What is worse, racism or rape?

[LordKiran]

Eddie, your constant attempts to psychoanalyze me is touching, but you appear to be projecting and talking more about yourself than anybody else.

He's not psychoanalyzing anyone. He's calling you a hypocrite.

 

[sharon45]

So now we have gone from the claim that religion is never the cause of anything bad and only an excuse to you don't know because the majority is religious. We are making progress. Keep peddling.

Next perhaps you will realize the two are at least correlated. Then you may ponder how religion has unique bigotries and creates some unique negative behaviour.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/dispatches/2014/08/24/the-relationship-between-religion

The running theme of all the studies on religion I've heard is that it strengthens in-group / out-group behaviours.

No, it weakens them.

Christians are much nicer to other Christians than atheists are towards each other.

Then say they are supposedly nicer to each other as victims and enablers, instead of confusing that with strength.

I think humans have an instinct to want to be part of an in-group.

We are extremely successful social animals, so we are naturally going to want to communicate and work well with each other.

As well as instinct of identifying and socially punishing those in the out-group.

No, toward those that do not want to communicate and work well with each other.

At it's most core level I think that's all religion is. The rest is fluff.

Religion is lies embedded with obfuscating fluff.

But most importantly, we can't turn it off.

Who can't turn it off? In the case of Christianity, that was never honestly on in the first place.

This is an intrinsic part of what it means to be human.

Not when we are very much still social animals.

And whether or not we call it religion is irrelevant.

It is important to truly recognize such things.

We're always part of some in-group or another.

We're the in-group of extremely successful social animals, who ought to want to keep it that way.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Eddie, your constant attempts to psychoanalyze me is touching, but you appear to be projecting and talking more about yourself than anybody else.

He's not psychoanalyzing anyone. He's calling you a hypocrite.

 

[laughing dog]

Eddie, your constant attempts to psychoanalyze me is touching, but you appear to be projecting and talking more about yourself than anybody else.

He's not psychoanalyzing anyone. He's calling you a hypocrite.

I think it was a long-winded and kind way of saying a dim-witted poseur.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Eddie, your constant attempts to psychoanalyze me is touching, but you appear to be projecting and talking more about yourself than anybody else.

He's not psychoanalyzing anyone. He's calling you a hypocrite.

As I said, he speaks of himself. It's called projection.

Would be nice if we actually stuck to topics, but apparently that is too much to ask for around here.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

First we have this:

I ignored that response from him, figuring he was trolling, as the fallacy was rather blatantly obvious. I'm still not convinced it wasn't a troll post. Nobody can be that dense.

...and then later:

Would be nice if we actually stuck to topics, but apparently that is too much to ask for around here.

 

[laughing dog]

He's not psychoanalyzing anyone. He's calling you a hypocrite.

As I said, he speaks of himself. It's called projection.

No, he nailed your MO exactly.

Would be nice if we actually stuck to topics, but apparently that is too much to ask for around here.

Hypocrisy or irony?

 

[LordKiran]

He's not psychoanalyzing anyone. He's calling you a hypocrite.

As I said, he speaks of himself. It's called projection.

Would be nice if we actually stuck to topics, but apparently that is too much to ask for around here.

Pointing out discrepancy in your rhetoric is not projection. The fact that he chose to highlight this may be, but whether or not that is the case, that doesn't in any way make you any less of a hypocrite.

 

[DrZoidberg]

The running theme of all the studies on religion I've heard is that it strengthens in-group / out-group behaviours. Christians are much nicer to other Christians than atheists are towards each other. That's supported by study. But atheists are nicer to people who aren't like them. Christians are meaner to non-Christians. There's a value to be part of an in-group.

In a comparison between atheists and Christians IN PARTICULAR this is certainly true, at least to the extent that Christianity as an entire religion can be generalized like that. It would be interesting to compare, say, Evangelical Christians to Roman Catholics, Latin Catholics or even Eastern Orthodox Christians as far as ingroup/outgroup behaviors. OTOH, it would be just as interesting to compare, say, agnostics and passive atheists to positive atheists or secular humanists.

To spell out what I mean... even if we destroy all religion... this pattern will remain. I still think it's good to destroy theism. I think that's pure harm. But religion as such I have no problems with.

This.

I think in-group and out-group behaviours work in dichotomies. If we life in a world where most people are Catholic then being a Catholic is a worthless in-group. Instead we care about what type of Catholic we are. It's turtles all the way down. There's in-groups, and in-in-in-groups. So the idea that the world would be filled with generosity and love if everybody would be Catholic, I think is folly. It's better to just aim to be part of an in-group that will help you in life, for whatever you want to get done. Religious or otherwise.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

It is best to be mindful of in group/outgroup psychology, to minimize it's effect on you, and also to not attach importance to trivial differences (like race) and make prejudgments of individuals on them.

Unfortunately tribalism is part of human nature, so I think that's the best we can do. And unfortunately religion encourages the opposite approach.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

In a comparison between atheists and Christians IN PARTICULAR this is certainly true, at least to the extent that Christianity as an entire religion can be generalized like that. It would be interesting to compare, say, Evangelical Christians to Roman Catholics, Latin Catholics or even Eastern Orthodox Christians as far as ingroup/outgroup behaviors. OTOH, it would be just as interesting to compare, say, agnostics and passive atheists to positive atheists or secular humanists.

To spell out what I mean... even if we destroy all religion... this pattern will remain. I still think it's good to destroy theism. I think that's pure harm. But religion as such I have no problems with.

This.

I think in-group and out-group behaviours work in dichotomies. If we life in a world where most people are Catholic then being a Catholic is a worthless in-group. Instead we care about what type of Catholic we are. It's turtles all the way down. There's in-groups, and in-in-in-groups. So the idea that the world would be filled with generosity and love if everybody would be Catholic, I think is folly. It's better to just aim to be part of an in-group that will help you in life, for whatever you want to get done. Religious or otherwise.

