To the Christians here...

[Admiral]

What makes you think that this isn't the case?

So you claim that priests and Popes hate Protestants more than a gang of terrorists that blow up public places to kill innocents... I have no idea what issues you're working through, but there's no way you can expect me to take that seriously. Do you think that the average imam secretly wishes he could hijack airplanes? What a horrifically bigoted attitude.

Only because it's true. Religions tend to require bigotry as part of membership. For the biblical religions, see the 10 commandments as the doctrine.

Have you actually read the ten commandments? Let's take a look (from the New Revised Standard Version):

First Commandment:
And God spoke all these words: I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; you shall have no other gods before me.

This is probably what you're referring to. There's a huge difference, though, between "Follow the Lord" and "Hate everyone who doesn't follow the Lord." These are commandments for those who wish to be Christian. Not all Christians seek to impose their beliefs on others, and if they do, they certainly aren't instructed as such by the Ten Commandments.

Second Commandment:
You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

Third Commandment:
You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.

Fourth Commandment:
Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates.

Fifth Commandment:
Honor your father and your mother, so that your days may be long in the land that the LORD your God is giving you.

Yup, can't you just see the hatred building up?

Sixth Commandment:
You shall not murder.

That's an incitement to violence if I ever saw one.

Seventh Commandment:
You shall not commit adultery.

Be faithful? What a message of hate.

Eighth Commandment:
You shall not steal.

More bigotry, I'm sure.

Ninth Commandment:
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

Tenth Commandment:
You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.

So where in that list do you find anything encouraging Christians or Jews to be violent?

As for your claim that priests and Popes hate Protestants more than a gang of terrorists that blow up public places to kill innocents... I have no idea what issues you're working through, but there's no way you can expect me to take that seriously.

 

[Nova Land]

The more religious a person is, the more bigotted they are.

The onus is on you to show it then.

Why is that?

Wow! I am often stunned by the disconnect, both in R & P and in Politics, between what we see as good skepticism when it comes to claims of the paranormal and what we see as good skepticism when it comes to more down-to-earth claims. To me, one of the most valuable points Randi and JREF make is that, when a claim is made, we need to think about what is being claimed, think of a fair test which can determine if the claim is true or false, carry out that test fairly, and see what we find.

Here, thaiboxerken has made a claim. It is a fairly simple claim: that the more religious a person is, the more bigoted they are. If it is true, there should be a way to test it and show that it is true.

Ken: it's your claim. That's why the onus is on you to clarify what it is you are claiming and to suggest what you think is a fair protocol for testing your claim. If this were a paranormal claim that would be immediately obvious; why does it become difficult to understand when the claim is a mundane one?

Hold on there, you doubt that religion and bigotry are correlated? Have you ever heard of the KKK, RCC, Al-Queda and Nazi's?

Bad protocol! The test you have designed appears to be, if there are groups which practice bigotry and claim religion as a motive, then I have shown that religion and bigotry are correlated. Which is a poor test, as well as being a test for a different claim than the one in question. If this were a claim of the paranormal by someone trying to win Randi's million, I think you would spot that immediately.

The example of the KKK shows that a group which practices bigotry may attempt to justify that bigotry with religion. It does not show that all religious people are bigots, or that people become more bigoted as they become more religious. That's the claim you made, and that's the claim you need to find a convincing test to demonstrate it is true.

Do you think that anti-jew violence is done by atheists?

Actually, yes. It's my understanding there was a fair amount of hatred for and discrimination against jews under atheists in the Soviet Union. (Likewise, it is my understanding there was a fair amount of racial prejudice practiced by atheists there and in Cuba.) That doesn't mean that the more atheistic a person is, the more bigoted they are. It simply shows that some atheists -- like some theists -- are capable of bigotry.

