie to themselves, how difficult do you think it is for them to lie to you?


Do you conduct yourself as if your life has the same weight as a dog or a chicken? If not, do you include yourself in that group?
 
2013-01-23 03:07:24 AM  
What good has scientific study ever done for the religious? It simply isn't their language.
 
2013-01-23 04:24:12 AM  

Olympic Trolling Judge: rev. dave: We need harmony to survive.

Which brings us right back to the ponies.


Or link getting a fancy wallet for his rupees. Whatever
 
2013-01-23 06:14:25 AM  

SomethingToDo: avoid eating fat


The other conditions are fine, but if this is a requirement for living a good life, then screw it, I'm not interested!

/You'll pry my bacon from my cold dead hands!
 
2013-01-23 06:21:56 AM  

Deucednuisance: skipjack: So you say. Your assertion is bare.

Not so, all necessary evidence exists upthread. You may hoist yourself thither by your own petard.

skipjack: I haven't said that because one engages in ridicule that it's all they have.

Your readers are not responsible for your artless presentation of your intended point.


I appreciate your critique, and next time I will give more artful flourishes. Until then, your assertion is still bare.
 
2013-01-23 06:52:02 AM  

d23: Incidentally this story is sometimes triggering a "Liberty University Online" banner ad.

Incidentally they don't teach a form of Christianity that is even recognizable to my Christian upbringing.


I saw a car magnet with Liberty U on it. I wanted to find the person and laugh.
 
2013-01-23 09:32:45 AM  

t3knomanser: UberDave: You mean the most simple and easy to follow doctrines

Given the average success rate, I'd argue that they may be simple, but are not easy to follow doctrines.


"Maybe God isn't the sex police, Richard. Sometimes I think Christians get all hung up on the sex thing because it's easier to worry about sex than to ask yourself, Am I a good person? If as long as you don't have sex with a lot of people you're a good person, that's easy. It's easy to avoid that. It's easy to think, I'm not f***ing anyone, so I'm good. It makes it easy to be cruel, because as long as you're not f***ing around, nothing you do can be that bad. Is that all you really think of God? Is he just the sex police for you and Malcom? Or is it that sex is easy to worry about, easy to avoid, and the whole love-your-neighbor-as-you-love-yourself thing that's hard?"

- The Harlequin by Laurell K. Hamilton
 
2013-01-23 11:39:24 AM  
People believed in the nice teachings of the bible and passed them down over thousands of years.
To say that religion has had no effect is a bit short sighted.  Or, it's possible that they were learned over thousands of years, then written into the bible.  The fact is, these things are practical.  And they are so ingrained into society that of course there isn't going to be a direct relation now.

People help their neighbors now in larger ways.  They contribute to food drives or donate money.  They don't need to literally invite their neighbor over.  But if they do, it's more a practicality.  Being nice to your neighbor is a smart decision for many practical reasons.  Cost of fence repair, them not calling the police if you do something dumb on accident.  Neighborhood watch.  Being nice to them in advance, helps them not shoot you when you come over to ask them to turn the music down.

And as far as "Trust thy neighbor".  I've never heard that before.  That seems like a leap.
 
Displayed 317 of 317 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report