stereotypes about non-religious behavior

[masterpeastheater]

Thinking back on my religious childhood I was pretty much taught a lot of nasty stereotypes about the behavior of those who are not uber-christian.
They party all the time, sleep around, do a ton of drugs every weekend,
Jerk it like 6 times a day to porn, etc. In fact I have found most people do this stuff as a phase when young or hardly at all. So what gives?

 

[Keith&Co.]

There are a couple of jokes that come to mind.
-------
There are two kinds of people in this world. Those that masturbate and those that lie about it.
-------
It is important for all of us -- of all faiths -- to recognize these four Religious Truths:

1. Muslims do not recognize Jews as God's chosen people.
2. Jews do not recognize Jesus as the Messiah.
3. Protestants do not recognize the Pope as the leader of the Christian world.
4. Southern Baptists do not recognize each other at Hooters.
----

The behavior of the faithful and the non-believers isn't all that different, just how much they'll admit to, and how prepared they are to judge people for it.

 

[Underseer]

It's not that hard to understand.

Religion can't make people more moral. This has been obvious since the Euthyphro dilemma was proposed thousands of years ago, if not before. The claim that religion makes people more moral is just a marketing gimmick. If you believe that your religion makes you more moral, then you will be terrified of questioning your religion for fear that doing so will cause you to become a bad person.

Since the man in the pulpit can't possibly prove that religion makes you more moral, he has to make up stories about people who are not religious or not sufficiently religious in order to convince you that your religion makes you more moral. As long as the congregation buys into his claim that outsiders are less moral, then they will believe that their religion makes them more moral.

Ta daa!

No need to use any of that pesky logic stuff to prove your claim that religion makes you more moral. Good thing, because logic pretty much refutes that. No need to use actual data to prove that religion makes you more moral. Since there is no valid way to prove the truth claim, lies and fallacies are all that remain.

 

[credoconsolans]

It's not that hard to understand.

Religion can't make people more moral. This has been obvious since the Euthyphro dilemma was proposed thousands of years ago, if not before. The claim that religion makes people more moral is just a marketing gimmick. If you believe that your religion makes you more moral, then you will be terrified of questioning your religion for fear that doing so will cause you to become a bad person.

Since the man in the pulpit can't possibly prove that religion makes you more moral, he has to make up stories about people who are not religious or not sufficiently religious in order to convince you that your religion makes you more moral. As long as the congregation buys into his claim that outsiders are less moral, then they will believe that their religion makes them more moral.

Ta daa!

No need to use any of that pesky logic stuff to prove your claim that religion makes you more moral. Good thing, because logic pretty much refutes that. No need to use actual data to prove that religion makes you more moral. Since there is no valid way to prove the truth claim, lies and fallacies are all that remain.

But they get away with it by cutting loose those who do not conform.

"Belief in god makes you more moral."
"What about evangelical minister XYZ who had an adulterous affair?"
"Oh, he wasn't a REAL believer."

These Christians and Moslems, etc., have had over 1000 years to come up with an answer to any critique, whether it makes sense or not.

 

[Underseer]

It's not that hard to understand.

Religion can't make people more moral. This has been obvious since the Euthyphro dilemma was proposed thousands of years ago, if not before. The claim that religion makes people more moral is just a marketing gimmick. If you believe that your religion makes you more moral, then you will be terrified of questioning your religion for fear that doing so will cause you to become a bad person.

Since the man in the pulpit can't possibly prove that religion makes you more moral, he has to make up stories about people who are not religious or not sufficiently religious in order to convince you that your religion makes you more moral. As long as the congregation buys into his claim that outsiders are less moral, then they will believe that their religion makes them more moral.

Ta daa!

No need to use any of that pesky logic stuff to prove your claim that religion makes you more moral. Good thing, because logic pretty much refutes that. No need to use actual data to prove that religion makes you more moral. Since there is no valid way to prove the truth claim, lies and fallacies are all that remain.

But they get away with it by cutting loose those who do not conform.

"Belief in god makes you more moral."
"What about evangelical minister XYZ who had an adulterous affair?"
"Oh, he wasn't a REAL believer."

These Christians and Moslems, etc., have had over 1000 years to come up with an answer to any critique, whether it makes sense or not.

Oh yeah.

Christians and Muslims--whether moderate or fundamentalist--simply love the no true Scotsman fallacy during debates about morality, and it's almost always used precisely the way you say: "He isn't a real Christian/Muslim, therefore my claim that my religion makes me morally superior is correct."

