Is there an "atheist perspective"?

[Christian]

I'm off for a week, will resume on Sunday the 24th.

Lots of posts. But just a quick general response.

This was the derailment (yet another). Someone called my a bigot. I objected. Someone else demonstrated why I was a bigot. I clarified why I was not. And used a couple of examples. Then, someone decided on a specific point to attack. This would be a derailment of the derailment. This one goes back and forth. The underlying theme is, of course, whatever works to show I'm not apt or wrong. I can choose another derailment, someone just accused of insulting their intelligence and being arrogant towards them. Then we would embark on yet another derailment. The reason why I can't allow these precedents is because in any subsequent threads where I participate, this or that person will say "remember how you insulted such and such" or "remember your bigoted remarks".

The many to one scenario is taxing and simply too hard. I'll cut back on posts as to better the quality of the grammar, articulation, and argumentation.

 

[Brattus]

Another way to put this would be to ask if atheists have other common traits where one could predict their perspective. From the "ego" thread, I had an overwhelming negative response. (people here say no)

My hypothesis would read like this:

Atheists have other traits in common that allows to predict their perspective on a variety of topics or situations

Where do I come up with this idea? I speculate that atheism is a conviction that comes from a mental process. This particular process molds the brain to think and react in certain ways in specific situations. This molding affects the way individuals think, thus creating a distinct atheist perspective.

There are several ways to test this hypothesis, but I think a survey is a good start. We could survey 1,000 people (randomly picked around the world. We would survey more than 1,000 but would only consider the answers of those who are atheist, to mask the survey). We would have our same size control group where the common trait be something else. Then we would look for common traits.

It's important to point out that the most we could conclude is that the average atheist is more likely to be more of this or that. For example, the findings could be:

Atheist are more likely to be more contrarian than the general population, on average.
Atheist are more likely to be more skeptical than the general population, on average.
Atheist are more likely not to be believe in spirituality than the general population, on average.

And so forth.

From this, one can guess the general atheist perspective on specific topics, issues, etc.

This is only a mental exercise and pure speculation (on my part). I do think it is an interesting topic to consider.

Hi!
I am a member of the Klu Klux Klan and I want to do a survey to see if black people share any common traits.

My definition of black people is any people I think are black.

Here is how my survey will go.
First I send out questionnaires to a sample group world wide.
Second I artfully craft the questions so the black people don't know it's about them.
Third once I get the questionnaires back I discard all the ones from people I don't think are black.

Here are some conclusions I'm sure my survey will reveal.

Black people eat more fried chicken than the general population.
Black people play more basketball than the general population.
Black people eat more watermelon than the general population.

Now I can assure everyone here that just because I'm a member of the Klu Klux Klan I am going into this survey with no preconceived notions about black people.

Now before I launch my survey I will go to a black people forum and start a thread about my survey.
I will then disagree with whatever they have to say and get offended if they don't "get me".
Because, Hey! Debating stuff is just fun right?

 

[sleepy_lioness]

Hi!
I am a member of the Klu Klux Klan and I want to do a survey to see if black people share any common traits.

My definition of black people is any people I think are black.

Here is how my survey will go.
First I send out questionnaires to a sample group world wide.
Second I artfully craft the questions so the black people don't know it's about them.
Third once I get the questionnaires back I discard all the ones from people I don't think are black.

Here are some conclusions I'm sure my survey will reveal.

Black people eat more fried chicken than the general population.
Black people play more basketball than the general population.
Black people eat more watermelon than the general population.

Now I can assure everyone here that just because I'm a member of the Klu Klux Klan I am going into this survey with no preconceived notions about black people.

Now before I launch my survey I will go to a black people forum and start a thread about my survey.
I will then disagree with whatever they have to say and get offended if they don't "get me".
Because, Hey! Debating stuff is just fun right?

Don't forget: And black people have such lovely white teeth and natural rhythm.

 

[Brattus]

Don't forget: And black people have such lovely white teeth and natural rhythm.

Those are positive things right? I'm not being offensive or demeaning to black people at all.
Why I'll bet I could even help black people with my survey.

 

[JonathanQuick]

Dear Christian,
Professor Brooks of Syracuse University wrote a book titled Who Really Cares.

In it, he reported his findings, which surprised him, showing that atheists are much less giving, less generous than Christians are.
Atheists give less to their relatives, give less to their friends, give less to secular charities, and even give less of their time to organizations we all think of as useful and good. Why? Why matters less than the fact itself, as Professor Brooks explains so convincingly.

You can claim that others are giving for what YOU consider to be the "wrong" reason.
But for you to judge their motivations requires you to see their heart, and this you truly cannot do.

