Do athiests actually think they are another race from theists? They think we are sub human!

I put out a perfectly serous post about ethical theory. I wanted a serous discussion. they always disappoint on serious discussions because they are not cable of them.


Originally Posted by Asimov

Why are you so racist?

I'm not reading the rest of your garbage if you don't stop being a prejudiced and condescending wanker.

here's what he quoted by me:


Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post

One big mistake I think is being made all the time by both atheists and theists is the assumption that morality and ethics is like a science that can "discovered" in nature rather than "formulated" (what simplistic atheists thinkers would call "made up").

racist? Ok here is another version of Orwellian lanagued used by atheists. if you disproved their arguments and show that there's a fundametnal flaw and you don't accept their privilaged postion then you are a "racists."

has nothing to do with race. it has nothing to do with anything I believe. its' just like calling me a moron or a "silly dingo" or something except it carries this lying connotation,

that's one of them most dissenter and satanic and lying tactics I've seen. to actually try and clerestory any postie feeling anyone could have for me just becuase you can't answer my argument that's low as you can get.

you know people will not bother to find the truth. they wont go looking for posts to see if I say things absinthe races. they will assume your lie means I don't like other races.

how do you know I'm not black? It's slander it's ruining my reputation over a lie.

this is an example of the atheist [B][I]newspeak[/I][/B] there change the meaning of accepted words to fit their own definition, but use the connotation of the word to slander the opponent. We have seen them do this with words like 'delusion" (changed to mean anyone who thinks something they don't agree with, but used for the connotation of mental illness).

In the quote above where he quoted me he light linked "simplistic atheist" so he's saying I'm a racist because I see through atheists. So atheists now become like persecuted black people and to disagree with their views is to be a "racist."


here is the original post. I defy you to find anything racist in it!

One big mistake I think is being made all the time by both atheists and theists is the assumption that morality and ethics is like a science that can "discovered" in nature rather than "formulated" (what simplistic atheists thinkers would call "made up").

This mistake is brought on by theists who have no careful in their use of language. in saying that God makes moral law objective by writing its truth into the fabric of reality it's part of the truth of the created order, they convey the impression that there's soemthing objective n the subject matter than can be "discovered."

God's character is love. So God's laws are based upon love. organisms are created in such a way that when they become complex enough in their minds (ie what the bible would call "spirit") they develop moral concepts because they develop the capacity for agope--the highest form of love.

That doesn't mean you can find some love gene that makes people moral or that you can look in a microscope and find the love floating around in the chromosomes.

The fact is morality is based upon relative values. These values are developed by humans and they are a admixture of cultural constructs and the propensity of the complex moral motions that come from having complex brains and the capacity to love that is woven into the universe in some way we don't get.

Values are cultural constructs they are Ralina and they can't be proved to be other wise. Nor do we need ot prove them so.


we do not need scientific proof that being good is valid and being evil is evil. All we really need is an understanding of those terms and how the values we hold are tied to the transcendent category of truth. That is gained easily enough by reading Tilliich's Systematic Theology.

It can also be gained logically as the obvious consequent of believe in a loving God. That's why the moral argument is a good for God's existence, and its' why one should believe, becuase we have the moral motions that can't be expalined other wise without taking out the moral thinking that makes the motions moral.

Reducing to genetics or biology defeats the purpose of moral thinking. Yet we have the motions, The only real meaning that can be derived that makes sense is to retaliation that has to do with the transcendent category and the depth of being. Ie God.

The theory space monkey talks about just trades in the obvious and wrongly concludes that becasue values are relative then there must not be anything to them.

Originally Posted by Sazz View Post

Racist? I... don't see race in this.

Asmiov

Racism isn't just about skin colour.

MFFJM2 first says it is racism

Yes, it is. Racism is exactly about the bias/discrimination of one race against another because of perceived differences in racial characteristics, and asserted superiority by one race over another. Just as sexism is about gender differences.

then, probalby realizing he can't prove it back peddles to give "racism" his own little new connotation.

I will defend Metacrock that I have never noticed a propensity for racial bias in his writing, and thus he is not guilty in my view of this charge. His bias is of a far more neurotic nature, because it is not based on race or gender or age, but whether someone agrees with him. Those who agree are geniuses, but still not as smart as Meta. Those that disagree are dolts, or worse.

Hermit chimes in:

You're the one thinks it's OK to call atheists "not fully human." Get that beam out of your eye...

He knows that's a lie because I said at the time (when we were disputing about the Bishop saying atheist aren't fully human, I said "If I thought that's what he meant I would be on your side" if I thought he really said they are not human. On other occasions I denounced that position and he knows that.

this is typical of atheist hate group tactics to lie and slander the personality involved when can't win arguemnts.

Atheism: Clear and Presnet Danger

This is a controversial ploy. It's really baiting the atheists on CARM into showing their true attitudes toward their own sense of privileged position and their bigotry against religious people. I am playing the paranoid here. I am talking them literally when I know they probalby wouldn't really mean what it sounds like they are saying. I don't seriously think any of them are Nazis or sympathize with Nazis or that they planing any kind violence. I think the fact that they wont come out and say "we don't accept hurting people" is important. They clearly have no sense of protecting the rights of others, and no understanding of that means for their own rights.

My offer to take it down if you don't' like it was for the CADRE blog. I forgot to remove it here.

I also want to point out that I don't believe that all atheists think this way. I am disturbed that one's that formerly respected are saying things I am worried about.

posted by me to atheists on carm


this is a very very serious post I wish you would address it that way.

when I was a kid I used to be very moved by stories about the holocaust. My mother once showed me a news paper clipping she saved from the war, it was an interview with someone who worked in a concentration camp and talked about sorting the clothing of the victims, and how they had children's clothes and crippled people's crutches.

I used to hear about ideas like "they came for the Jews I didn't say anything, they came after the poles an didn't say anything and they came after me and there was no one left to say anything." I would be greatly moved and think "this is the worst evil there is. anyone who would destroy a group of people just because they don't like that group for who they are is the worst form of scum."

I grew up in the south. My father told me about how he saw lynchings of blacks and some of them were led by his uncle. He was deeply ashamed that someone in our family did this. He was totally pro civil rights. he taught me that blacks had been persecuted and mistreated. This again gave me the notion that the worst kind of scum is anyone who would persecute a whole group just becasue they don't like how they are or what they believe or something about them.

Now I see the troubling signs that in the new atheism they don't understand the dangers of venting hatred for a whole group based upon their beliefs. I know you think that's nuts, and Hermit gets mad at me for saying this. Every time I expect atheist to contradict that idea I see them supporting it.


I put up a post saying Is it right to reject people's ideas without considering them just becuase of who those people are. to my horror a bunch of you agreed it is.

what is the difference in saying "we must persecute the Jews" and saying we must persecute the fundamentalists? the Jews had the OT. they have the vengeful Y God you hate so deeply. Are you then anti-emetic?

A well known atheist here made this following statement and I see in this a frank admission that it would not bother him to persecute people for their religious beliefs.


here's the statement, I will embolden the things that really bother me.:

This is one issue I take with "new atheism." I get where people like Sam Harris is coming from- liberal forms of religion tend to lend credence to religious belief. When intellectuals provide a seemingly reasonable face for belief in gods, it gives god-belief of all sorts an undeserved air of respectability. But this is a flawed view, IMO. The fact that irrational, mean people benefit from an idea doesn't invalidate the idea. It's the same error, it seems, as trying to discredit evolution because eugenicists benefit on a superficial level from Darwin's theory. The only thing I'd say is that it is important for a liberal to distance him/herself from the mean, irrational theists- just as evolutionists have unfortunately had to spend an inordinate amount of time dealing with the flaws of eugenics.