Every damn time.

Worse, it is nearly impossible to explain to them that this is a logical fallacy that cannot support a conclusion ("But I define Christian/Muslim as a morally superior person, therefore this is not a no true Scotsman fallacy, therefore my claim that Christianity/Islam makes people morally superior is true. What's a circular argument?").

 

[credoconsolans]

But they get away with it by cutting loose those who do not conform.

"Belief in god makes you more moral."
"What about evangelical minister XYZ who had an adulterous affair?"
"Oh, he wasn't a REAL believer."

These Christians and Moslems, etc., have had over 1000 years to come up with an answer to any critique, whether it makes sense or not.

Oh yeah.

Christians and Muslims--whether moderate or fundamentalist--simply love the no true Scotsman fallacy during debates about morality, and it's almost always used precisely the way you say: "He isn't a real Christian/Muslim, therefore my claim that my religion makes me morally superior is correct."

Every damn time.

Worse, it is nearly impossible to explain to them that this is a logical fallacy that cannot support a conclusion ("But I define Christian/Muslim as a morally superior person, therefore this is not a no true Scotsman fallacy, therefore my claim that Christianity/Islam makes people morally superior is true. What's a circular argument?").

When I get into that situation with someone, I usually have to zing them with the

"Determining who a REAL Christian is is not your decision to make"

 

[Shake]

It's not that hard to understand.

Religion can't make people more moral. This has been obvious since the Euthyphro dilemma was proposed thousands of years ago, if not before. The claim that religion makes people more moral is just a marketing gimmick. If you believe that your religion makes you more moral, then you will be terrified of questioning your religion for fear that doing so will cause you to become a bad person.

Since the man in the pulpit can't possibly prove that religion makes you more moral, he has to make up stories about people who are not religious or not sufficiently religious in order to convince you that your religion makes you more moral. As long as the congregation buys into his claim that outsiders are less moral, then they will believe that their religion makes them more moral.

Ta daa!

No need to use any of that pesky logic stuff to prove your claim that religion makes you more moral. Good thing, because logic pretty much refutes that. No need to use actual data to prove that religion makes you more moral. Since there is no valid way to prove the truth claim, lies and fallacies are all that remain.

The bolded part above got me thinking: no, you just need some anecdotal evidence. That's usually enough for them.

 

[Underseer]

It's not that hard to understand.

Religion can't make people more moral. This has been obvious since the Euthyphro dilemma was proposed thousands of years ago, if not before. The claim that religion makes people more moral is just a marketing gimmick. If you believe that your religion makes you more moral, then you will be terrified of questioning your religion for fear that doing so will cause you to become a bad person.

Since the man in the pulpit can't possibly prove that religion makes you more moral, he has to make up stories about people who are not religious or not sufficiently religious in order to convince you that your religion makes you more moral. As long as the congregation buys into his claim that outsiders are less moral, then they will believe that their religion makes them more moral.

Ta daa!

No need to use any of that pesky logic stuff to prove your claim that religion makes you more moral. Good thing, because logic pretty much refutes that. No need to use actual data to prove that religion makes you more moral. Since there is no valid way to prove the truth claim, lies and fallacies are all that remain.

The bolded part above got me thinking: no, you just need some anecdotal evidence. That's usually enough for them.

Well sure. In the prices of indoctrination, the flock is essentially trained to accept bad arguments.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The bolded part above got me thinking: no, you just need some anecdotal evidence. That's usually enough for them.

Well sure. In the prices of indoctrination, the flock is essentially trained to accept bad arguments.

Maybe you've got it backwards. Maybe religion springs from the fact that Woo is just easier to comprehend. No biology needed, no alleles, no DNA, no double blind experiments, no paleontology or archaeology. Never a need to question your own conclusions or even make objective observations. Just follow your dopamine and confirmation bias wherever it leads and cling to those cherished delusions. I can certainly see how natural selection would give such behavior a nod, given sufficient resources.

So what we see as religious behavior is as natural as natural gets. That doesn't make it good or desirable, just explains its existence.

 

[_Z500]

Thinking back on my religious childhood I was pretty much taught a lot of nasty stereotypes about the behavior of those who are not uber-christian.
They party all the time, sleep around, do a ton of drugs every weekend,
Jerk it like 6 times a day to porn, etc. In fact I have found most people do this stuff as a phase when young or hardly at all. So what gives?

To be fair, I jerk it a lot and I do drugs every day.