If it is true that the more religous a person is the more bigoted they are, then it would seem that the less bigoted a person is the less religious they should be. May I suggest as a way of testing your claim that you come up with a method for selecting 50 prominent people whom you feel are very lacking in bigotry -- with the obvious stipulation that the method of selection must be blind as far as these people's religious beliefs or lack thereof. You might, for instance, suggest a method for selecting prominent anti-racist activists. We could then look at these people's religious beliefs, or lack thereof, to see if all these people are indeed lacking in religious belief as your claim would lead us to conclude.

If all (or a very high percentage) are non-religious, that would provide strong support for your assertion. If, on the other hand, any significant number were religious, your claim would seem to fall more into the category of claims made by homeopaths and dowsers (i.e. something the claimant believes based on their own blindness and their inability or unwillingness to test the claim skeptically.)

 

[Admiral]

Wow! I am often stunned by the disconnect, both in R & P and in Politics, between what we see as good skepticism when it comes to claims of the paranormal and what we see as good skepticism when it comes to more down-to-earth claims. To me, one of the most valuable points Randi and JREF make is that, when a claim is made, we need to think about what is being claimed, think of a fair test which can determine if the claim is true or false, carry out that test fairly, and see what we find.

Here, thaiboxerken has made a claim. It is a fairly simple claim: that the more religious a person is, the more bigoted they are. If it is true, there should be a way to test it and show that it is true.

Ken: it's your claim. That's why the onus is on you to clarify what it is you are claiming and to suggest what you think is a fair protocol for testing your claim. If this were a paranormal claim that would be immediately obvious; why does it become difficult to understand when the claim is a mundane one?


Bad protocol! The test you have designed appears to be, if there are groups which practice bigotry and claim religion as a motive, then I have shown that religion and bigotry are correlated. Which is a poor test, as well as being a test for a different claim than the one in question. If this were a claim of the paranormal by someone trying to win Randi's million, I think you would spot that immediately.

The example of the KKK shows that a group which practices bigotry may attempt to justify that bigotry with religion. It does not show that all religious people are bigots, or that people become more bigoted as they become more religious. That's the claim you made, and that's the claim you need to find a convincing test to demonstrate it is true.

Actually, yes. It's my understanding there was a fair amount of hatred for and discrimination against jews under atheists in the Soviet Union. (Likewise, it is my understanding there was a fair amount of racial prejudice practiced by atheists there and in Cuba.) That doesn't mean that the more atheistic a person is, the more bigoted they are. It simply shows that some atheists -- like some theists -- are capable of bigotry.

If it is true that the more religous a person is the more bigoted they are, then it would seem that the less bigoted a person is the less religious they should be. May I suggest as a way of testing your claim that you come up with a method for selecting 50 prominent people whom you feel are very lacking in bigotry -- with the obvious stipulation that the method of selection must be blind as far as these people's religious beliefs or lack thereof. You might, for instance, suggest a method for selecting prominent anti-racist activists. We could then look at these people's religious beliefs, or lack thereof, to see if all these people are indeed lacking in religious belief as your claim would lead us to conclude.

If all (or a very high percentage) are non-religious, that would provide strong support for your assertion. If, on the other hand, any significant number were religious, your claim would seem to fall more into the category of claims made by homeopaths and dowsers (i.e. something the claimant believes based on their own blindness and their inability or unwillingness to test the claim skeptically.)

I think this is a fantastic summary.

On another topic, ThaiBoxerKen, did you know that left-handed people are all criminals?

Ever hear of Jack the Ripper? John Dillinger, the bank robber? The Boston Strangler? Hell, even Uri Geller! These people are all left-handed!

Just face it, the more left-handed a person is, the more criminally inclined they are.

And as for another logical fallacy: When I said that if more religious individuals were more bigoted, then "the Pope would hate Protestants more than the Irish Republican Army does, and most imams would hate America more than al Queda does," you stated "What makes you think that this isn't the case?"

You're shifting the burden of proof- saying "The Pope is more bigoted than the IRA. Prove me wrong." It's your claim that more religious individuals are more bigoted. I've provided a counter example. It's your responsibility to argue either that

a)The Pope is more bigoted than the IRA.
b)The Pope is not more religious than the IRA.
or c)This situation is an exception to your statement.

