Comments on: God made me do it.

God made me do it.

Brian B. — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 12:49:59 -0800

Increased violence linked to scriptures. University of Michigan psychologist Brad Bushman and his colleagues suggest that scriptural violence sanctioned by God can increase aggression, especially in believers.

By: autodidact

autodidact — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 12:50:54 -0800

"especially in believers". Ya think?

By: basicchannel

basicchannel — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 12:54:00 -0800

In other news: water is wet.

By: John of Michigan

John of Michigan — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 12:54:33 -0800

Now, I'm as anti-religious as the next guy (especially if that next guy is Denis Diderot), but true believers in any cause are capable of doing pretty much anything. When was the last time you heard the term zealot as anything but pejorative?

By: dropkick

dropkick — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 13:00:08 -0800

Sooo, what conclusion(s) am I to derive from this lil' nugget of data? That religion is bad? That God doesn't exist? That people shouldn't read the Bible because (according to your link) it does more harm than good? Or are we just to revel in the irony of it all.

By: phrontist

phrontist — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 13:00:15 -0800

Although Vrije students were less likely to be influenced by the source of the material, they blasted more aggressively when the passage that they read included the sanctioning of the violence by God. So reading violent things makes you slightly more agressive in the short term. This says absolutely nothing about religiosity and violence. Meh. Bad science reporting.

By: ZachsMind

ZachsMind — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 13:04:18 -0800

Kill them all. Let Bohandas sort it out. Yakatizma is approaching Tokyo! Run for your lives!

By: ZachsMind

ZachsMind — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 13:05:30 -0800

"what conclusions am I to derive...? 1. Human beings is stoopid. 2. refer to number one.

By: roll truck roll

roll truck roll — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 13:07:02 -0800

It's interesting to me that it has an affect on nonbelievers at all.

By: ZachsMind

ZachsMind — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 13:15:42 -0800

"Kill in the name of your god! Destroy that which your god created! In His Name! He wants you to! What are you waiting for!??" As if any diety would create something solely so that YOU can muss it up. It's the ultimate in both hypocrisy and arrogance. If we're here for any reason, it's to preserve and protect what God made, and our response to such responsibility is the invention of the SUV. We bite. If there was a god in space who actually gave a crap what happens on this planet, s/he/it would strike us all with a bolt of lightning, but that's just too much effort for such pitifully small creatures. A waste of energy, better used anywhere but this pale blue dot. If there's a god who ever gave a crap about anything happening on this spinning rock, he has long since changed the channel. Probably to some kinda space wrestling happening near Betelguese. I'm ashamed to be on the same planet with these people.

By: jfuller

jfuller — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 13:18:48 -0800

> Increased violence linked to scriptures and video games.

By: mrnutty

mrnutty — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 13:19:49 -0800

...as published in the journal "Duh"

By: dropkick

dropkick — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 13:28:22 -0800

ZachsMind: Haven't you read Revelations? Trust me, the bolt of lightning is coming... and then some.

By: roll truck roll

roll truck roll — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 13:34:13 -0800

Sorry to derail, but Revelations is about Rome's persecution of the Jews and early Christians. And I'm a Christian.

By: Burhanistan

Burhanistan — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 13:34:21 -0800

Metafilter + Religion = Usually terrible, inane and terribly inane conversation.

By: kuujjuarapik

kuujjuarapik — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 13:34:45 -0800

Did I miss the lack of a control in this experiment? Was there somewhere just a room full of regular non-Dutch, non-Mormon folks honking away on fire alarms? I'd like to think so, and I'd rather read about that.

By: roll truck roll

roll truck roll — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 13:35:55 -0800

To get back on the rail, ZachsMind, what do you make of the fact that the invocation of God had an affect not only on "these people," but also on the cool atheists like you?

By: toma

toma — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 13:39:00 -0800

It could easily be an indictment of anything written that's violent, like Aesop's Fables.

By: IndigoJones

IndigoJones — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 13:41:07 -0800

Brigham Young University where 99% of students report believing in God and the Bible.... Actually, I found this nugget the most interesting. I'd like details on the lives of the one percent.