So, while I do think it's a noble goal to try to stamp out religious belief,

to me that's like saying it's a noble goal to kill people. People who resisting having their beliefs stamper out have been killed time and time again. If they wont willingly give them up, they never do, then you have to kill them or at least re arrange their lives. what right do you have to dot that?

I do NOT think one is justified in doing so "by any means necessary."

that's like saying "I don't think it's right to murder them outright, we can just take their jobs away and let them starve slowly."


The fundies should be mocked and ridiculed- not as a tactic to try to brow-beat them into submission, but because their beliefs are ridiculous and dangerous.

to me that's like saying I have the right to dictate that you die because I don't like the color or your clothes. what right do you have to determine that you are certain your views are right that you get to say what views are stupid? What if you are basing it on just not being very well read? what if all the illiterate people got together and deiced that reading is stupid? can't you see how you are taking on a privilege you have not right to assume?

who the hell are you to say that?


This is not the case with liberals. Liberals have beliefs which resemble, in certain ways, the ridiculous, irrational beliefs of fundies. But there are important and fundamental differences in the way that liberals think that sets them apart from the fundies. And it is the way in which one comes to a belief that is important, not the belief itself.

thanks, great. sot he all knowing one says I don't have to die, thanks.

Now, some beliefs are simply too ridiculous to plausibly allow for the possibility that they were rationally derived. That's where the fundies come in- if someone believes that the earth is 6,000 years old, or that the Genesis flood actually occurred sometime within the last 6,000 years, I needn't examine how they arrived at the conclusion. They are being irrational- that's the end of it. But it's a mistake to equate belief in some kind of deity with these types of beliefs.

To me this is saying that I have the right to determine who lives or who dies.

Some people resound to my horror by saying 'you are making so much out of this so what big deal" I don't' know if it's because they think "I would never say they should die." Or is it really because they are thinking "of course they should die."

If you think you have the right to destroy people's lives because their beliefs are so stupid what's the difference in you and a Nazis? Is the only differences that the Nazi's didn't hate the right stupid group and you do?

don't do the mocking thing just explain it to me.

while you are at it kindly explain how it is that mocking people becuase their beliefs are stupid is good, but when I think your beliefs are stupid I can't mock you?


If I think your beliefs are stupid and dangerous don't I have the same right to mock you that you do to mock me? If I do you go "you are so insulting!" what right do you have to complain about that? I'm only doing what you tell is fair and right and should be done!

If you think religious views are so evil and dangerous why don't you believe that religious people should be killed in concentration camps?


is that what atheist movement is really leading to?


the first answer:

Brain w:

Ridiculing beliefs ≠ persecution or advocation of genocide.

The only reason you see the dismissal and ridicule of superstition as such a heinous attack is because you have allowed these things to wrap themselves up so deeply in your personality that they now define you. That's not the problem of those who attack god belief. It's your fault for letting god belief take over your entire persona.

he doesn't even make a pretense of saying "O we wouldn't do that." Mikey has a slightly better response.

This is just an internet forum, it isn't real life. Atheists don't burn down churches in the real world, they usually don't even talk to Christians. How are you going to persecute someone if you don't even talk to them. Christians on the other hand are always talking to Atheists trying to convert them. Maybe Christians should leave people alone and Atheists won't need to come to internet forums to vent their frustration.

I think it's dangerous to just dismiss it as "o it's just the net," but makes me feel ok that at least he didn't embrace it like the other guy.

Hsmithson quotes me:

meta:Now I see the Nazis re-born in the new atheism. I know you think that's nuts

then says:

Yep, that's nuts.

Those who would kill for atheism are not nuts but I'm nuts for protesting it?

Validmir says I such at illiciting clearly and need to be very clear about what people are saying.
that would imply i that he understands them to actually not be supporting persecution.

I think they are being willfully unclear because they should understand clearly from the OP that I need to know unambiguously that they don't agree with persecuting people. I find the fact that they hold back on spelling this out to be significant.


Originally Posted by troxel

Did this fellow say anything about concentration camps?

But yes saying the "unbeliever is a sick soul" is reasonably equivalent to mocking and ridicule. You even go way out of your way in an attempt to justify you derision by appealing to authority and completely misrepresenting your source.

No it' not because it doesn't mean they are stupid or bad. It was also said by a psychiatrist it was a Junian term referring to a clinical idea.


You want to mock and ridicule religious people because you hate them then you pawn it off some noble goal like stropping dangerous ideas.You have no right to object to being mocked as long you advocate using mocking to brown people into giving their beliefs.

Actually your quote is worse than mocking as it is an attempt by you to villainize a segment of the population.

"villianize" talk about illiteracy.

which is just what you are doing. you want to put children in gas chambers.you hate Christians so deeply you are ready to murder them.

I did not say that did I? In fact I didn't even see concentration camps mention in your referenced quote - par for the course.

well what are you going to do when the 90% who believe in God decide they want be forced the the 3% illiterates to give up the most important thing in their lives? you would have to resort to something pretty harsh. where do you draw the line?

comparing sick soul (which a psychiatrist was saying) to real mocking is just whining to justify your hate.

Originally Posted by souper genyus

I can't seriously respond to a Godwin, Meta. You're *******g ridiculous, claiming the free speech of the new atheists is even remotely analogous to the Nazis murdering millions of people is insulting to every atheist alive and, especially, to those murdered or tortured by the Nazis. It's just wrong, Meta, both factually and morally wrong.

I don't know who Godwin is.

I know they are not a par with Nazis but the Nazis started with just mocking Jews. they didn't' start with concentration camps.

you are defending persecuting people for their beliefs? are you not? you don't understand why that's evil?




Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post

but it's not nuts to say we should mock and ridicule people for believing things we think are stupid?

SG

No, it's really not. That's expressing your free speech. It's using your words and your wit as a tool for social change, which is perfectly acceptable. In fact, I think it should be encouraged. It's much better to address a position you disagree with with your mind and your words as opposed to using force.

Its' not nuts to put people in concentration camps and kill them for being religious?
Yes, that's most definitely nuts. What are you thinking to even ask such a question? No one that is labeled with the "New Atheist" label that I know of is advocating an ethnic cleansing, so I don't know what the hell you are even talking about.

then what right do you have to complain if I say you are the sick soul?

Meta I need clealrity here. what is nuts?

SG:

The fact that you liken the free expression of opinion to mass murder. That's nuts.

ok, idiot.


Originally Posted by mikey_101

It hurts people to tell them that they'll go to hell (or whatever negative consequence) if they aren't Christians.

that's why I don't tell them that.

Just believing that garbage hurts the person who believes it because it makes them less human. I think all the mocking and anger towards Christianity has to do with the religious-elitist attitude being so prevalent and being around for so long. It's offensive, and when people are offended they stick up for themselves. In a forum you can say what you can't in real life.

but it seems you want the privilege o revenge without the consequence of more revenge taken back on you. You want me to respect you but you don't want to respect me.