It is NOT my responsibility. Your claim- you provide evidence. But, if you keep arguing that I need to give you evidence, here's some: Almost no imams end up participating in terrorist attacks against Christians or Jews.

(Again, Nova Land, good post.)

 

[thaiboxerken]

So where in that list do you find anything encouraging Christians or Jews to be violent?

So, as the story goes, what happened when people ignored the 10 commandments after Moses brought them down? It's not the 10 commandments themselves that incite hatred, it's the recommended punishment that shows the hatred.

And no, my claim is not a testable one. It's one that is simply shown with history and statistic. The most bigotted groups in the world happen to have been religious ones, particularly towards homosexuals, women and people of races foreign to their own, not to mention people of other religions.

 

[Kopji]

RESEARCH: A Research Note on the Relation Between Religiosity and Racism: The Importance of the Way in Which Religious Contents Are Being Processed

Bart Duriez​‌
Department of Psychology, K.U. Leuven

According to Wulff (1991, 1997), the various approaches to religion can be located in a 2-dimensional space along the bipolar dimensions Exclusion vs. Inclusion of Transcendence and Literal vs. Symbolic. Previous research has suggested that these dimensions are differently related to racism. Racism would be unrelated to the Exclusion vs. Inclusion of Transcendence dimension, whereas it would be negatively related to the Literal vs. Symbolic dimension. Results of the present study, using the Post-Critical Belief Scale (Duriez, Fontaine, & Hutsebaut, 2000) as a measure of Wulff's concepts in 3 different samples (total N = 2,171) gathered in Flanders (Belgium), support these hypotheses. The Literal vs. Symbolic dimension was found to significantly contribute to the prediction of racism, even after differences in right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance, and empathy were taken into account.

http://www.leaonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/s15327582ijpr1403_3

More simply put, some but not all kinds of religious views are predictors of racism. Holding literal views seems to be more of a predictor than symbolic views.

The idea of "more religious" is pretty blurry. I'm not sure we could approach it as a question without running into a 'true Scotsman'.

 

[ReFLeX]

And no, my claim is not a testable one. It's one that is simply shown with history and statistic. The most bigotted groups in the world happen to have been religious ones, particularly towards homosexuals, women and people of races foreign to their own, not to mention people of other religions.

Ah, but here is my frustration, because correlations are relatively easy to produce and your claim could be scientifically established, as Kopji partially demonstrates. So there is no reason for your guessing! I see no reason why a measure for bigotry could not be given along with a scale of "religiosity", a dimension which could be measured in many different ways. You say statistics support you but I don't see any!

Notes from Kopji's study link:
-The study focuses only on one form of bigotry, racism.
-At least one dimension of religious belief is unrelated to racism.
-Right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance and empathy had to measured and controlled for to be sure there was a true relation between the literal vs. symbolic dimension. Hint: these are some other potential factors, like I mentioned several posts ago.

So as you can see, your claim is testable, even though it has a wide scope, would take multiple studies and an operational definition of "more religious".

 

[Admiral]

And no, my claim is not a testable one.

Actually, it is. Statisticians use various mathematical methods to test for correlations- but none of that matters if you just want to make unfounded accusations.

It's one that is simply shown with history and statistic. The most bigotted groups in the world happen to have been religious ones.

First of all, Saddam Hussein, Slobadan Milosevic, Timothy McVeigh and the Unabomber are a few examples of people who commit atrocities who had little or no religious connection. The greatest example of all is Josef Stalin: an atheist who was responsible for incredibly harsh purges of religious groups. Learn some history before you make some ridiculous statements.

Also, think a bit about what you're saying. This appears to be your sentiment: "If most violent individuals in history have been religious, this is an indication that belief in religion leads to violence." This is a very common statistical misconception. Think about this:

Through all history, more murders have been committed by right-handed individuals than by left-handed individuals (even though Jack the Ripper and the Boston Strangler were left-handed). More pardons have been granted by Protestant presidents than by Catholic presidents. Today, there are more gay people in China than there are in England. Doesn't this prove that right-handed people are more likely to commit murder, Protestants are more liberal with Presidential pardons, and the Chinese are just plain more gay than the English?