By: ZachsMind

ZachsMind — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 13:41:46 -0800

Have I read Revelations? ROTFLMAO!!!! I went to a methodist university. They made me read the whole damned New Testament. Yeah I read it. John was talking about the fall of Rome. Which BURNED. Nero was fiddling while it burned. John wasn't thinking the world he knew would survive his lifetime. He wasn't predicting what would happen two thousand years after he was dead. Why would John give a shit about what would happen two thousand years after he was dead? The thousand years of peace he predicted is what we now know as the Dark Ages, when the Roman Catholic Church ruled with an iron fist and pagans were put in their place. It was heaven on Earth for a select few Christians. Sorry to burst your bubble, but your little strike of lightning happened a long time ago. Any god worth His salt has bigger fish to fry now than this planet and these creatures. WE ARE A FAILED EXPERIMENT. The Book of Revelations already happened. The End Of The World came and went not with a bang but a whisper in high school text books. None of us were here to enjoy it. So what's going on now? At best it's a rerun. At worst, it's sick twisted bastards looking at the book of revelations and similar texts and thinking of them as a blueprint for how they're to get their god's attention and incite The First, Second, or Third Coming (depending on your personal count). It's like there are humans on this planet trying to build a buick with bicycle instructions. Only they're throwing nuclear warheads into the mix. And it's scaring the shit out of me.

By: dw

dw — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 13:44:30 -0800

Metafilter + Religion = Usually terrible, inane and terribly inane conversation. That's ReligionFilter, you unclean heathen.

By: HyperBlue

HyperBlue — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 13:45:57 -0800

For insight on non-Mormon activities please reference SLC Punk.

By: ZachsMind

ZachsMind — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 13:46:47 -0800

Roll Truck Roll: "but also on the cool atheists like you?" Bzzt! Wrong again! If I were an aetheist, I wouldn't feel compelled at all to type a sentence to this thread. I believe in a God. I just don't believe He believes in us any longer. He may have at one time. We let Him down. He's still waiting for us to grow up out of our Terrible Two Temper Tantrums. And he's grown impatient. It's a big universe, and He's got better things to do than pay any attention to whether or not we notice Mother Mary's face on a tortilla. You understand what I'm sayin'? There IS a God. Make no mistake. He's gone fishin'.

By: HyperBlue

HyperBlue — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 13:51:14 -0800

Zachsmind your single-minded interpretation of Revelations resembles that of most believers. Ever hear of literary license, symbolism, or theme? As many here could argue more eloquently than I: Great books are often more than the sum of their letters.

By: nanojath

nanojath — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 13:57:17 -0800

This study lost me at the part where it considered populations of students from the USA and Amsterdam equivalent. Clearly religious belief is the only significant variable in this equation. Of course, this is ameliorated somewhat by the careful establishment of baseline aggression prior to the application of the behavior modifier being studied... oops, nope, didn't do that. As expected, the Brigham Young students were more aggressive (i.e. louder) with their blasts if they had been told... I'm sure the preconception of outcome wasn't unconsciously, nonverbally communicated to the participants in any way as they were provided with instructions on "blasting" their cohorts. I wonder what the population sizes were? Ah, why report something like that, it surely isn't of much significance.

By: interrobang

interrobang — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 14:00:28 -0800

It's "The Book of Revelation", people, not "Revelations". Jeez.

By: roll truck roll

roll truck roll — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 14:00:50 -0800

Bzzt! Wrong again! Okay, I'm out. I really don't know what I said here that pissed you off. Aside from the "cool atheists like you" joke, I was agreeing with you.

By: three blind mice

three blind mice — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 14:01:20 -0800

The authors set out to examine this interaction by conducting experiments with undergraduates at two religiously contrasting universities: Brigham Young University where 99% of students report believing in God and the Bible and Vrije Universiteit in Amsterdam where just 50% report believing in God and 27% believe in the bible. LOL. USA and The Netherlands, Provo and Amsterdam? Apples and oranges baby. Apples and Dutch weed even. I think the authors just wanted a reason to spend time in Amsterdam and I cannot blame them (it's a good place to see God), but to pretend that this is a sober analysis is just bollocks.

