Poor uneducated unintelligent aheists

[tackattack]

My point is that if one is brought up in a belief, that person didn't get a chance to rationally and objectively come up with that belief. That is fundamentally different when compared to how almost all atheists become so. I made no presumption of theism regarding rationality and/or objectivity, because that is rarely the methodology in which people become believers in the first place. The vast majority of believers are indoctrinated into their beliefs during their childhood, by their parents. Like I said, you can teach almost anyone anything from birth and they will probably believe it.

Agreed, no one starts off with any rational or objective beliefs. It all starts off with a conditioned response to expectations presented. Then when they reach the age of reason they can problem solve less on intuition and grow a better egocentric view. Unfortunately, this is also the age when shame and pride seem far more real. I would say that probably has a great deal to do with accepting or rejecting theism. My point was that I teach my kids theism, rationalism, and try not to put any unrealistic expectations on them. I won't deny that some parents unreasonably force expectations on their children, but even the catholic church has an age requirement for claiming belief. My kids are just kids, they're not theists. When and if they choose to pick that up they can, when they can choose rationally.

[Eudaimonia]

I like FaithNoMore's response.. The best state for man to be in .. is a nondelusionary state.. To the end that society moving to help one another move out of delusion is "best"... and educate them out of it...

Let's consider that the "Gods" who prescribed moral behavior through scripture were unsuccessful.. It would then follow that such a prescription for improving human behavior does not work...

The method of taking important principles giving them to one man during a theophany in a remote village.. then hoping that millions of people around the world somehow come in contact with this "news" while breaking barriers of culture and language in order to get to the "wisdom" in the particular book AFTER translation and multiple re-interpretations, is a flawed, poor, unsuccessful and silly way to infuse moral edicts into the psyche of man..

The GODS were unsuccessful... It didn't work...

[Whirling Moat]

Peace....

My point is still that the same. Those that are able to break free from the theistic beliefs they were born into, are generally the more independent thinkers within society. Those that have the capacity to think on that level, are generally not the violent criminals. You choose to ignore this and want us to comment on some hypothetical scenario where the generally uneducated magically take on the viewpoint of the generally educated and then come up with some hypothetical outcome which is influenced by your predetermined view that atheists have no morals. That, of course, is ridiculous.

So are you suggesting that the message of Hitchens and Dawkins cannot be adopted by the uneducated and Poor? is the proposition so far fetched to you that it would require magic? This thread began with the request that we consider the consequences of others accepting the view without the education. Once again this seems difficult for you to grasp since I would imagine the idea of uneducated people accepting atheism seems magical.

Once again education here is the key. It seems that rather than try to help the poor you want to give them religion to comfort them. As you have said, if we educate them they could be moral atheists, and they would no longer have to be poor.

No...I choose empowering the poor and uneducated. However that would be truly magical considering that the money would have to come from somewhere and the United States is facing an imminent Civil War due to the priviledged classes stance against being forced to help with the cost of ensuring that poor people can do things like go to the hospital and put food on the table . How do you think a Bill proposing universal education would go over?

Morals are cultural yes, but theists often assume that they must stem from religion. I don't know if it's because you can't see anyone having morals without religion or what your rationalization for this is. The fact is that religion and morals are mutually exclusive. Having morals does not mean you're religious or that they came from the religious. Being religious does not mean you have morals

I have already stated very clearly that every atheist I have known personally behaved morally consistent with the norms of the culture.

Behaviour which is considered morally correct is very much relative to the Ethos of the civilization or social condition of the time and locale. Groups don't tend to break down into clusters of law abiding and criminal neatly along religious lines. They break down consistent with other factors like income, education and class. If the morality of atheists in some biological imperative you would find a consistent atheist morality extending unaltered throughout time and geographic location. A chinese atheist of 3rd century BCE should espouse the same moral stance as a Bengali of the 20th century and both should be consistent with an atheist living in New York today.

It seems to me that you are inadvertently making the argument that if we just educated the poor and disenfranchised there would be no need for religion. You have said that you understand that the educated atheists have and understand morality but the poor and uneducated don't so they need something to keep them in line. Your problem disappears if we just educate the uneducated and there is no need to further a mass delusion. So education seems to be the answer to the problem, not mass delusion.

Well there aren't enough jobs for everyone even if they were educated and there are still the other isms to deal with.......However, lets say that everyone was Free, received the same Justice as their neighbor, had adequate resources , and had Equal opportunity and education...yeah..You wouldn't need Religion at all..I think the Great Morgan Freeman/Gandalf/Dumbledore/ Sky Daddy would be happy with that.

I understand your concern, Mote, but sweeping the problems under the carpet isn't making it go away.

No, I agree. But the fact that the problem is under the rug is not a mistake...Religion which proposes that man must live subservient to the unjust and await a reward for suffering which will not arrive until the afterlife is in fact an Opiate for the masses. But this indictment of religion should in no way be a sweeping indictment of all spiritual systems. There are spiritual systems which do not purpose to have people wait until after death for reward or to behave properly for financing the Condo in Heaven thing....