No! Why? Because these statements, while true, don't include sample size as a factor. There are about nine times as many right handed people as left handed people. There have been 42 Protestant presidents, and only one Catholic (Kennedy, if anyone is interested). The population of China is about 1.3 billion people, while the population of England is about 60 million.

And, to get back to my point- the vast majority of humans in recent history have been religious. For example, a Gallup poll conducted last month indicates that 73% of Americans are convinced God exists, while 23% are unsure, and 3% are certain God does not exist. (http://poll.gallup.com/content/?ci=23470) Similar statistics could be found for the planet, but I doubt anyone contests that religious individuals far outnumber atheists. Therefore, claiming that just because more extremists are religious, religion and extremism must be correlated, is a misconception.

There's another issue with your argument- even if it could be shown that it is common for extremists to be religious, this would in no way show that religion leads to extremism. It's far more likely that extremists, bigots, and racists twist religion to justify their beliefs. Consider Adolf Hitler as an example- it is now known that he didn't like Christianity. Albert Speer noted this as one of Hitler's anti-Christianity statements:

You see, it’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?

However, Hitler publicly triumphed Christianity as a foundation of the Reich:

The National Government regards the two Christian confessions as factors essential to the soul of the German people. ... We hold the spiritual forces of Christianity to be indispensable elements in the moral uplift of the German people.

Understand that I'm not saying Hitler wasn't religious- he appeared to believe in God, though not a Christian one. His horrific actions may well have been inspired by his religious beliefs. I'm simply showing how many bigots used religion as a tool for propaganda.

As the last piece of my argument, I want to point out that if all you look at is the KKK and Islamic extremists, you're showing an incredibly misrepresentive sample. As a quick example, ever consider that Martin Luther King Jr. was a Baptist minister? He's hardly what first comes to mind when you think of bigots. But on a more personal level, have you ever considered the ridiculousness of your blanket, sweeping, statement? How do you think I feel when you tell me that because I go to church, I'm supposed to dislike my Jewish girlfriend? Trying to put all religious individuals into a single category is a horribly bigoted, and a very offensive, thing to do.

 

[Kopji]

In support of atheists who tend to have an emotional response to religion... Emotion is the food and fuel of religion, not reason and logic. Emotion is the heart and soul of religion. But religious people almost always insist on methodical, testable ways when faith is criticized.

Have you considered that asking for reasonable and logical arguments might be bad practice for you?

On my earlier link. I'm not trying to prove anything one way or another. The study divided religious thinking into four aspects, which seemed like a good methodology. Religion is a complex but not impossible subject for study.

 

[Huntster]

You act like you’re defending something when I’m not attempting to argue against your beliefs in anyway. I’m only attempting to illustrate an idea.

If you were incorrect in your beliefs, then what would happen after death?....

Nothing.

You said the only thing that could convince you was “Death, then darkness”. However, that cannot convince you if you no longer exist....

Then, nothing gained, and nothing lost.

If you do not have a soul, if your consciousness ends when you die, how can you be convinced of anything when nothing about you exists to be convinced?

Apparently, it doesn't matter anymore, does it? There's nobody left to convince or not convince.

Originally Posted by Huntster :
I don't even know what "non-existence" is or could be.

I don't know. This is "new ground" for me. I have no idea what you're talking about.

If you are unable to comprehend such an idea, then that can only be attributed to your failed ability and no one else’s.

Okay.

I’m not attempting to say this is the case, or that I know any of this is correct; I’m only drawing out the logical conclusion if that is the case. If you didn’t have a soul, if your consciousness ends when you die and there is no afterlife, do you really think (not know, but have the opinion, believe, or suppose) it would be like experiencing an eternity of darkness with nothing everywhere?