By: dropkick

dropkick — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 14:04:46 -0800

The great battle of Armageddon has already happened? The two prophets with command over the elements, smiting the earth with plagues and turning the waters into blood has already transpired? Wow! And I only slept in till 8:30 this morning!

By: Burhanistan

Burhanistan — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 14:07:06 -0800

God wants us to keep evolving until we look like the gray aliens who are kidnapping me and teaching me new methods of multidimensional perception.

By: Burhanistan

Burhanistan — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 14:07:53 -0800

Past that, even. Infinity bound. The New Testament is woefully flawed, mistranslated, omitted, and just plain adulterated.

By: Brian B.

Brian B. — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 14:07:55 -0800

Zachsmind, good point, but maybe he was always gone, and we never let him down. That would mean that everyone who thinks God is running the show down here is worshipping an idol. That would mean that when people say God sent this or that human disaster, they were just being hateful. That would mean that God is really not the jealous sort after all, which makes sense considering there would be nothing for a supreme being to be jealous of. Perhaps this God will be angry at these so-called religious people and commend the atheists who didn't fall for their bad faith. What will God do with the idolators then? Maybe he will put some of them out of their misery. [sigh]

By: Bugbread

Bugbread — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 14:10:28 -0800

HyperBlue writes "Ever hear of literary license, symbolism, or theme?" I'm pretty sure he has, as he's saying that Revelations is about the fall of Rome, and not about actual plagues of locusts, beasts with multiple backs, dragons in deserts, and the like.

By: maxwelton

maxwelton — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 14:11:15 -0800

Is this where Ann Coulter calls god a faggot?

By: toma

toma — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 14:12:47 -0800

Why are the religious seemingly more likely to support war? Do any of you remember the Land Letter? Man, is it ugly.

By: dropkick

dropkick — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 14:22:50 -0800

Zachsmind: A friend was telling me about an experience that happened to him many years ago. A coworker of his was a devout Christian, who had raised the ire of some other nonbelieving coworkers around him. The day after there had been a terrible plane crash which took the lives of several hundred people, one of the nonbelievers slapped down the newspaper with the grim headline and asked angrily, "where was your God yesterday?" The Christian replied: "God doesn't make airplanes. People like you do" The fact of the matter is, God gave us our free agency to do what we will, and He would never intervene to stop us from the power of choice and the associated consequences.

By: mrnutty

mrnutty — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 14:28:14 -0800

The fact of the matter is, God gave us our free agency to do what we will, and He would never intervene to stop us from the power of choice and the associated consequences. "Fact", LOL

By: CKmtl

CKmtl — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 14:28:21 -0800

Eh, would be a better idea to read the original article before blasting it. Crap science reporting doesn't necessarily mean crap science. To me, this experiment seems like a variation upon the classic Milgram and Bandura experiments. Some authority figure (whitecoat or adult, respectively) somehow sanctions some form of Being A Dick To Others, so people Act Like Dicks To Others. In this case, the authority figure is god / the bible. Whether or not the bible is a good authority figure is separate from the experiment. Obligatory lolxians and loldutch-multiple-vowels. And yes, Revelation. on preview: dropkick - that's not a "fact" of any matter. It's a belief of the matter.

By: dropkick

dropkick — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 14:30:13 -0800

mrnutty and CKmtl: It's a fact to me.

By: maxwelton

maxwelton — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 14:30:49 -0800

Hm.

By: dropkick

dropkick — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 14:33:32 -0800

maxwelton: Niiice. Thanks for the chuckle.

By: RockCorpse

RockCorpse — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 14:34:26 -0800

This thread needs a Godwin to pull it out of the nosedive.

By: mrnutty

mrnutty — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 14:36:01 -0800

You know who else believed in god? The Nazis

By: dropkick

dropkick — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 14:44:31 -0800

You know who else believed in god? The Nazis DUN! DUN! DUNNNN!!