Just believing that garbage hurts the person who believes it because it makes them less human.

aren't you stripping the humanity of fundamentalists?

Originally Posted by mikey_101

I hate to say it, but Christians kind of started this whole thing by their elitist attitude I was talking about. I think you should realize that and take some responsibility before crying 'persecution' too much. When two are angry at each other about something, the whole thing can usually be resolved by the one who starting it apologizing first, then the other person apologizes. I'm not saying you started it personally of course, the type of Christian fundies we have today have been around for, I don't know, about 300 years or so. The anti-Christian fundies are just now reacting.

Less than human is a figure of speech, not literal.

Meta:
O good, that makes me so relieved. That's such a judicious figure of speech too. I really trust someone who is cleaver to describe his opponents as less then human then deny that he meant it. so you are actually admitting that you want to persecute and trying to blame the victim. The Nazis said the Jews brought it on themselves. that's what you are arguing.

Originally Posted by Asimov

Why are you conflating the drive to remove intolerance, prejudice, and anti-intellectualism with killing people?

Meta:

from what I see so far you plan to do that by destroying people's egos, refusing to listen to their side of any argument, refusing to consider anything that would count against your view. unfairly and unjustly slandering believers, which what atheists are doing every day on the net.

Let's just take that to the logical absurdity, what's to stop you from taking it into violence? you believe Christian are inhuman, you have the right to hurt them and force them to give up their beliefs, what's to stop you from going over the line?

You don't bleieve there is such a thing as innate right and wrong. you believe that that's just a matter of social convince and survival. Right?

if one could show the it's beneficial, greatest good for the greatest number to systematically extinguish the lives of all Christians wouldn't accept doing it?

riginally Posted by drugstar

the ramblings of a madman.

Meta

that really prove your not unfair, or unjust and that your willing ot listen and your not blaming the victim. It really proves you are not shallow and stupid.



The Christian Naz kicks in
Originally Posted by naz

Meta, although I agree that ridiculing people for their beliefs is repugnant it is certainly not anywhere close to murder.

think about what Jesus said about murder. can't you just hear one of these atheists saying "how is hating someone like murdering them?"


I realize that most of these guys probalby think the idea that there could be persecution of Christians is absurd and that they think they would never take part.I know that I'm kind of skirting the edge of peranoia, at least as far they are concerned. I am playing to the logical absurdity of their values. But look at the facts:

Not one of them on the whole thread says "O of course we are agaisnt hurting people we would never persecute anyone. they can't bring themselves to make a flat out denial. The fact is they clearly do not bleieve in free speech, they want to control the thinking of others. they want the power to condemn and ridicule ideas that they disagree with and I can't help but wonder if the circumstances were right how many of them would cooperate wit murdering Christians on a grand scale.

They are clearly willing to remove the cloak of protection from the minority and then still expect that protection to be extended to them.

Horrophying thoughts form atheists (with apolgizes to Hermit)

I hate to kick up this fuss but I think it has to be done. I know Hermit gets angry at me when I imply that atheist are Nais.I know they are not all Nazis and I'm not saying . I would actually like to be wrong about this. I know Hermit is not a Naiz I know he finds persecuting people totally inexcusable. Yet I thought the guy saying these things was reasonable and would be agaisnt that too.


I put this post on carm to illicit atheist shaming of the tactic that I feel is totally unjust and dishonest. I had argued:

Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post
I argued that Occum could be a Christian (he ask if he was one) without accepting a religion because no creed of council says "you must accept a one true religion."

Meta:

Mikey argues without even trying to answer the argument, I just be wrong because he thinks I'm a fundamentalist.

he says: (Mickey)

Give me a break. Sad, pathetic people who love to think they have the 'only truth' and everyone else is wrong. Spreading your fundamentalist views to the world makes life here on earth worse for everyone.

Meta:

notice he's also imposing his own value system about my life of which he knows nothing. I may be a millionaire and live in a mansion in the south of France and have a noble prize for all he knows. He thinks using these labels makes me wrong and him right.

It's also really stupid to say I"m a fundie after just about every post I make I talk about liberal theology, I am a socialist politically. I am always disputing inerrancy. I always talk about how I went to one of the most liberal seminaries.

He apparently doesn't understand the distinction between fundamentalist and other forms of Christianity To him fundie is just a synonym for Christianity.

Rather than answer my argument he says "the label I put on you makes you seem pathetic so yo must be wrong."


If he did this to a black person what would we call him?

Ok Mr. black man (and how do you know i'm not black?) I don't have to think about what you say, I know you are wrong becuase you black." what do we say about that?

Mr Gay man I DO NOT have to listen to your ideas, you are automatically wrong because you are gay.

If it's wrong to judge people's intelligence and value as people (not pathetic) because labels we put on them imposing our values on their lives, why is it any more fair to do it for their religious belief just because we don't believe in the same things?

I argue this is even more acute if we understand their religious beliefs so badly that we call them fundies when they are liberals. No atheists agreed that this was wrong, in fact one actually seems to whole heatedly support persecuting people for their beliefs.

Donald says:

This is one issue I take with "new atheism." I get where people like Sam Harris is coming from- liberal forms of religion tend to lend credence to religious belief. When intellectuals provide a seemingly reasonable face for belief in gods, it gives god-belief of all sorts an undeserved air of respectability. But this is a flawed view, IMO. The fact that irrational, mean people benefit from an idea doesn't invalidate the idea. It's the same error, it seems, as trying to discredit evolution because eugenicists benefit on a superficial level from Darwin's theory. The only thing I'd say is that it is important for a liberal to distance him/herself from the mean, irrational theists- just as evolutionists have unfortunately had to spend an inordinate amount of time dealing with the flaws of eugenics.

So, while I do think it's a noble goal to try to stamp out religious belief, I do NOT think one is justified in doing so "by any means necessary." The fundies should be mocked and ridiculed- not as a tactic to try to brow-beat them into submission, but because their beliefs are ridiculous and dangerous. This is not the case with liberals. Liberals have beliefs which resemble, in certain ways, the ridiculous, irrational beliefs of fundies. But there are important and fundamental differences in the way that liberals think that sets them apart from the fundies. And it is the way in which one comes to a belief that is important, not the belief itself.

Now, some beliefs are simply too ridiculous to plausibly allow for the possibility that they were rationally derived. That's where the fundies come in- if someone believes that the earth is 6,000 years old, or that the Genesis flood actually occurred sometime within the last 6,000 years, I needn't examine how they arrived at the conclusion. They are being irrational- that's the end of it. But it's a mistake to equate belief in some kind of deity with these types of beliefs.

let's break it down:

of course the things he says about religion being bad and irrational is stupid but it has it's points. Then he says:

So, while I do think it's a noble goal to try to stamp out religious belief, I do NOT think one is justified in doing so "by any means necessary."

The first distributing thing here is he says he actually does believe in stamping out religion. Now he's going to say further down that liberal religious views aren't so bad, but would he still stamp them out? They aren't so bad but hey have to go anyway. Besides what he's saying is that he dose want to persecute people for their beliefs but just not go too far. How far is too far?

The fundies should be mocked and ridiculed- not as a tactic to try to brow-beat them into submission, but because their beliefs are ridiculous and dangerous.

He's going to take on the privilege of paying God and deciding who get's to believe what and who gets messed up but he just wants to do it for the right reason. I'm not sure that's any better than doing it for the wrong reason. He has also stated stamping out religion is his goal. Who the hell do these little 3% think they are?