Atheists give less blood than Christians do. Much less.

Atheists are not the only category of American who is, well, "stingy." No, liberals are far less generous than conservatives. Individuals on welfare are likewise far less giving, less generous than those who earn their way in this world. And finally, Professor Brooks explains that the fourth category is married people. They are more giving than those who are single.

His findings overturn the widespread claim by the left that conservatives are "greedy" and liberals are "compassionate."

But facts matter little to those on the left.

 

[Brainache]

Dear Christian,
Professor Brooks of Syracuse University wrote a book titled Who Really Cares.

In it, he reported his findings, which surprised him, showing that atheists are much less giving, less generous than Christians are.
Atheists give less to their relatives, give less to their friends, give less to secular charities, and even give less of their time to organizations we all think of as useful and good. Why? Why matters less than the fact itself, as Professor Brooks explains so convincingly.

You can claim that others are giving for what YOU consider to be the "wrong" reason.
But for you to judge their motivations requires you to see their heart, and this you truly cannot do.

Atheists give less blood than Christians do. Much less.

Atheists are not the only category of American who is, well, "stingy." No, liberals are far less generous than conservatives. Individuals on welfare are likewise far less giving, less generous than those who earn their way in this world. And finally, Professor Brooks explains that the fourth category is married people. They are more giving than those who are single.

His findings overturn the widespread claim by the left that conservatives are "greedy" and liberals are "compassionate."

But facts matter little to those on the left.

Of course Prof. Brooks has no personal bias at all, just like you Mr Quick. I find it a bit strange that anyone would expect people relying on welfare to be able to give anything to anyone, seeing as how the reason they are on welfare is because they are poor. Bizarre.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Where's that laughing dog?

DL for Dog Laughing.

 

[JonathanQuick]

Of course Prof. Brooks has no personal bias at all, just like you Mr Quick. I find it a bit strange that anyone would expect people relying on welfare to be able to give anything to anyone, seeing as how the reason they are on welfare is because they are poor. Bizarre.

Professor Brooks identified himself as a "liberal." After all, "public education is a socialist monopoly, a real one." - Milton Friedman

What YOU find "a bit strange" was completely adjusted for class.
In other words, poor people COULD give blood. But they do not.
People on welfare COULD donate their time. But they do not.
Welfare moms COULD give something comparable to what working individuals give ceteris paribus. But they don't.

You see, the left, which category clearly includes you, almost never tries to interpret what is said in context.

Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams have written extensively on "the poor" and the unemployed. It seems that people who pay no income taxes, i.e. "the poor," spend about $2.00 for every $1.00 they report as earnings.

Magic, no?

On the other hand, if Obama's Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner can get away with dodging taxes, why don't all Democrats do the same.

 

[Sledge]

What YOU find "a bit strange" was completely adjusted for class.
In other words, poor people COULD give blood. But they do not.
People on welfare COULD donate their time. But they do not.
Welfare moms COULD give something comparable to what working individuals give ceteris paribus. But they don't.

I've been unemployed. My father has been unemployed. So I'd like you to consider that I know what I'm talking about when I say you're talking out of your arse. Unemployed people, if they're genuinely looking for work, DON'T HAVE THE TIME OR MONEY TO DO THESE THINGS.
"Shall I donate blood or my time to charity today? Well, I could. But that'll take bus fare to get me where I need to go. That bus fare would be better spent on getting me to an interview. If I donate time, that's time I can't spend looking for work. If I donate money, then I donate money. I don't have enough money to spare, because the money I'm given is the bare minimum I need to survive."

But hey, you believe whatever you need to to get you through the night. If thinking that poor people are selfish helps you sleep, then ok.

 

[Brattus]

I've been unemployed. My father has been unemployed. So I'd like you to consider that I know what I'm talking about when I say you're talking out of your arse. Unemployed people, if they're genuinely looking for work, DON'T HAVE THE TIME OR MONEY TO DO THESE THINGS.
"Shall I donate blood or my time to charity today? Well, I could. But that'll take bus fare to get me where I need to go. That bus fare would be better spent on getting me to an interview. If I donate time, that's time I can't spend looking for work. If I donate money, then I donate money. I don't have enough money to spare, because the money I'm given is the bare minimum I need to survive."

But hey, you believe whatever you need to to get you through the night. If thinking that poor people are selfish helps you sleep, then ok.

I'm gonna guess that through the eyes of the far right poor people are too busy trading in their welfare dollars for dope and committing crimes to properly give to their community.

Of course the one thing Mr. Quicks survey couldn't and wouldn't show is the level and manner of charity given by the poor.