By: roll truck roll

roll truck roll — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 14:45:11 -0800

Okay so I know I said I wasn't saying anything else, and I'm still fairly sure that this discussion has been pretty sufficiently mucked up that nothing very useful can come of it. But I want to say something to you, dropkick, before the pile-on. I think religious beliefs are an important thing, an extremely important thing, for all kinds of reasons. But they are beliefs. One of the coolest gifts God's given us is the ability to see things from multiple perspectives, to use both our minds and our emotions. When you insist that the things you believe are facts, you're discrediting your own faith. You're not really believing in anything anymore. Let go of the fake scientists your religion keeps propping up. It's much better without them.

By: dropkick

dropkick — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 14:53:02 -0800

roll truck roll: The word "Belief" is a watered-down sissy word used in conjunction with other sissy words like "marigold", "lolipop" and "meadow". I know God lives. End of story.

By: roll truck roll

roll truck roll — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 14:53:45 -0800

I tried. kthxbye.

By: dropkick

dropkick — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 14:55:02 -0800

roll truck roll: Don't let the door hit ya where the dog bit ya.

By: mkb

mkb — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 14:56:42 -0800

Hold on, I feex: The fact of the matter is, many Christians profess that God gave us our free agency to do what we will, and He would never intervene to stop us from the power of choice and the associated consequences.

By: dropkick

dropkick — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 14:58:19 -0800

mkb: Wow. You made everything better. Let's all hold hands.

By: Ndwright

Ndwright — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 15:00:55 -0800

Amazing. 40+ posts and how many are about the actual articale? Isn't there some other forum for religious discussion? Anyhoo, it really, REALLY looks like the designers of this experiment fucked up in their methodology. One random group of students at an ultra-religious Christian (sort of) college and another random group in a secular college in an entirely different country. Hello? Where's the control group? Where's the factoring out of cultural variance? Where's the. . .actually, is there anything more to this experiment than a bunch of psychologists collectively going "LOL XTIANS"?

By: Lentrohamsanin

Lentrohamsanin — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 15:01:01 -0800

I don't think you can seriously expect a true believer to deny that his beliefs are factual, and this need not be a problem in interacting with others. The ecumenical spirit is informed by getting along in spite of the fact that you think the people you are relating to are fatally wrong (inthis world and the next), not by reframing your beliefs as "only true for you". I know that God does not live, but that wouldn't stop me having a discussion with dropkick about the role of private institutions in lifting people out of poverty say.

By: It's Raining Florence Henderson

It's Raining Florence Henderson — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 15:01:39 -0800

This thread makes me want to blast someone.

By: quin

quin — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 15:15:52 -0800

I think that violent behavior can be linked to scriptures. It seems obvious that if a higher power has given you permission to do something which, under normal circumstances you wouldn't do, your belief can absolve any guilt you may have. Your God told you it was ok. This just seems like an easy conclusion to make based on what we know of human psychology. But I would be very interested to see an experiment that proved or countered this concept. And it could just be bad science reporting in the linked article, but it doesn't look like this study is the one that is going to bring us closer to an answer.

By: empath

empath — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 15:24:50 -0800

The New Testament is woefully flawed, mistranslated, omitted, and just plain adulterated. Interesting statement, given your posting history. Probably a huge derail, but I suspect it has to do with differences between the Quran and the New Testament, no?

By: craniac

craniac — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 15:38:24 -0800

I wold say that the scriptures contributed to my not beating the hell out of some guy speaking loudly on his cell phone this morning at our campus library, in the heavily labeled "quiet zone." Most believers don't do 90 percent of what they think god is telling them to do, and violence is a lot of work in the long run, especially if there's a good game on cable.

By: Burhanistan

Burhanistan — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 15:39:18 -0800

empath: I lived in an Orthodox Christian monastery when I accepted/converted to Islam. Every heard of the Nicean council?

By: CKmtl

CKmtl — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 15:40:32 -0800

Okay... not going to touch this thread with a 10' pole after this. There must be some Godwin-like case for the use of theological absolutes, perhaps "God win"? But, say god created everything in the natural world... why are marigolds and meadows, which he supposedly created, 'sissy' things unfit to be used in conjuction with anything of real import? I'll ignore the lollipop crack, since those are purely the work of humanity's sinful hands. Delicious, sinful handiwork though.