Now, some beliefs are simply too ridiculous to plausibly allow for the possibility that they were rationally derived. That's where the fundies come in- if someone believes that the earth is 6,000 years old, or that the Genesis flood actually occurred sometime within the last 6,000 years, I needn't examine how they arrived at the conclusion. They are being irrational- that's the end of it. But it's a mistake to equate belief in some kind of deity with these types of beliefs.

In other words he's such important guy that he get's to decide what's right and not and he's not subject to having to even conciser that he might be wrong. What if illiterate people deiced that reading books is stupid and readers have to mocked and ridiculed or even shot because they can't be allowed to spread such stupid ideas? Then they said "no that's just stupid that's the end of it."

What if someone's belief is stupid? what if someone thinks that his childhood dog is contacting him through shooting stars. this guy dedicates this is so stupid we can't allow this guy to live. Do we have the right to put him to death for believing something stupid? why? what gives us us the right to decide that we are so right we can hurt others to make them shape up and bleieve "the right thing?"

Does anyone esle find this chilling that this little 3% minority what proves to be rather dense and badly educated about religion thinks they are so right they can persecute believers for their beliefs? what ever happened to the idea that I disagree with your view but I'll defend to the death your right to say it?

this seems to me to be opposed to everything our society stands for. this is a clear and present danger.

If Atheism is not an organized movment, why do they have a world conference?

Myers at world Atheist conferience

PZ Myers is a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris.
He writes about the conference on his blog:

I've been bad. I've been busy. I'm at this conference, and the combination of bad wifi (I can't get connected in my room at all) and constant distractions means I haven't been keeping you updated here. Fortunately, Rorschach is here and has been blogging away while I can't, so I can just cheat and link to him.

The Muslims have invaded. They don't have much stamina. They were there for Richard Dawkins' session yesterday, asked a stupid question, and since have retired to a table outside, where they peddle bad literature that looks like clones of Christian creationist nonsense.

A curious thing, a non movement that is nothing more than the absence of a belief, with no organization, but the hold a big conference in Dublin. They have a big conference Atmosphere. What's really puzzeling is they even have a evangelism course called "communicating atheism." Myer writes: "The communicating atheism discussion was fun. Aron Ra was impressive, Rebecca Watson was fabulously indignant and persuasive about the specific problems women atheist speakers face." That discussion had a panel with Richard Dawkins, Rebecca Watson, Aron Ra and Tom Melchiorre. On the Fourious Purpose Blog: "Rebecca told about the sexist and abusive emails she gets – from atheists, and challenged the conclusions of the earlier panel on female atheist activism."

Do you see the problem there? It's not a movement, it's not an organized thing, yet they speak of "activism." I'm sorry but what we are looking at here is obviously a moment work furiously to perpetuate itself. Every time I've pointed this out atheists have spoken vehemently of how wrong it is to think there is any kind of movement, when obviously it's in front of our faces.

Is the hate part of the organization? Well there's a very telling statement here the last one in the article on the Furious Purpose Blog. "Dawkins had 2 points he wanted to make, one, that ridicule and sarcasm are useful tools in confronting religious people, and second, that we have to raise consciousness about atheism." Let's look at that again:

Dawkins had 2 points he wanted to make, one, =That reducible and sarcasm are useful tools in confronting religious people, and second, that we have to raise consciousness about atheism.

What does this tell us but that Dawkins supports the hate group atheism, the bullying, the brow beating, he does not advocate reasoning with people but wants his lackeys to assault their self esteem. It tells us that one of the major tools the leaders of their movement organize their people to use is mocking and ridicule. So the mocking and ridicule are not merely top down they are being organized into the proceedings form the top down.

Atheist Ireland sports a website advertising the event. Here's a list of speakers and topics.

• 
  

• Richard Dawkins (evolutionary biologist)
• Lone Frank (neurobiologist, science writer, Denmark)
• Michael Nugent (chairperson Atheist Ireland)
• Paula Kirby (secular consultant, activist UK)
• PZ Myers (author science blog Pharyngula, USA)
• Jane Donnelly (Education officer Atheist Ireland)
• Dan Barker (Freedom from Religion Foundation, USA)
• Rebecca Watson (Skepchick blogger, podcaster)
• David Nash (professor, expert on blasphemy, UK)
• Aroup Chatterjee (author, IN)
• Ivana Bacik (Irish Senator in 30th Oireachtas)
• Mpagi Michael Kirumira (Atheist Association of Uganda)
• Annie Laurie Gaylor USA (Freedom from Religion Foundation)
• Mark Embleton UK (President Atheism UK)
• Thomas Prosser (Trinity College, Dublin)
• Nick Lee (Freethinkers Association of Central Texas)
• Tanya Smith (Atheist Alliance International)
• Bobbie Kirkhart (Author and Activist, USA)
• Tom Melchiorre (Editor, Secular World, USA)
• Phillipe Besson (ILCAF, France)
• Richard Green (Atheism UK)
• Rene Hartmann (Int. League of Non-religious & Atheists, Germany)
• Maryam Namazie (British Council of Ex-Muslims)
• Roger Lepeix (ILCAF, France)
• Aron-Ra (vlogger for science education, co-host Magic Sandwich Show)
• D.P.R. Jones (vlogger on religion, science and philosophy, host of The Magic Sandwich)

Topics will include

• Weird science versus weird religion
• Communicating Atheism
• Secular education: teach, don’t preach
• Women Atheist Activists
• Speaking out against blasphemy laws
• Religion: accommodate or confront?
• Building Secular Coalitions
• Dublin Declaration on Religion in Public Life
• Launch of new Atheist Alliance International

Delegate participation

As well as listening to speakers, this Convention will be an active one for delegates who want to participate. We will be debating and voting on the Dublin Declaration on Religion in Public Life, and some panel discussions will include audience members on the panels alongside our listed speakers. Click through to the Conference Program.

Look at those, not going to accommodate but confront. It's designed to be feisty. It's designed to be communicated, and it seeks to build coalitions to grow into a huge movement. All of this smacks of an organized movement. Yet atheists on message boards act like it's just horror or horrors to imply that there is a movement.

Response to Barber part 2: His article "the Human Beast"

This is Barber's own summary of his "study." It appears in the atheist prapaganda blog psychology today.

He begins with a summary of where atheism is big and where it's not so that he can make a correlation.

Atheists are heavily concentrated in economically developed countries, particularly the social democracies of Europe. In underdeveloped countries, there are virtually no atheists. Atheism is a peculiarly modern phenomenon. Why do modern conditions produce atheism? In a new study to be published in August, I provide compelling evidence that atheism increases along with the quality of life (1).

First, as to the distribution of atheism in the world, a clear pattern can be discerned. In sub-Saharan Africa there is almost no atheism (2). Belief in God declines in more developed countries and atheism is concentrated in Europe in countries such as Sweden (64% nonbelievers), Denmark (48%), France (44%) and Germany (42%). In contrast, the incidence of atheism in most sub-Saharan countries is below 1%.

As we saw from the Greely study "The Demand for Religion" when we break down the stats for Northern Europe we find actual atheism is very small. Most of what is passing for atheism is soft core or 'agnostic.' He says Sweden is 64% non believers but it's really misleading because what he's calling "unbelievers" are not necessarily atheists. Only 10% are strong athesits and most of them are "softest core" meaninng agnostic.

