Are atheists less civilized than normal members of society? - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

For discussion of moral and ethical issues.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14744400
Personal bias aside, the more I observe, the more I become convinced that atheism as a whole appeals more to uncouth and antisocial personalities than to higher society.

Just in comparison, take this popular atheist radio show by a guy who's worked with a mildly-famous media personality Penn Jillette no less.

While of course religion has brought us high art, science and culture, such as the works of Michelango and Newtonian physics, the headlines for the episodes of this podcast include such classy topics as "fuck the Pope", "buttplugs", "porn", and "were humans conceived from rape". Sounds like he's likely been inspired too much by Marquis de Sade if you ask me.

Why is it atheists would listen to deviants who are so socially maladjusted that they'd likely not even qualify for a career as a McDonald's cashier, rather than to men of enlightenment and spirituality, such as the Founding Fathers? The company they keep says a lot about them.

And one can't just say this is some fringe crazy atheist from the corner of the internet either; seeing as he's a companion of Penn Jillette, and therefore a representative of "New Atheism" as an entire movement.

No wonder that studies find that atheists are less trusted than rapists, atheists have only their own degenerate ilk to blame for that. Hah hah.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/rel ... 51777612/1

Image

http://tunein.com/radio/Ardent-Atheist- ... y-p394883/
#14744517
Some other important data come out just last week – the latest update of the Social Progress Index.This also is a mammoth undertaking, painstakingly assessing the nations of the world against a battery of benchmarks divided into three categories: “Basic Human Needs”, “Foundations of Wellbeing” (health and basic education), and “Opportunity” – personal rights, freedom, tolerance and advanced education.

So here’s the question. Are the two correlated in some way – and if so, how? I downloaded the data to find out.

Gallup surveyed 65,000 people in 65 countries, asking them a simple question: are you religious, not religious, or a confirmed atheist (or ‘don’t know) – Washington Post has the data. I pooled together the confirmed atheists with the not religious, to get the total number who are not religious. Some countries didn’t have full data in the Social Progress Index, leaving a total of 59.

I divided these 59 countries into thirds according to how ‘non-religious’ they are. In the top third, most people (60%) were not religious (The Wa-Po has a graphic listing 17 of them).

As you can see in the graph, the non-religious countries scored highest on the Social Progress Index, and the most religious countries scored worst.

This trend was apparent across all three categories. Non-religious nations were better at meeting basic human needs and providing the foundations of wellbeing, and at providing freedom and opportunity. Nonreligious nations are simply more free.
...
Back in 2009 I showed the less religious countries were also more peaceful, and research since then has shown that they are more democratic, have less corruption, more telephones, do better at science, have less inequality and other problems, and are generally just less dysfunctional and have better quality of life.

- See more at: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/epiphenom/ ... -show.html
#14744518
a representative of "New Atheism" as an entire movement.


That is an entirely American phenomenon. In Europe, people just don't give a fuck. Your evangelicanism is seen with the same amused amazement as believing in fairies, while Islam is rightly regarded as an aggressive and dangerous cult.
#14744704
The new atheism:

In practice, it is a crude, reductive, and highly selective critique that owes its popular and commercial success almost entirely to the “war on terror” and its utility as an intellectual instrument of imperialist geopolitics.


The new atheists may be cheer leaders for bombing the crap out of everybody, but they are hardly its chief instigators. (But I'm guessing this is not what Scheherazade has in mind when he talks about "less civilized.")

The new atheism has taken hold in the US because it's silly (like libertarianism) and we like our ideologies flat, boring, and hyperbolic.

I like the attitude of the US founders. They viewed religion as a necessary check on the passions of the mob, but the educated patrician was expected to rise above sectarianism.
#14744786
Frollein wrote:That is an entirely American phenomenon. In Europe, people just don't give a fuck. Your evangelicanism is seen with the same amused amazement as believing in fairies, while Islam is rightly regarded as an aggressive and dangerous cult.

No wonder they're being Islamized, if your assessment is correct seems that Islamic expansion might actually be the cure for their moral ills after all, albeit a harsh one.

People who stand for nothing, or 'don't give a fuck' will fall for anything, so if Eurasia happens, it'll be deserved.

Those who 'don't give a fuck' deserve to be conquered and subjegated by those who do, as giving a fuck about anything is morally superior to giving one about nothing. Hence why in that way, I admire the Islamic world more than nihilistic Westerners who wallow in their own life's meaningless.
#14744832
You misrepresent what I wrote. Atheists in Europe don't give a fuck about your superstitious beliefs, they don't actively seek to "convert" you to rationalism like their American brethren. That doesn't mean they are nihilists - and the influx of Islam is not due to them, but to our capitalist overlords.
#14744838
@Frollein, @Frollein,
Frollein wrote:You misrepresent what I wrote. Atheists in Europe don't give a fuck about your superstitious beliefs, they don't actively seek to "convert" you to rationalism like their American brethren. That doesn't mean they are nihilists - and the influx of Islam is not due to them, but to our capitalist overlords.

No, 'rationalism' is the problem, since empirical "evidence" is inferior to logical or mathematical evidence, which coincidentally seem to prove the existence of objective morality, so rationalism should be actively opposed and eliminated in favor of arguments for objective morality based on logic or the formal laws of the universe, like that of philsophers like Godel.