By: flug

flug — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 15:45:31 -0800

"Brigham Young University where 99% of students report believing in God and the Bible...." Actually, I found this nugget the most interesting. I'd like details on the lives of the one percent. I'd be surprised if it is even 1%, really. And that fraction of a percent who are unbelievers will probably be out of there soon. The reason is, there is a required yearly interview process in which each and every BYU student meets with his/her "bishop"[PDF file]. The interview process is designed to filter out that 1% insofar as possible. Note for instance this, from the interview form: "The First Presidency requests that bishops not recommend students . . . who would undermine the faith of other BYU students."

By: It's Raining Florence Henderson

It's Raining Florence Henderson — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 15:50:05 -0800

When I first glanced at this post, I thought it read "Increased violence linked to sphincters."

By: boaz

boaz — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 15:55:09 -0800

Hello? Where's the control group? Where's the factoring out of cultural variance? No, you see, a control has to be drawn from the same group as the study group. You can't take students from Hampshire or Reed and compare them to BYU any more than some Dutch university, because the culture's completely different from BYU at those places too. The point of a control is that they're the same people, only run through a version of the experiment missing the element under study to see how that element changes things. In this study, the study element is the Bible and the control group is the people who weren't told that the quote was from the Bible. Thus, upon tabulating the data, we can see that +Bible = more aggression, -Bible = less aggression.

By: psmealey

psmealey — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 15:56:28 -0800

You are all on notice, infidels! That is all. Enjoy your Saturday night, everyone!

By: loquacious

loquacious — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 16:04:14 -0800

The fact of the matter is That was sheer comedy. What's the punchline? "The Aristocrats"? You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. And so - some devout Christians wonder why atheists and agnostics grow frustrated with them to point of accusing ignorance. Because it is ignorance - a fundamental lack of basic logic or language skills, for starters. It's also hubristic. FACT: I believe Jesus Christ exists FICTION: Jesus Christ Exists FACT: I believe very strongly that Jesus Christ exists and that He saved me from a terrible car crash. FICTION: Jesus Christ exists, I know, because he protected me in that terrible car crash. FACT: I prayed that the Bears would win the Superbowl, and they did and it reaffirmed my faith in God. FICTION: OMG WOO THE BEARS TOTALLY WON THE SUPERBOWL BECAUSE I PRAYED FOR THEM AND GOD RULES! GO BEARS! GO BEARS! GO BEARS!

By: maxwelton

maxwelton — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 16:15:57 -0800

Fact: Wank week is cancelled. Fiction: I will not wank during that week.

By: monju_bosatsu

monju_bosatsu — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 16:28:26 -0800

*kicks a christian*

By: cmonkey

cmonkey — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 16:32:47 -0800

Fact: Every week is Wank Week. Fiction: Racoons.

By: vronsky

vronsky — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 16:37:45 -0800

Roll truck roll is a christian, and he is one of the smarter and wittier mefites around. That should prove something. Personally I find close minded atheists extremely tiresome. The types to love an echo chamber like mefi. A little learning is a dangerous thing and all that. And of course Mao and Stalin and Pol Pot et al are always convienently left out of the equation. On the other hand, if you dropped a bible from a great height, you could conceivably kill a squirrel, so... maybe it's not all good.

By: adipocere

adipocere — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 16:42:22 -0800

Where is Jack Thompson? Won't someone think of the children?

By: quin

quin — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 16:45:08 -0800

Fiction: Racoons. Whaaa? every now and again, I really miss the img tag.

By: Brian B.

Brian B. — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 17:04:10 -0800

And of course Mao and Stalin and Pol Pot et al are always convienently left out of the equation. Most atheist/Christian debates rarely fail to mention them as a reason to believe in God in order to prevent genocide, conveniently leaving out their own Christian colonialism and its genocide.

By: [expletive deleted]

[expletive deleted] — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 17:15:15 -0800

Given what we know about obedience to authority (Milgram, etc.), the hypothesis of this study isn't very far fetched. That said, the methodology used here is garbage, and the whole setup and conclusion reeks of confirmation bias. Of course, my personal opinion on the matter is that anyone who would take the Bible as the word of the ultimate moral authority could easily be led to commit violent acts. After all, we are talking about a book that explictly commands one to murder homosexuals, adultresses, disobedient children and people who work on Saturday. On top of that, we also have all those instances where God commands the faithful to commit genocide. According to the 4th (3rd if Catholic or Lutheran) Commandment, I should be stoned to death because I am at work right now. Unfortunately, I am currently escaping the punishment I so richly deserve because activist judges refuse to recognize the Decalogue as the font of all law and morality.