In the second column, "Soft Core" Atheists include those in the third column and those who, while they reject God do not completely reject life after death (they accept the third response on that question – there is "probably not" a life after death. This latter group might be considered to be on the far fringes of the religious market place.

The "Softest Core" Atheists in the third column include those in the first two and those who can fairly be called agnostics (the second response to the God question) because they do not completely reject the possibility of the existence of God. They might be considered as hovering a little closer to the religious market place.

It is only in former communist countries (which Sweden is not) that over 10% are strong atheists. Softest core atheist can believe there might something like God. This is another case of atheist inflation (blowing up their figures and stretching things to appear they have a much larger movement than they do).

Then turns to the question why would lower belief be correlated with better affluence?

The question of why economically developed countries turn to atheism has been batted around by anthropologists for about eighty years. Anthropologist James Fraser proposed that scientific prediction and control of nature supplants religion as a means of controlling uncertainty in our lives. This hunch is supported by data showing that the more educated countries have higher levels of non belief and there are strong correlations between atheism and intelligence.

Now of course the alleged "correlates" between atheism and intelligence are pure bull and have been disproved over and over again. Round one was disproved over a 50 year period were 16 studies showed no correlation, or that religious people are smarter (which I take to be indicative of correlation). Only six (6) studies supported the correlation and all were done before 1960. They all had terrible methodologies and much smaller samples than the one's done after 1960 that consistently showed no correlation until Francis three studies in the 90s. Francis work caped the first round and the field decided there is no correlation. The atheist propaganda machine came back on it, becuase the real burning drive to be an atheist is the need to feel superior to make up for the poor self esteem.(part 2 here). The second wave is a much more bogus attempt because they haven't bothered to gather their own data.

The second wave is lead by Lynn, Harvey and Nyborg. Nyrbog is a crack pot who thinks that women are genetically inferior and has racist leanings (his study IQ differences favor males was investigate and received reprimand form the university). They didn't gather their own data and have been roundly criticized for trying to draw together a huge among of interdependently gathered data with no unified scheme of standards for accessing IQ. Barber just dashes off the references to them as though they are a done deal. He seems to accept them uncritically. Their arguments are reminiscent of the Bell Curve and they seem to be trying to imply, especially the Psychology today Blog crowd, that atheism is an advance in evolution and atheists are a tiny elite, you would think they would be happy to accept the small status of their numbers. When one considers the most educated group in America, professors, one finds their ratio of belief nearly fits that of the general public. He also asserts that atheists are better eduated, see Atheist Watch for refutation.

Barber falls back upon James Fraser's (1854-1941) assertion that religion is about security and that rise in control of nature would supplant religoius belief. Of cousre one could make the same kind of prediction about scientifically minded people. Science is a means of calming the fears of people who are seeking control over nature because they fear it. They also make no attempt to analyze the probablity that allaying fear is the proper job of human psychology and that his is not invalid nor does it demonstrate some kind of outmoded in religion. No mores than the need to find food or hunt is displaced by the need to go to the supermarket. As Maslow predicts when the lower order needs are met then we move up the hierarchy to work on higher level needs. That's why all the major theological movements of the 20th century were about existentialism and process thought.

At this point Barber begins lauding his own work:

In my new study of 137 countries (1), I also found that atheism increases for countries with a well-developed welfare state (as indexed by high taxation rates). Moreover, countries with a more equal distribution of income had more atheists. My study improved on earlier research by taking account of whether a country is mostly Moslem (where atheism is criminalized) or formerly Communist (where religion was suppressed) and accounted for three-quarters of country differences in atheism.

Of course I showed the inadequacy of Barber's work last time. The assertion increases for countries with well developed social system is again, right out of Zuckerma (one of the only three footnotes Barber makes in this article) and it's hilarious because he has totally overlooked the fact that that the social welfare state of Sweden was built by Christians in the nineteenth century!

Sweden:
Overview of the national situation
by


Ninna Edrardh Beckman

Page 1


Welfare and Values in Europe:
Transitions related to Religion, Minorities and Gender
(WaVE)
Sweden:
Overview of the national situation
by Ninna Edgardh Beckman
Page 2

Introduction
Based on its very low figures of religious attendance and traditional religious faith, Sweden has a reputation of being one of the most secularised countries in the world. True as this might be, what the image conceals is the strong and complicated role that religion still plays in Sweden, not least through history and culture. The modern history of Sweden has its foundation in national homogeneity, grounded in the principle of one people and one faith. This principle is closely connected to the Lutheran majority church, to which nearly 80% of the Swedish population still belongs, even though formally state and church were separated in 2000. The recent presence of other world religions and official policies tending towards multiculturalism adds new religious aspects to Swedish culture. Religion thus continues to play an interesting role in Sweden, behind the seemingly straightforward image of a country on its way towards complete secularisation

The Swedish welfare state was built after the Second World War, based on the idea of ‘the home of the people’ (folkhemsidén). The basic principle of the model is that the state and local authorities guarantee the basic needs of all citizens. This principle is based on strong values of solidarity and shared responsibility. Decades of success for the system have since the 1990s been replaced by growing problems with keeping up the high level of benefits and services, a development, which is increasingly questioning also the values underpinning the whole welfare structure. Immigration is one factor, among many, challenging the system and immigrants have also been among those most affected by emerging new forms of poverty

(this source is not off the net. It's in downloaded PDF form. one can find the link to it in this Google search:)

Series: Cambridge Studies in Social Theory, Religion and Politics
Edited by Kees van Kersbergen
Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam
Philip Manow
Review
Universität Konstanz, Germany

This book radically revises established knowledge in comparative welfare state studies and introduces a new perspective on how religion shaped modern social protection systems. The interplay of societal cleavage structures and electoral rules produced the different political class coalitions sustaining the three welfare regimes of the Western world. In countries with proportional electoral systems the absence or presence of state–church conflicts decided whether class remained the dominant source of coalition building or whether a political logic not exclusively based on socio-economic interests (e.g. religion) was introduced into politics, particularly social policy. The political class-coalitions in countries with majoritarian systems, on the other hand, allowed only for the residual-liberal welfare state to emerge, as in the US or the UK. This book also reconsiders the role of Protestantism. Reformed Protestantism substantially delayed and restricted modern social policy. The Lutheran state churches positively contributed to the introduction of social protection programs.

• Radical revision of established knowledge in comparative welfare state studies based on a combination of country case studies and comparative accounts • Introduces a new perspective on why and how religion shaped modern social protection systems and gives a new comparative account of the formation of different welfare state regimes • Systematic inquiry into the role of the state–church conflict for social policy in advanced industrial societies

Contents

1. Religion and the Western welfare state: the theoretical context Philip Manow and Kees van Kersbergen;

2. Western European party systems and the religious cleavage Thomas Ertman;

3. The religious foundations of work-family policies in Western Europe Kimberly J. Morgan;

4. Italy: a Christian democratic or clientist welfare state? Julia Lynch;

5. Religion and the welfare state in the Netherlands Kees van Kersbergen;

6. A conservative welfare state regime without Christian Democracy? The French Etat-providence, 1880–1960 Philip Manow and Bruno Palier;

7. Religion and the consolidation of the Swiss welfare state, 1848–1945 Herbert Obinger;

8. The church as nation? The role of religion in the development of the Swedish welfare state Karen M. Anderson;

9. The religious factor in US welfare state politics Jill Quadagno and Deanna Rohlinger;

10. Religious social doctrines and poor relief: a different causal pathway Sigrun Kahl. Contributors


(contributors include:Philip Manow, Kees van Kersbergen, Thomas Ertman, Kimberly J. Morgan, Julia Lynch, Bruno Palier, Herbert Obinger, Karen M. Anderson, Jill Quadagno, Deanna Rohlinger, Sigrun Kahl).