When a rich person gives away (tax write off) tons of money it makes the papers and everyone is talking about what a generous person they are.
But, there is no real personal sacrifice to the rich. Their jet will still be fueled up and ready to take them to whatever country they want to have lunch in today.
Their resources are vast so their gestures are grand.

When a poor person gives help to another poor person it is in small ways.
The neighbor 2 doors down sprained their ankle and can't walk to their part time temp job so the other neighbor gives them their bus pass to use while they walk the 4 miles to a job interview they know they have very slim chance of getting but they still have to try.
Even though the dollar amount compared to what the rich gave is non exist the personal sacrifice involved makes it far more valuable.

That is the type of giving that will never show up in surveys.

 

[JonathanQuick]

I've been unemployed. My father has been unemployed. So I'd like you to consider that I know what I'm talking about when I say you're talking out of your arse. Unemployed people, if they're genuinely looking for work, DON'T HAVE THE TIME OR MONEY TO DO THESE THINGS.

You're confused. I didn't write the book. Professor Arthur C. Brooks did.
Professor Brooks said that Christians give more than atheists.
Professor Brooks said that conservatives give more than liberals.
Professor Brooks said that working people are more generous than welfare cases.

And Professor Brooks said that he classified himself as a liberal.
He was amazed at his findings. As a "compassionate" (ha, ha, ha) liberal, Brooks EXPECTED to verify the liberal mantra that THEY are "compassionate" (ha, ha, ha). But his findings proved exactly the opposite. He checked them again and again, but the facts were what they were, and to his credit, Brooks reported them.

Argue with him.

"///I don't have enough money to spare, because the money I'm given is the bare minimum I need to survive."

Uh huh. You might read about the widow who gave her mite in the church. Jesus cited her as having given more than anyone else. Besides which, there are other ways to give. You can lend a helping hand, unlike the blue staters in New York City, who watched and listened for 30 minutes as Kitty Genovese was beaten to death. Google her name and read. It will teach you about how cruel people are.

But hey, you believe whatever you need to to get you through the night. If thinking that poor people are selfish helps you sleep, then ok.

Tell it to Professor Brooks. Then check out the trashy scene after Barack Obama's inauguration. His welfare minions didn't even bother to pick up after themselves. You should be proud.

 

[JonathanQuick]

I'm gonna guess that through the eyes of the far right poor people are too busy trading in their welfare dollars for dope and committing crimes to properly give to their community.

I grew up in poverty. I know all about it. Without going into details, which in any event leftists would use against me instead of considering that I can identify with that which leftists pretend I cannot, I will say that poverty is often transient. It is a condition associated with youth. You finish high school and you have nothing. Net worth throughout America steadily increases with age, on average. Not always, of course. But we look at statistics.

Now I saved my money, and did not buy expensive cars, or flashy things to impress others. I saved and invested wisely. I am now what the average American would call wealthy. I travel to Europe often, and have been to Hawaii many, many times. Walked on the Great Wall of China, the Berlin Wall, ran through the Jardin du Roi, at the Chateau Versailles, at night, alone.
But I always remember my humble roots. And I took my two older brothers, and older sister, and their spouses, to London and Paris for ten days, all at my expense.

Of course the one thing Mr. Quicks survey couldn't and wouldn't show is the level and manner of charity given by the poor.

It was not, I repeat, MY "survey." It was Professor Brooks'. He calls himself a liberal. If you cannot get that simple fact straight, how can you possibly carry on a conversation?

When a rich person gives away (tax write off) tons of money it makes the papers and everyone is talking about what a generous person they are.
But, there is no real personal sacrifice to the rich. Their jet will still be fueled up and ready to take them to whatever country they want to have lunch in today.
Their resources are vast so their gestures are grand.

Find for me ONE grand gesture by liberal John Kerry. Just one.

Moreover, Professor Brooks cites the fact that people in Kansas give about the same to charity that the people in San Francisco give. The differences are two:

A. San Franciscans make much, much more than Kansans, and
B. San Franciscans are liberals, and Kansans are conservatives.

Q.E.D.

 

[Marduk]

Find for me ONE grand gesture by liberal John Kerry. Just one.

http://old.nationalreview.com/york/york200403220840.asp

in 2002, he reportedly had an income of $144,091. He paid $29,946 in federal taxes, $7,286 in Massachusetts state taxes, and gave $18,600 to charity.

In 1997, Kerry reportedly had a taxable income of $217,338 and gave $21,795 to charity.
In 1996, Kerry had a taxable income of $143,795 and paid $31,328 in federal taxes and $8,235 in Massachusetts state taxes. He donated $14,325 to charity.

probably not what you wanted

Also, I notice you use the term "leftists" a lot and wondered if you realised that it was a derogatory way of saying "secular" and if so by its use are you deliberately intending to offend people you know nothing about ?