By: Steven C. Den Beste

Steven C. Den Beste — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 17:44:36 -0800

As we all know, nearly all religiously-motivated lethal violence in the world is committed by Christians.

By: Richard Daly

Richard Daly — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 17:52:59 -0800

You know, some MetaFilter discussions of religion start well, go well and end well. This... this did not Wendell. Too many people with chips on their shoulders.

By: exlotuseater

exlotuseater — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 18:29:32 -0800

"The world is not a 'prison-house', but a kind of spiritual kindergarten where millions of bewildered infants are trying to spell 'God' with the wrong blocks." Edwin Arlington Robinson (1869-1935)

By: exlotuseater

exlotuseater — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 18:54:43 -0800

"The world is not a 'prison-house', but a kind of spiritual kindergarten where millions of bewildered infants are trying to spell 'God' with the wrong blocks." Edwin Arlington Robinson (1869-1935)

By: exlotuseater

exlotuseater — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 19:32:56 -0800

(I don't know why that went through twice)

By: Faint of Butt

Faint of Butt — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 20:56:39 -0800

As we all know, nearly all religiously-motivated lethal violence in the world is committed by ~~Christians~~ Abrahamic monotheists. Fixed that for ya.

By: dw

dw — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 20:56:53 -0800

Most atheist/Christian debates rarely fail to mention them as a reason to believe in God in order to prevent genocide, conveniently leaving out their own Christian colonialism and its genocide. What debates have you been party to? I have never heard anyone argue that believing in God prevents genocide, but I've heard it argued plenty of times that not believing in God will, despite the evidence to the contrary. Belief in anything taken too far is dangerous.

By: Gnostic Novelist

Gnostic Novelist — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 20:57:37 -0800

I would say look at Sweden, the most irreligious country in the world, as an example of what can happen when a sociey does away with religion. However, I say look at Sweden, and behold that atheistic societies are just as collectivist, even moreso than many religious ones. Athiests have no moral qualms about the pursuit of power. At least a religious fundamentalist has the ability to change. Communism (withering away of the state) is a perfect example of atheists over-compensating.

By: Brian B.

Brian B. — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 21:40:58 -0800

The origins of communism in Western practice is a religious one, beginning with the Acts of the Apostles and the Essenes.

By: three blind mice

three blind mice — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 23:08:03 -0800

I would say look at Sweden, I would say look at Sweden, the most irreligious country in the world, as an example of what can happen when a sociey does away with religion. Yes, Gnostic Novelist, please look at Sweden, my home for the past decade (and hopefully for the rest of my life.) Maybe even read something about her history. Until about 1997, the Lutheran Church was the STATE SPONSORED RELIGION, supported by taxes, its bishops, pastors, etc, employees of the Swedish state. Despite this (or as I believe because of it) the Swedish people are basically agnostic. No one bothers with Christianity for they are too busy acting like Christians. Sweden is not collectivist (where did you get that idea?), but she is compassionate. The Swedish welfare state has strong support amongst the population - not because of any relgious or "collectivist" ideas, but out of a basic sense of decency that we are all our brother's keepers. That is not an exclusively "religious" idea, my friend. Athiests have no moral qualms about the pursuit of power. Pursuit of power? Atheists over-compensating? Do you imagine that this is a communist dictatorship? Or some Soviet hold-out? You could not be more wrong. This country is freer and more democratic - and more christian - than the country of my birth - this is why I choose to live here and raise my daughter here. Atheist that I am.

By: furiousthought

furiousthought — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 23:13:51 -0800

I propose an experiment where we compare the violence-inducing tendencies of Biblical scripture to that of Metafilter threads. NYAAAA SMASH

By: Brian B.

Brian B. — Sun, 04 Mar 2007 00:22:41 -0800

Athiests have no moral qualms about the pursuit of power. Disbelieving in God has nothing to do with pursuing power, or even being a communist. On the contrary, there is something about worshipping a central power, and being a communist, in most belief systems.