Barber makes several undocumented assertion based upon steriotype.

Even the psychological functions of religion face stiff competition today. In modern societies, when people experience psychological difficulties they turn to their doctor, psychologist, or psychiatrist. They want a scientific fix and prefer the real psychotropic medicines dished out by physicians to the metaphorical opiates offered by religion. No wonder that atheism increases along with third-level educational enrollment (1).

Of cousre what he's missing is the fact that there's a huge industry of Christian counseling and psychology. A large portion of it is admittedly worthless, especially when connected with Churches. Yet a large portion of it is scientific and valid. when people go to a psychiatrist rather than a minister there's a good chance his education is going is to have some cross over with religoius training. There's also a large number to go to ministers in addition to "shrinks." Christian based ministry is going to reflect the views of the chruch offering it. Of course if you go to a fundamentailst chruch thier counciling will reflect fundmenalism. They will not be engaged with the acadmeic nature of the field in a significant way. If one goes to a liberal Church one will find counselors who are so engaged. One might also consider the track record of alleged secular scientific counseling. I have a close family member who has been involved in the mental health care industry for some time. I wouldn't give two cents for their ability to help anyone.

Barber sums it up:

The reasons that churches lose ground in developed countries can be summarized in market terms. First, with better science, and with government safety nets, and smaller families, there is less fear and uncertainty in people's daily lives and hence less of a market for religion. At the same time many alternative products are being offered, such as psychotropic medicines and electronic entertainment that have fewer strings attached and that do not require slavish conformity to unscientific beliefs.

His happy little world of secular mental health is a sham, shattered by reality. We have 40 years of abuse, sexual crimes, abuse against civil liberties, warehousing rather than treating patients and so on. one of the symptoms of these atheist love letters to secular society is the rose colored glasses through which they dismiss all of societies problems on the pretense that secular answers solve everything.

Barber's title implies a jaded sort of superiority over the common man; the human beast, we need superior elite shrinks and social sciences to tell us what to do. This might start us wondering at an atheist movement in bogus social scinece that includes people with Nyborg's notions of genetic superiority and Barber's apparent desire to do social engineering.

Atheist Bully Boys in Action

Christian poster on CARM says:

tired of atheists and ex-Christians

... I'm writing to express that I am tired of the remarks I often hear from many atheists and ex-christians. I have done a lot of things to understand their point of views and to hear where they are coming from and I am tired of the way they treat my religious beliefs and my commitment to continue to identify as a Christian. I have read many ex-christian testimonies and atheist books. I have read some of Hector Avalos, G. Dever, Valerie Terico, Bart Ehrman, John W. Loftus, Dan Barker, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Victor Stenger, Steven Weinberg, Sean M. Carroll and many other ex-christian testimonies and atheist explanations all over the internet. I have read so many from ex-christian.net, on here, on you-tube, on yahoo answers, and all over the place. Sometimes I felt like my mind would explode. I have had friends leave Christianity and I have had days when I thought there was no hope for this religion at all anymore and I might as well become an atheist and get over with it. I even tried to become an atheist multiple times but I could not fight off the urge to pray indefinitely. This religion is just a part of my life, it is a part of who I am. My heart and my life was changed because of Christianity, this is not a sick and evil religion. I didn't always grow up religious. I lived in a secular family before that didn't believe in anything. I liked, and still do, like science and math and learning about the world around me. I loved astronomy and learning about the universe. I loved learning about nature and I was passionate about helping the environment. I thought Christians were dumb because they were so focused on the afterlife rather than helping people and the world in this life. I wanted to help all the poor and starving people around the world and I was angry that Christians were more concerned with saving people for some afterlife instead of helping people in this one. I was a decent moral human being without religion and so was my family. We definitely were not perfect but we weren't bad people either. We knew not to murder or steal and to be kind and we didn't need the Bible to tell us that. I was sick with anthropocentrism that I saw in Christianity and the world around me. "animals and plants matter too!" I thought. "They can feel pain too! We should care about all living things, not just humans."

I had raging hormones and crazy imaginations and like entertainment and literature and science and everything the secular human life had to offer. And yet I also love being a Christian now and this religion has changed my heart and my life. It made me learn humility and patience and peace. It gave me a heart to not fear and to not distrust but to love and to be content and to be light minded. I didn't go because I was greedy for some afterlife or because I was afraid of hell. It definitely was not the cool thing to do and I worried what my parents and family would all think of me. But I became a Christian because in my heart I felt it was the right thing to do and my life has drastically changed. I have known peace more than I ever could have known and am part of something greater than anything I have ever seen of felt in my previous life. I love this religion and I love all the things God has brought me through, bad and good. I'm not going to say Christianity has done only good things to me but even the bad things that came from being religious, Christianity helped me to rectify. Going to church and praying with my pastor was more effective than anything secular counselors or medications did for me. Do I know all the answers and the arguments to my faith? No I don't, I don't know what is absolutely true philosophically or scientifically or all that but I know what is true in my life and in my experiences. I am tired of reading ex-christian testimonies and atheist banter on how stupid and delusional and harmful our religion is. I'm tired of people saying I can't be religious and like science too. I'm tired of people saying that God is like this or that and that christians are all pig-headed stupid believers. I'm tired of people criticizing our religion in excessively negative ways and calling us all gullible, delusional, or imbecilic. We can believe some stupid stuff I admit, we can make big mistakes and have a lot to learn. We are not perfect but we have a lot of good things going for us. I love this religion, it has changed my life it has changed my heart. I have felt it and I'm still here.

I applaud this guy for his honesty and courage.


The hate group responds
observe how cowardly they are that they
can't just accept someone's feelings.


MFFJM2

Wow, it must really suck to be you. How about this, stop caring what other people think about you, or your religion. If you don't want to be thought of as delusional, then you should stop posting/talking about your delusions. If you don't want to be thought of as gullible, then start using some critical thinking skills and stop believing everything you're told or you read in the dogma of your church. If you don't want to be thought of as imbecillic, then don't present imbecillic ideas as objective reality, expecting the rest of us to swallow it whole just because you did. NOTE: I am not suggesting that the author of the OP is any of these things, and I am only responding to the words he used in the OP.

Note the Orwellian use of "delusional." Anyone who is not conformed to the atheist brain washing and doesn't accept their truncated reality is "delusional."

Captain Stupidity

... the fact is that as long as you're having the discussion about your beliefs in a public forum... people will comment. When those beliefs don't reflect reality or depend on blind faith, then skeptics will point on the logical fallacies. That is simply a fact of the interwebs.


If you're faith gives you some measure of peace, take comfort in that and enjoy it. If you enter into the public discussion about the rationality of your beliefs, expect to see dissenting opinion.

Look at what he's really saying. He's actually saying "you must conform to your views or keep ti to yourself." There is no reason why anyone should not be able to discuss his feelings on a Christian message board (which CARM is supposedly) and not be ridiculed for them. Don't these guys have a responsibility to act in civilized fashion?