Rationalism might play a role in the high suicide rates of Europeans and Britons, since even if not every rationalist is truly a nihilist, rationalism ties in with nihilism and sociopathy logically:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... ghest-2001
#14744849
No, 'rationalism' is the problem, since empirical "evidence" is inferior to logical or mathematical evidence,


Inferior how? Empirical evidence is what proves or disproves any theory. I do understand that fundamentalists have a problem with rational thinking. Reality is a bitch sometimes.

which coincidentally seem to prove the existence of objective morality,


Morality is subjective, so math doesn't prove anything in that regard.

so rationalism should be actively opposed and eliminated in favor of arguments for objective morality based on logic or the formal laws of the universe, like that of philsophers like Godel.


What's "objective" morality? The one that someone claimed he was told by an invisible voice coming from a burning bush? The rational answer to that would be to advise the guy to go easy on the 'shrooms, but hey. I'm one of those apathetic atheists who lets others believe what they want as long as they leave me alone.
#14744863
Frollein wrote:
Inferior how? Empirical evidence is what proves or disproves any theory.

Not at all, logical evfdence overrides emperical evidence, since logic is based on universals which apply to everyone, and never change.

While empirical evidence is deduced merely by the external senses, therefore far more subjective (since not all observers have equal hearing and vision for example), and therefore inferior and less reliable.
I do understand that fundamentalists have a problem with rational thinking. Reality is a bitch sometimes.
[/quote]
Reality is defined by the formal laws of the universe, not silly 'emperical' evidence which is decades behind the former, which is why philosophers such as Aristotle logically deduced everything from the existence of atoms to the Big Bang long before Darwin, modern physics, etc.

The 'scientific method' only catches up to philosophy.

which coincidentally seem to prove the existence of objective morality,


Morality is subjective
[/quote]
Morality is objective and universal, denying this fact is no different than pretending to believe "2 + 2 = 5"

What's "objective" morality? The one that someone claimed he was told by an invisible voice coming from a burning bush? The rational answer to that would be to advise the guy to go easy on the 'shrooms, but hey. I'm one of those apathetic atheists who lets others believe what they want as long as they leave me alone.

Moral beliefs that fail logical tests are inferior to those which are logically consistent.

For example, people who pretend that morality is subjective would have to have no problem with Jeffery Dahmer killing and eating people if it 'feels right to him' - since they do have a problem with it, this proves deep down they know morality is objective.
#14744866
Rancid wrote:
You sure about that? Just the title of the thread shows a large amount of bias.

Anyway, shit thread is shit.

I am biased because atheists are doing the work of evil and attempting to destroy society and culture in favor of moral decadence, whether they realize it or not. They're sheep being led by the devil.

So it's hard not to be biased against them, just like if I was a member of the Allied forces fighting the Nazis, it'd be hard not to hate the members of the Nazi army.
#14744878
Scheherazade wrote:Rationalism might play a role in the high suicide rates of Europeans and Britons, since even if not every rationalist is truly a nihilist, rationalism ties in with nihilism and sociopathy logically:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... ghest-2001

The UK suicide rate in 2014 - 10.8 per 100,000 - was lower than the USA's - 13.0 per 100,000.
#14744895
Scheherazade wrote:I am biased because atheists are doing the work of evil and attempting to destroy society and culture in favor of moral decadence, whether they realize it or not. They're sheep being led by the devil.

So it's hard not to be biased against them, just like if I was a member of the Allied forces fighting the Nazis, it'd be hard not to hate the members of the Nazi army.


I understand. Fighting off the demon hordes of Atheist is going to be a real challenge though. Quite possibly more difficult than Nazi Germany.
#14744953
Scheherazade wrote:No wonder that studies find that atheists are less trusted than rapists, atheists have only their own degenerate ilk to blame for that. Hah hah.


Yeah, the most important part of faith is not being a fucking jackass that kicks you in the teeth.

In many Christian faiths, wine is turned into blood. I did this quite often as a kid. It makes no sense.

I respect and even admire that: Easter service at the church is beautiful. But if you think that we're rapists, well...
#14744988
Scheherazade wrote:Personal bias aside, the more I observe, the more I become convinced that atheism as a whole appeals more to uncouth and antisocial personalities than to higher society.

Just in comparison, take this popular atheist radio show by a guy who's worked with a mildly-famous media personality Penn Jillette no less.

While of course religion has brought us high art, science and culture, such as the works of Michelango and Newtonian physics, the headlines for the episodes of this podcast include such classy topics as "fuck the Pope", "buttplugs", "porn", and "were humans conceived from rape". Sounds like he's likely been inspired too much by Marquis de Sade if you ask me.

Why is it atheists would listen to deviants who are so socially maladjusted that they'd likely not even qualify for a career as a McDonald's cashier, rather than to men of enlightenment and spirituality, such as the Founding Fathers? The company they keep says a lot about them.

And one can't just say this is some fringe crazy atheist from the corner of the internet either; seeing as he's a companion of Penn Jillette, and therefore a representative of "New Atheism" as an entire movement.

No wonder that studies find that atheists are less trusted than rapists, atheists have only their own degenerate ilk to blame for that. Hah hah.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/rel ... 51777612/1

Image

http://tunein.com/radio/Ardent-Atheist- ... y-p394883/


May I ask you what religion you follow, Scheherazade?
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 28
Trump's Dumb Economics

Trump isn't ''panicking''. You're assuming he's '[…]

Antifa shit stomped a gay asian immigrant. :lol:[…]

“Environmental Scares: Yesterday and Today” - Rupe[…]

How ISIS replenishes its ranks

@Palmyrene Your claim is anyone can randomly i[…]