Now perhaps someone would like to propose how we go about educating everyone without starting a war...



Whirling Moat

[Eudaimonia]

As a poor college student I educated all three of my children for 10 years on 100 bucks per child per year.. utilizing the free resources of the library, museums, parks and the best free state curriculums via web.. I was so successful the local school board asked for my curriculum.. My babes are now all honor roll students and my eldest is attending a meeting w/ Columbia and Rice today..

Perhaps such views as belief in the "invisible authoritarian as the only way to human progress" blinds one from seeing humanistic solutions...

Universal education does not require war... it does require will and effort to help solve problems however.. rather than distractions into trying to prove belief and faith with science..

The uneducated will not only be less likely to understand Dawkins.. they will not understand much that is necessary to comprehend what the educated produces for and against their benefit.. Irrationality is part and parcel with ignorance..

The type of education where one is centrally beholden to invisible deities is unnecessary either way...

BTW you can be poor and atheist.. you can even be dumb and atheist.. However the likelihood that you will be dumb is lessened when you apply critical thinking to notions of cosmology.. and the likelihood that you increase your interest and learning increases the chance that you will utilize resources to improve your own well being..

As I understand it Norway is the best place for moms to live.. It is wealthy and dominated with atheists..

The alternative is to wait on the Gods to speak to someone in a dream? please..

[Whirling Moat]

Peace....

Nobody lives in Asgard. You answered a question nobody asked. Are you simply in love with your own words or have the meds stopped working?

Yeah..because Asgard doesn't exist. But the Universe exists and requires a Creator in order to make sense.



Whirling Moat

[downbeatplumb]

Yeah..because Asgard doesn't exist. But the Universe exists and requires a Creator in order to make sense.

Saying 'goddidit' is not only wrong but lazy.
Its thinking like this that led to the stagnation of the dark ages.

[Minimalist]

What if the theism that they were raised with included rationality and objectivism.

That would be unique in the history of theism.

[Eudaimonia]

What if the theism that they were raised with included rationality and objectivism.

That would be unique in the history of theism.

I would have to also ask if objectivism included questioning the validity of the beliefs.. without any pressure to conclude that the beliefs are valid.. Seems like atheistic thought would have to be included in the analysis.. I've seen religious groups espouse rational thought towards subjects about anything other than their own beliefs.. No critical analysis going on as to whether their God exists.. makes sense...etc.. and in rare cases where it is attempted the social pressure to come up with the answer that "of course God exists" is too great..

A faith based objectivist community sounds contradictory in real life..

[Whirling Moat]

Peace...

Perhaps such views as belief in the "invisible authoritarian as the only way to human progress" blinds one from seeing humanistic solutions...

Perhaps such a view would be blinding, however it has nothing to do with anything I have said.

Universal education does not require war... it does require will and effort to help solve problems however.. rather than distractions into trying to prove belief and faith with science..

This is actually amusing...You seem to be waxing philosophical about solutions as if they can just be ordered up like extra french fries. You know I bet you could just make this pretty little speech at the United nations and everyone will tear up and declare world peace..

The uneducated will not only be less likely to understand Dawkins.. they will not understand much that is necessary to comprehend what the educated produces for and against their benefit.. Irrationality is part and parcel with ignorance..

I don't agree that the uneducated would fail to understand Dawkins. He makes it a point to present himself in a manner which is apprehendable to the lay person. The uneducated may not have much opportunity to hear dawkins since his venues are typically outside of their areas of interests.

The type of education where one is centrally beholden to invisible deities is unnecessary either way...

Unnecessary in what way? Are you suggesting that this system of beliefs has no utility to the Bourgeoisie?

BTW you can be poor and atheist.. you can even be dumb and atheist.. However the likelihood that you will be dumb is lessened when you apply critical thinking to notions of cosmology.. and the likelihood that you increase your interest and learning increases the chance that you will utilize resources to improve your own well being..

Soo you seem to be saying that becoming atheist increases your chances of being upwardly mobile....Why did you bring that up?

The alternative is to wait on the Gods to speak to someone in a dream? please..

Seems like that has worked alot better than Godlessness.


Whirling Moat

---

Peace...

Yeah..because Asgard doesn't exist. But the Universe exists and requires a Creator in order to make sense.

Saying 'goddidit' is not only wrong but lazy.
Its thinking like this that led to the stagnation of the dark ages.

How is it wrong?



Whirling Moat

[Minimalist]

How is it wrong?

Because once you start with the goddidit shit then the church murders people who say "maybe not."

Giordano Bruno (1548 – February 17, 1600), born Filippo Bruno, was an Italian Dominican friar, philosopher, mathematician and astronomer. His cosmological theories went beyond the Copernican model in proposing that the Sun was essentially a star, and moreover, that the universe was in fact infinite. He was burned at the stake by civil authorities in 1600 after the Roman Inquisition found him guilty of heresy for his pantheism and turned him over to the state, which at that time considered heresy illegal.