Deist

..., as passionate as you are in your beliefs, I am equally if not more so, passionate about my disdain for Christianity and all that it is. If that upsets you, so be it, and yoiu have to live with it. Atheists are in a stark minority in America, and if anything, they are the ones who should be complaining about the constant bombardment of Christian beliefs and dogma....

Just imagine if we told this guy the same stuff the atheists are telling Delong? how would that be? Keep it to yourself, we will mock and ridicule you if say stuff not in accord with our brain washing. that's what they think they are fighting against, yet they wont extend any compassion to people in the same boat.


See the Orwellian aspects of atheism in action? They use a word that has meaning in a clinical setting ("delusion") they alter it to imply that if you don't see things the way I do you are insane. So any view that differs from mine is insanity. The atheist brain washing is defined as "reality." one must be an atheist to be sane. Look at what they are telling him, "unless you march in lock step with us then you are a target of our ridicule.

How any thinking person be part of this hateful totalitarianism? Why should we put up with it? Why should the 90% of bleieve in God allow themselves to be terrorized by this 3% of know nothings?

Bogus Athesit Social Sciences: Nigel Barber's theory of Religion and Uncertainty

Nigel Barber

The 'study' by Nigel Barber "uncertainty hypothesis."


I've arleady discussed the atheist propaganda instrument, the Psychology Today blog. I will be discussing study that appears on that blog soon. One of source on that page caught my interest. It's a study by someone named Nigel Barber. Of course Barber has a relationship with the Psychology today blog. He's not just an academic whose study they daraw upon as a result of research but he's actively participating in the propaganda machine. This is from the bio the blog publisher writes for him:

Hailing from Ireland, Nigel Barber received his Ph.D. in Biopsychology from Hunter College, CUNY, and taught psychology at Bemidji State University and Birmingham Southern College. A prolific cross-national researcher, Barber accounts for societal differences in sexual and reproductive behavior using an evolutionary approach. Books include Why Parents Matter, The Science of Romance, Kindness in a Cruel World, and The Myth of Culture: Why We Need a Genuine Natural Science of Societies. Interests include finance, organic gardening, and hiking.

The Study used in the psychology today blog article.This guy's study has gotten a lot of press, it's discussed on the Huffington post (unfortunately--all the good political people ahve to suckers in the spiritual world?).

The study explicates and argues for the thesis that religious belief is prompted by economic insecurity and will eventually wither away as economies grow and properer in the first world. This is an inane, presumptuous and myopic understanding of things. It is predicated upon a huge number of misconceptions about religion, ignores modern social scineces and assume the structural functionalist Bolderdahs of the century before the last one. It just dogmatically ignores all the work in the 20th century by everyone from Maslow to Huston Smith, sweeps aside all the talk about sense of the numinous and the religious a priori and just asserts that there's a straight 1x1 correlation between money and faith. This assertion is actually rooted in Fuererbach.

Abstract of the study on Sage Publications site
Barber, N. (in press). A cross-national test of the uncertainty hypothesis of religious belief. Cross-Cultural Research.

According to the uncertainty hypothesis, religion helps people cope psychologically with dangerous or unpredictable situations. Conversely, with greater control over the external environment due to economic development and technological advances, religious belief is predicted to decline (the existential security hypothesis). The author predicts that religious belief would decline in economically developed countries where there is greater existential security, including income security (income equality and redistribution via welfare states) and improved health. These predictions are tested in regression analysis of 137 countries that partialed out the effects of Communism and Islamic religion both of which affect the incidence of reported nonbelief. Findings show that disbelief in God increased with economic development (measured by lower agricultural employment and third-level enrollment). Findings further show that disbelief also increased with income security (low Gini coefficient, high personal taxation tapping the welfare state) and with health security (low pathogen prevalence). Results show that religious belief declines as existential security increases, consistent with the uncertainty hypothesis.


According to the uncertainty hypothesis, religion helps people cope psychologically with dangerous or unpredictable situations. Conversely, with greater control over the external environment due to economic development and technological advances, religious belief is predicted to decline (the existential security hypothesis). The author predicts that religious belief would decline in economically developed countries where there is greater existential security, including income security (income equality and redistribution via welfare states) and improved health. These predictions are tested in regression analyses of 137 countries that partialed out the effects of Communism and Islamic religion both of which affect the incidence of reported nonbelief. Findings show that disbelief in God increased with economic development (measured by lower agricultural employment and third-level enrollment). Findings further show that disbelief also increased with income security (low Gini coefficient, high personal taxation tapping the welfare state) and with health security (low pathogen prevalence). Results show that religious belief declines as existential security increases, consistent with the uncertainty hypothesis.

Before turning to the criticisms others make there are several things that need to be said about this abstract. First for some ridiculous reason this theory seeks to ground the basis for religion in one thing, money. It should be abundantly clear to any student of history that there are multiple connectoins between belief and the believer. To reduce all of those to one thing, such a Fuerbaching proposal should send red flags waving (pun intended). It's so "materialist" in thinking. Maslow's work in psychological spirituality should tell us by itself tht this nonsense that the reasons for religious bleief have a lot more to do with an overall understanding of one's relationship to being and to the cosmos. Maslow draws upon a large tradition of empirical psychological study.Economics is only one area of life.We have everything in life to cope with. There's uncertainty in everything,including life and death. Take a statement from the abstract:

According to the uncertainty hypothesis, religion helps people cope psychologically with dangerous or unpredictable situations. Conversely, with greater control over the external environment due to economic development and technological advances, religious belief is predicted to decline (the existential security hypothesis).

The first part of the statement is based upon an unspoken assumption that if this motivates religion then it's the naturalistic cause and that's all there is to it. If we assume that religious belief in mixed in with evolutionary endowment, which is no reflection on its truth content becuase if God created evolution why would God not also mix bleief in with evolution? Meaning the function to secure one in the face of turmoil and trammels of life is simply something religion is supposed to do because God made it that way. That is no more proof that it's only a naturalistic accident than the fact that things fall down rather than up. The assertion that religion declines when economic position is achieved is clearly false. That's one of the basic bogus assumptions of bogus atheist social science, its empirically not true. In the United States religion has not declined but your economic hay day has come and gone but even while climbed to the top of the industrial ladder and become the most affluent nation we did not cease to be religious as a society.

They are basing these assumptions on bad ideas and stereotypes about Europe. Especially Northern Europe is seen as the capital of atheism in the world. To hear most atheists tell it one would think that the situations are severed form the US there are only about 3% Christians in Sweden and everyone else is an atheist. This is the assumption of Barber because he and the other blogger of the psychology Today Blog are basing their thinking on the bad studies by Paul and Zuckerman. Else where I have demonstrated the bunk that masquerades as social science under those two names. I've written a bit on Zuckerman. I have contacted him by email and must admit he's a nice guy. I dislike his pseudo social science on religion in Eruope. Take Japan as a counter example, which I believed is used by Paul as an example of a nation totally secularized in which religion is a minor influence. Japan is a lot more influenced by religion than Paul or Zuckerman would want to admit.


The situation in Northern Europe is disproved by another study that debunks anther economically based theory.