By: moonbiter

moonbiter — Sun, 04 Mar 2007 02:05:50 -0800

Not believing in God has nothing to do with morals, in fact.

By: bashos_frog

bashos_frog — Sun, 04 Mar 2007 08:36:52 -0800

I know there is a diamond the size of a refrigerator buried in my back yard. End of story. (and I don't even have a back yard - just FAITH, baby!)

By: Brian B.

Brian B. — Sun, 04 Mar 2007 09:17:45 -0800

Not believing in God has nothing to do with morals, in fact. It does for me. Only a non-believer can be capable of the full range of moral decision. Typically, a believer holds that humans are naturally evil and must learn to fear an arbitrary source of religious judgment in order to consider themselves moral. These admit they can be never be moral without second-guessing their judgment to please a master (by first being a coward). Furthermore, it is always a subjective choice to accept it or not, so their morality is really just a self-defined hypocrisy for everyone else to live by. What debates have you been party to? I have never heard anyone argue that believing in God prevents genocide, but I've heard it argued plenty of times that not believing in God will, despite the evidence to the contrary. Typically they swirl around Hitler's "atheism" and then the debate moves onto the communist dictators, some arguing the fallacy that not believing in God therefore causes social chaos and destruction. The definition of true believer is always avoided, because the fact remains that a social dogma (often carried out by superstitious peasants) is what murders people in those situations, not a non-belief in one. If it was atheism killing people, then the victims wouldn't have included atheists.

By: moonbiter

moonbiter — Sun, 04 Mar 2007 10:42:43 -0800

Only a non-believer can be capable of the full range of moral decision. I think you misread my intent. I was saying that morality and atheism are unrelated -- one is not dependent on the other. However, I'm not sure I agree with this bit. As far as I can tell, there is nothing inherently limiting in belief that inhibits the "full range of moral decision." Certainly many beliefs limit your choices, but this is not to say that all possible beliefs in all possible magical beings are limiting in that way. In any event, I was reacting to the same thing you were in the the quote: Athiests have no moral qualms about the pursuit of power. This is ridiculous, because one's morality does not hang on belief or non-belief in supernatural gods. I see this claim a lot, and to me it says more about the morality of the person making the claim than anything else (i.e., If it wasn't for his fear of divine punishment, he'd be an immoral bastage).

By: Baby_Balrog

Baby_Balrog — Sun, 04 Mar 2007 11:20:56 -0800

Brian B. "...a believer holds that humans are naturally evil and must learn to fear an arbitrary source of religious judgment in order to consider themselves moral." lol. "A raccoon requires ten pounds of raw starfish a day to keep from exploding, this is why we must build fences to keep the raccoons away from our tidal pools."

By: Baby_Balrog

Baby_Balrog — Sun, 04 Mar 2007 11:24:22 -0800

Atheists have killed more people than Christians.

By: Brian B.

Brian B. — Sun, 04 Mar 2007 11:37:32 -0800

Baby Balrog, it seems that you've made the case for agnosticism.

By: Brian B.

Brian B. — Sun, 04 Mar 2007 11:49:27 -0800

Baby Balrog, cancel that. Your link shows that the population percentage of genocide is far greater under Christians. Even if we confuse atheists for communists, it looks like dogma and personality cults killed everyone, and God takes up the slack with natural disasters.

By: Baby_Balrog

Baby_Balrog — Sun, 04 Mar 2007 13:57:52 -0800

It's ok for Atheists to blame Christians for the mass murders committed under the banner of God when in truth it was a product of personality cults and our darker natural proclivities. It's not ok for Christians to blame Atheists for the mass murders committed under the banner of Progress when in truth it was a product of personality cults and our darker natural proclivities.

By: Brian B.

Brian B. — Sun, 04 Mar 2007 14:19:31 -0800

Baby Balrog, that is correct. It was never okay to blame atheists for communist activities.

By: lifeless

lifeless — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 03:57:26 -0800

At least a religious fundamentalist has the ability to change. That has got to be the funniest damn thing I've read all week.