I don't know.

As Aristotle said, “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.” Keep that in mind when you make your answer, you don’t have to accept it, but at least entertain the idea.

Okay.

Oh, and one more thing about your post.

Logic is a simple opinion reached through reasoning. You have no physical evidence?

You can’t have physical evidence about something that doesn’t exist.

No ◊◊◊◊.

Now stop dodging my original question. Do you think (not know, but have the opinion, believe, or suppose) that there is absolutely nothing that doesn’t exist?

Absolutely nothing that doesn't exist?

A double negative?

Who's playing word games here?

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken :
It's only biased by reality and experience. Slavery was condoned by the religious, particularly the christians. Bigotry by the religious towards heretics is particularly predominate. Most religious people don't trust or like atheists. Religious people tend to not like people of other religions. The only thing that tends to temper this bigotry is secularism, that is.. taking one's own religion less serious. The more religious a person is, the more bigotted they are.

Saying that your biases are "reality and "experience" is pretty arrogant....

Kenny is even more arrogant than I am.

His opinion has the authority of reality, did you know? (See sig lines below......)

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Even if you reject religion, the government will force it's interpretation of morality "down your throat".

What are you fighting?

Not if the government chooses to stay out of the morality business, like many western ones do....

Laws are based on morality. What do we need government for if it doesn't pass and enforce laws based on morality?

The ones that ARE in the morality business have a suspiciously strong tie to some religion.... go figure.

Get a clue, Dodger.

Both government and religion are in the business of teaching and enforcing morality.

You are free to abstain from religion (even if it is foolish).

You are not free to abstain from civil law.

 

[infornography]

Biblical evidence?! LOL.

Never Never Land actually exists, if you go by "evidence" presented in the Peter Pan book.

About what I expected.

I think you are misinterpreting what infornography is talking about.

If I'm reading the posts correctly, the remark about having heard "convincing arguments for the belief that hell exists..." is not about whether Hell actually exists. It is about whether belief in Hell should be a tenet of christian religion.

There are some christians who believe in a literal hell and some who don't. Infornography's post (as I understood it, at least) was saying that he had heard christians who believe in a literal hell make convincing arguments that the bible teaches there is a literal hell, and that he had heard christians who do not believe in a literal hell make convincing arguments that the bible does not teach there is a literal hell.

If one is arguing about what the bible says, then the bible is a good source of evidence. Actually reading it, to see what it says, is what a skeptic involved in such a discussion would do. That's why skeptics such as Farrell Till, who argue points about contradictions in the bible, read the bible and quote the bible as evidence in their arguments.

Thank you for spelling it out clearly. I didn't want to dedicate the time and effort for someone who I feel hasn't given the previous posts the minimal thought necessary to understand basic context. You got it right on. Personally the only way I can see that someone could have misread the context there is if they were being intellectually lazy.

Again, thank you.

 

[thaiboxerken]

As the last piece of my argument, I want to point out that if all you look at is the KKK and Islamic extremists, you're showing an incredibly misrepresentive sample.

I think the "extremist" groups are the perfect sample for my conclusion, the extremists are the "extremely religious" after all.

As a quick example, ever consider that Martin Luther King Jr. was a Baptist minister? He's hardly what first comes to mind when you think of bigots.

Yes, he was religious, just not as religious as the Taliban.

But on a more personal level, have you ever considered the ridiculousness of your blanket, sweeping, statement?

No, because it's not ridiculous. What do most christians think of gay marriage, by the way?

How do you think I feel when you tell me that because I go to church, I'm supposed to dislike my Jewish girlfriend?

That depends, if you're christian, then yes, you are supposed to dislike your Jewish girlfriend. That is, if you really take your religion seriously.

Trying to put all religious individuals into a single category is a horribly bigoted, and a very offensive, thing to do.

Bigotry against the bigotted isn't a big deal to me. I doubt you are a very intolerant person, which tells me that you just aren't as religious as you think you are.