There are also others who are critical of religion yet doubt the veracity of Barber's study.The Demand for Religion by Wolfgang Jagodzinski and Andrew Greely is a study that counters a theory that views religion as a response to economic demands. This time theory states that religion will grow or shrink depending upon the installment of the demand for it. In other wrods supply side economics in sociology of religion. The two authors demonstrate through their own studies that northern Europe is a lost more religious than people think.

This paper examines the conflict between the "secularization" theory of religious decline and the economic model of religion which assumes a fairly constant need for religion and attributes variation in devotion to variation in the supply of religious services. First the analysis reveals that the number of "hard core" atheists (those who firmly reject the existence of God and the possibility of life after death) in seventeen countries are a relatively small proportion of the population. Then it turns to Norway to determines that one can hardly describe that country as "unreligious." Next it discovers that there is a higher level of Catholic religious practice in the competitive environment of Northern Ireland. Finally it considers the one thoroughly secularized country – East Germany – and concludes that the "demand" for religion can be diminished considerably if a ruthless government takes control of the process of religious socialization.

One might also note not only does the Jagodzinski and Greely study disprove Barber's assertion, because it shows his assumptions about the correlation between economic security and religion belief are wrong, but also the theory they are working agaisnt also would, if true, deny Barber's hypothesis.

In the International Social Survey Program’s study of religion in 1991, two questions were asked which are pertinent to this investigation:

Please look at this card and tell me which statement closest to expressing what you believe about God:

1. I don’t believe in God
2. I don’t know whether there is a God and I don’t believe there is any way to find out.
3. I don’t believe in a personal God, but I do believe in a higher Power of some kind.
4. find myself believing in God some of the time but not at others.
5. While I have doubts, I feel that I do believe in God.
6. I know God really exists and I have no doubt about it.

And

Do You believe in life after death?

1. Yes, definitely
2. Yes, probably
3. No, probably not
4. No, definitely not

In third column of Table 1, "Hard Core" Atheists are those who agree with the first item in the first question (they are firmly convinced that God does not exist) and with the fourth item in the second question (they firmly reject the possibility of life after death. This group therefore can be assumed to experience no need for religion and to be absent from the religious market place.

In the second column, "Soft Core" Atheists include those in the third column and those who, while they reject God do not completely reject life after death (they accept the third response on that question – there is "probably not" a life after death. This latter group might be considered to be on the far fringes of the religious market place.

The "Softest Core" Atheists in the third column include those in the first two and those who can fairly be called agnostics (the second response to the God question) because they do not completely reject the possibility of the existence of God. They might be considered as hovering a little closer to the religious market place.

Note that

1. The proportion of Hard Core atheists is relatively small in all the countries except East Germany (42.7%)
2. The proportion is above 10% only in former socialist countries (12.4% in Russia, 13.9% in Slovenia, and 11.3% in Hungary) and in the Netherlands (11.4%) and in Israel (12.1%).
3. In the other eleven countries, the highest rates of Hard Core atheism are in Norway (6.7%) and Britain (6.3%). Thus if latent demand for religion is excluded only from the Hard Core atheists, there is still the possibility of a large clientele for those firms which might venture into the religious market place in such supposedly "secularized" countries as Norway and Britain.
4. There are not all that many Hard Core atheists in the countries studied, nor indeed all that many soft core atheists either.
5. The "Softest Core" Atheists are less than a third of the population in every country except East Germany. They are more than a fifth of the population only in four former Socialist countries – East German Russia, Hungary and Slovenia. With the exception than of East Germany more than two thirds of the population of the countries studied are willing to admit the existence in some fashion of God and the likelihood of life after death. Devout many of them may not be but on the two central issues they are more religious than not. They then may be considered as part of the religious market place if not always enthusiastic consumers.

Furthermore in the sample as a whole, Hard Core atheism correlates only with gender (women less likely to be atheists) and not with education or age (those favorite measures of the more naïve of the "secularization theorists.") 83% of the Hard Core Atheists say they never believed in God, 61% say they never attended church services when they were eleven or twelve years old and 9% more say they only rarely attended. The choice of Hard Core atheism as a philosophy of life was apparently made at a very young age in life and is sustained through the life course.

There are also critics who directly engage the Barber study.


criticism:



Jerry A. Coyne, Ph.D is a Professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolution at the University of Chicago and a member of both the Committee on Genetics and the Committee on

Do life’s uncertainties promote religion? A flawed study


problem 1

from Coyne:

Barber collected data on these issues from 137 countries. The index of religiosity was taken from Zuckerman (2007), as “the proportion of people reporting that they did not believe in God.” There is a possibility of error here since the question was not asked in the same way in every country.

Problem 2 (Ibid)

But there is a big problem with these results. As the table shows, the different indices of “security” are also correlated with each other. For example, there’s a strong negative correlation (-0.69) between the degree of agricultural labor and the percentage of people getting third-level educations. Likewise, pathogen load is negatively correlated with level of education and positively correlated with degree of agricultural labor. Income inequality is negatively correlated with taxation (a measure of “welfare stateness”). Pathogen load is negatively correlated with whether a country is/was Communist, but positively correlated with whether a state is Islamic.

These cross-correlations among the different indices of “security” mean that we cannot use each of them as an independent variable affecting religiosity. We don’t know, for example, whether the negative correlation between disbelief in God and income inequality reflects a direct influence of the latter on the former (countries with higher inequality have higher belief in God), or only that income inquality affects religiosity because that inequality is itself a sign of poor health (pathogen load has a 0.5 correlation with the Gini coefficient). What this means is that you cannot say that each of the seven variables is itself significantly associated with religiosity. They are not independent.

conclusion:

So what can we conclude? The results generally support the “uncertainty” hypothesis because each variable is correlated in the expected direction with religiosity. But what we cannot say is that each of the seven variables itself has an independent effect on belief and disbelief. That awaits a multiple-regression analysis—or other statistical tests that get rid of the problem of cross-correlation. The data for this are in fact already available to Barber.

And, of course, we all know that correlation is not causation. Even if each of these variables was independently and significantly associated with religiosity, we still don’t know in which direction (or neither) the causality runs. It’s formally possible, for instance, that more religious societies promote income inequality and poor health, but for most variables that suggestion seems less parsimonious.

We can also ad that the total adherents to hard atheism around the world amount to an extremely small group.

^ a b "Worldwide Adherents of All Religions by Six Continental Areas, Mid-2005". Encyclopædia Britannica. 2005. http://search.eb.com/eb/article-9432620. Retrieved 2007-04-15.

* 2.3% Atheists: Persons professing atheism, skepticism, disbelief, or irreligion, including the militantly antireligious (opposed to all religion).
* 11.9% Nonreligious: Persons professing no religion, nonbelievers, agnostics, freethinkers, uninterested, or dereligionized secularists indifferent to all religion but not militantly so.


from Wikipedia 8/2/11

"According to another, rates of self-reported atheism are among the highest in Western nations, although also to quite varying degrees—United States (4%), Italy (7%), Spain (11%), Great Britain (17%), Germany (20%), and France (32%)."[20]

source:b "Religious Views and Beliefs Vary Greatly by Country, According to the Latest Financial Times/Harris Poll". Financial Times/Harris Interactive. 2006-12-20. http://www.harrisinteractive.com/news/allnewsbydate.asp?NewsID=1131. Retrieved 2011-04-09.

Observe Great Briton which has only 17% atheists. One would expect more like 50% if Barber's theory were true.