 

[zooterkin]

Also, I notice you use the term "leftists" a lot and wondered if you realised that it was a derogatory way of saying "secular"

It is? Since when? How long have politics been linked to religious belief?

 

[Marduk]

It is? Since when? How long have politics been linked to religious belief?

Since the french revolution, specifically with the term "leftist"
but other than that, are you kidding, when has politics not been linked to religious belief

 

[zooterkin]

Since the french revolution, specifically with the term "leftist"

I've never come across "leftist" as a synonym for "secular" before; to me, they are orthogonal terms. You can be be leftist and religious, or right-wing and secular.

 

[Marduk]

I've never come across "leftist" as a synonym for "secular" before;

the term leftists started with the seating arrangement in the pre revolution french parliament, with the revolutionaries sitting on the left. They were anti aristocracy and as the aristocracy claimed the divine right of kings as their reason d'etre anyone opposing them was by association considered less devout and more secular. So the term leftist in the way that JQ is using it as an insult is a reference to secular revolutionaries who oppose governmental order (Yes I know he's talking crap). I expect he was an ardent bushite too. Things like this can be garnered from his superfluous remarks connected with his veiled insults

What you or anyone else associates with "leftists" is not really what I was asking him.

 

[my_wan]

http://old.nationalreview.com/york/york200403220840.asp
probably not what you wanted

Also, I notice you use the term "leftists" a lot and wondered if you realised that it was a derogatory way of saying "secular" and if so by its use are you deliberately intending to offend people you know nothing about ?

Though a statistical connection exist between secularism and left wing politics, and some right wingers do use "leftists" synonymously with "secular", it falls way short of a de facto definition.

Many right wing atheist exist, and even more left wing theist. Drawing a defining line between the two groups is invalid.

 

[Brattus]

I grew up in poverty. I know all about it. Without going into details, which in any event leftists would use against me instead of considering that I can identify with that which leftists pretend I cannot, I will say that poverty is often transient. It is a condition associated with youth. You finish high school and you have nothing. Net worth throughout America steadily increases with age, on average. Not always, of course. But we look at statistics.

Now I saved my money, and did not buy expensive cars, or flashy things to impress others. I saved and invested wisely. I am now what the average American would call wealthy. I travel to Europe often, and have been to Hawaii many, many times. Walked on the Great Wall of China, the Berlin Wall, ran through the Jardin du Roi, at the Chateau Versailles, at night, alone.
But I always remember my humble roots. And I took my two older brothers, and older sister, and their spouses, to London and Paris for ten days, all at my expense.



It was not, I repeat, MY "survey." It was Professor Brooks'. He calls himself a liberal. If you cannot get that simple fact straight, how can you possibly carry on a conversation?



Find for me ONE grand gesture by liberal John Kerry. Just one.

Moreover, Professor Brooks cites the fact that people in Kansas give about the same to charity that the people in San Francisco give. The differences are two:

A. San Franciscans make much, much more than Kansans, and
B. San Franciscans are liberals, and Kansans are conservatives.

Q.E.D.

You brought the survey to the table. So own it.
I'll bet you're a white guy. I'll also bet your idea of growing up poor is you had to wear the same pair of shoes once for an entire month.

John who?

The cost of living in San Francisco is quite a bit more than in Kansas.

 

[zooterkin]

the term leftists started with the seating arrangement in the pre revolution french parliament, with the revolutionaries sitting on the left. They were anti aristocracy and as the aristocracy claimed the divine right of kings as their reason d'etre anyone opposing them was by association considered less devout and more secular. So the term leftist in the way that JQ is using it as an insult is a reference to secular revolutionaries who oppose governmental order (Yes I know he's talking crap). I expect he was an ardent bushite too. Things like this can be garnered from his superfluous remarks connected with his veiled insults

What you or anyone else associates with "leftists" is not really what I was asking him.

Let's go back and look at what you said:

Also, I notice you use the term "leftists" a lot and wondered if you realised that it was a derogatory way of saying "secular" and if so by its use are you deliberately intending to offend people you know nothing about ?

Please explain in exactly what circles "leftist" is ("is", note, not "was, some time in the 18th century") a derogatory way of saying "secular". I'm not even sure you've made the case that was used in the way you imply; it may have been meant to be derogatory, and the people it was applied to may have been more secular, but that doesn't mean that "leftist" was intended as a derogatory way of actually saying someone was secular. All that said, why would anyone now be using it in that way?