It's far more likely that extremists, bigots, and racists twist religion to justify their beliefs.

I disagree. It's the other way around. The moderates, the tolerant and liberal people twist their religions to justify their beliefs. The more literal and religious people get with their bibles, the more intolerant they are. There is plenty of nastiness in the bible that teaches intolerance, bigotry and violence and those messages far outweigh messages of peace and love to all.

Consider Adolf Hitler as an example- it is now known that he didn't like Christianity. Albert Speer noted this as one of Hitler's anti-Christianity statements:

Pure garbage that cannot be collaborated with any fact. Compare that to Hitler's speeches, which are well-documented and the fact that Hitler never, ever publicly denounced christianity and I think you find your position very weak. However, let's assume that Hitler was simply using christianity, he was also using christians. It's christians that gave Hitler power, christians made up hitler's army, it's christians that are responsible for the holocaust.

 

[infornography]

It never ceases to amaze me how ignorant someone can make themselves be and still sincerely consider themselves rational.

Ken's arguments consistantly remind me of the kinds of things the most ignorant theists would espouse to defend their position. Lots of exaggeration and unsupported, yet outlandish claims. I don't think I will continue to address such drivel.

 

[thaiboxerken]

You might consider it ignorant and irrational, yet it is not. Religion is the cause of much bigotry, intolerance and hate, it's even condoned and written to be that way in the holy books.

 

[I less than three logic]

Absolutely nothing that doesn't exist?

A double negative?

Who's playing word games here?

I honestly can’t think of a single reason why you continuously dodge answering a simple question. Do you think, believe, or suppose that there is a single thing, anything at all, that does not exist? Does absolutely everything exist?

 

[infornography]

I honestly can’t think of a single reason why you continuously dodge answering a simple question. Do you think, believe, or suppose that there is a single thing, anything at all, that does not exist? Does absolutely everything exist?

really now, what a loaded question.

I am not entirely sure what you are even asking for.

Are you asking if he has belief in something that does not exist by his own reckoning? Are you asking him if he believes that everything possible exists? Are you asking him if he believes that there is something that may have existed but no longer does? I'm really not at all certain what you are getting at with this. For that matter what you mean by the words nothing and exist is open to debate.

I could say that a living elephant that is small enough to stampede through the hole in a needle does not exist. I could also assert with some confidence that a human with flatulence powerful enough to significantly alter the rotation of the Earth does not exist. Is this what you are meaning? I don't think so but thats what it honestly sounds like.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I think <3logic is asking Hunster if there is anything he thinks has been "proven" not to exist. The "logic" of some people here indicates that some people believe this is the case.

 

[I less than three logic]

As per usual, Huntster’s dodges have taken the original question way off course. I was attempting to explain the difference between non-existence and existing within darkness. Huntster questioned whether or not there could be a non-existent state. To which I replied, it is the state that anything that doesn’t exist would be in, so there must be such a state if there is anything that doesn’t exist. So for I’ve been able to find an answer as to whether or not he thinks that something doesn’t exist, and therefore a non-existent state is possible.

Take the griffon for example, mythical beast that’s half lion and half eagle, do griffons exist? If they do not, are they experiencing darkness while waiting to exist, or just not experiencing anything since nothing is there to do the experiencing. How about fictionally book characters, are all of them experiencing darkness? Perhaps they just don’t exist, and therefore are not experiencing anything at all. It was really a simple question that got blown out of proportion.

 

[infornography]

As per usual, Huntster’s dodges have taken the original question way off course. I was attempting to explain the difference between non-existence and existing within darkness. Huntster questioned whether or not there could be a non-existent state. To which I replied, it is the state that anything that doesn’t exist would be in, so there must be such a state if there is anything that doesn’t exist. So for I’ve been able to find an answer as to whether or not he thinks that something doesn’t exist, and therefore a non-existent state is possible.

Ahh, that makes more sense then. I thought Huntster had surrendered that point but I can't remember anymore and don't feel like rereading all the pages of this thread to find it.