I was thinking something along exactly those lines, but you put it more clearly than I could have. In-groups are a relative rather than an absolute thing; religious beliefs would only strongly encourage in-group thinking in an environment where out-groups actually belong to different religions. That isn't necessarily the case even in very diverse communities, where people are sometimes united more strongly by politics, racial background, sports fandom, social circles or even by profession than by religion.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

It is best to be mindful of in group/outgroup psychology, to minimize it's effect on you, and also to not attach importance to trivial differences (like race) and make prejudgments of individuals on them.

Unfortunately tribalism is part of human nature, so I think that's the best we can do. And unfortunately religion encourages the opposite approach.

So are you telling us that when you meet a devoutly religious person we should assume that this person will attach importance to trivial differences and is prone to make prejudgements based on them?

 

[DrZoidberg]

It is best to be mindful of in group/outgroup psychology, to minimize it's effect on you, and also to not attach importance to trivial differences (like race) and make prejudgments of individuals on them.

Unfortunately tribalism is part of human nature, so I think that's the best we can do. And unfortunately religion encourages the opposite approach.

That depends what your goal is. Do you want to be successful or make the world a better place. If I had to pick one I know which one I'm aiming for. I don't have a Jesus complex.

 

[LordKiran]

It is best to be mindful of in group/outgroup psychology, to minimize it's effect on you, and also to not attach importance to trivial differences (like race) and make prejudgments of individuals on them.

Unfortunately tribalism is part of human nature, so I think that's the best we can do. And unfortunately religion encourages the opposite approach.

Its also best to not be a hypocrite and keep your views and statements as consistent as possible so people don't call you out and embarrass you when a discrepancy is discovered.

It is further best to take those call outs on the cheek, acknowledge them, and move on with the intent to do better going forward rather than deflect and ignore your own error and in doing so refuse to learn from it. This is considered the mark of a fool where I come from.

 

[LordKiran]

It is best to be mindful of in group/outgroup psychology, to minimize it's effect on you, and also to not attach importance to trivial differences (like race) and make prejudgments of individuals on them.

Unfortunately tribalism is part of human nature, so I think that's the best we can do. And unfortunately religion encourages the opposite approach.

That depends what your goal is. Do you want to be successful or make the world a better place. If I had to pick one I know which one I'm aiming for. I don't have a Jesus complex.

I mean, making the world a better place is pretty nebulous, and can basically be filed under 'success' depending on your outlook.

At any rate, the impetus for making the world a better place should stem from wanting to live in a better world. I know I do. Though at the same time, so does everyone, and everyone has their own idea of what makes a better world. Some of these ideas are mutually exclusive, the result is conflict. So perhaps the bhuddists have it right. If you do nothing you leave nothing undone.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

It is best to be mindful of in group/outgroup psychology, to minimize it's effect on you, and also to not attach importance to trivial differences (like race) and make prejudgments of individuals on them.

Unfortunately tribalism is part of human nature, so I think that's the best we can do. And unfortunately religion encourages the opposite approach.

That depends what your goal is. Do you want to be successful or make the world a better place. If I had to pick one I know which one I'm aiming for. I don't have a Jesus complex.

I guess you would have to define what success means. I would rather live amongst people treated fairly than myself given privilege over others based on some arbitrary characteristic like race, etc. Are you successful if you are merely handed the world?

 

[Toni]

He's not psychoanalyzing anyone. He's calling you a hypocrite.

I think it was a long-winded and kind way of saying a dim-witted poseur.

Either way.

 

[DrZoidberg]

That depends what your goal is. Do you want to be successful or make the world a better place. If I had to pick one I know which one I'm aiming for. I don't have a Jesus complex.

I guess you would have to define what success means. I would rather live amongst people treated fairly than myself given privilege over others based on some arbitrary characteristic like race, etc. Are you successful if you are merely handed the world?

I like privilege. I don't think people truly want equality. I think we all want to be privileged. If not consiously, subconsciously. If most people wanted equality we'd have had it a long time ago. Conclusion = it's just something some people say, but nobody believes in.

The world is full of socialists who stopped being socialist the moment they started making some serious money.

I think that the reason I'm liberal, for multiculturalism, for free trade and globalism, is because I'm the kind of guy it would benefit.

 

[LordKiran]

I guess you would have to define what success means. I would rather live amongst people treated fairly than myself given privilege over others based on some arbitrary characteristic like race, etc. Are you successful if you are merely handed the world?

I like privilege. I don't think people truly want equality. I think we all want to be privileged. If not consiously, subconsciously. If most people wanted equality we'd have had it a long time ago. Conclusion = it's just something some people say, but nobody believes in.

The world is full of socialists who stopped being socialist the moment they started making some serious money.

I think that the reason I'm liberal, for multiculturalism, for free trade and globalism, is because I'm the kind of guy it would benefit.

Now do people want privilege or do people want prosperity? I think the distinction matters. Prosperity need not necessarily come at the expense of others.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I like privilege. I don't think people truly want equality. I think we all want to be privileged. If not consiously, subconsciously. If most people wanted equality we'd have had it a long time ago. Conclusion = it's just something some people say, but nobody believes in.

The world is full of socialists who stopped being socialist the moment they started making some serious money.

I think that the reason I'm liberal, for multiculturalism, for free trade and globalism, is because I'm the kind of guy it would benefit.

Now do people want privilege or do people want prosperity? I think the distinction matters. Prosperity need not necessarily come at the expense of others.

I want a fair and just society as much as it can be. I mean, if you truly just want to enjoy privilege and prosperity for yourself but not others, then, why oppose enslaving others for your benefit?