|
Cingulate posted:I mean, the bolded part any catholic would sign too, even the ones who think homosexuality should be suppressed. In principle I agree this would probably erode the basis for most of religion. But one question is, should it be championed under that banner? Should you tell people this story, "religion divides us, education decreases religiosity, we should educate everyone, partially so they stop being religious and divided"? I guess not - you don't want people to choose between education and religion, because a lot of them will come down on the wrong side. Like I said, you don't make education increasing secularism part of the political platform. You can sell it purely on competence and bettering society. "Hey look, educating everyone makes our economy better! People have better jobs, are more productive, make new inventions and new discoveries!" It's an added side bonus that good education increases secularism, and the former is all you need to push politically. I'm arguing this on D&D where like half the people are socialist or farther left and likely half agnostic/atheist as well. For the public at large, I agree it's a divisive narrative that should probably be avoided. The fact that we can't argue fairly against religious interpretations is exactly the problem, which is why we should be transitioning towards more secular interpretations that can be argued based off of actual evidence. The making your own mistakes and diversity argument are also an issue, but I'm not supporting a ban on religions in any way. We give people better cognitive tools, and hope the rest falls into place while limiting conflict to the religious right's heinous teachings and actions.
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2017 23:40
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 12:40 |
|
|
Shbobdb posted:This is a particularly challenging example for me, since my my normal rebuttal would be, "Does [hobby] seem to teach or at least correlate with deeply reactionary views?" I'm not sure that's fair because Gamergate assholes are probably like 1% of gamers. Sexism in the gaming industry is definitely a thing though, especially with all the busty female models they can't not use. Also nobody uses video games for life guidance or philosophy except a vanishingly small subset of turbonerds. A significant portion of the population does have their worldview influenced by their religion, though.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2017 02:24
|
|
|
coyo7e posted:I literally quit playing online games entirely, because every time I could hear someone talking, it was some teenager bitching about Hillary Clinton being "a second affirmative-action president". I'm not defending Gamergate or "gamer" culture in any way. 1% is an exaggeration, but video games are ubiquitous now. 59% of Americans play video games, and the largest demographic is now adult women. The issue of teenagers/adult being loud bigoted assholes online is not a new thing and we are seeing a brand new world with the rise of Trump where they are emboldened. Imagine being a 15 year old shithead from a random town where there's standard American casual misogyny/racism, and now the America has Donald "Grab 'em by the pussy" Trump for president. Video games are just entertainment and come with a similar set of problems as all of our pop culture. Again, gently caress Gamergate assholes, seriously. Their harassment campaigns were vicious, and disgustingly sexist. They're angry and afraid that video games are now enjoyed by everyone and not middle/upper class white men (boys). But they don't represent the overwhelming majority of gamers.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2017 09:51
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:I see a lot of questions here as well as some irrelevant assertions. It's a well worn argument that basically boils down to "God of the Gaps". Because our imperfect tool of science cannot give full and perfect understanding to imperfect humans, there's always room for God.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2017 02:38
|
|
|
How in the hell can you conceive of people being gently caress ups in a scientific view? We are winning so hard we almost circle back around to losing. We have literally dominated the land area of Earth. There is absolutely nothing that poses a threat to us besides ourselves and astronomical level events. Even a mass virus outbreak that kills 90% of humans we would recover from in a few hundred years, which is nothing really in the scope of life. We have the ability to pass down what we have learned to future generations, slowly making us stronger. The idea that we are a bunch of gently caress ups comes from religion comparing humans to hypothetical perfect or larger than life beings. We are winning so much that we have time to sit back and ponder these ideas and debate whether people are "good" or "bad" without worrying about survival at all, using a complex electronic network that connects everyone on Earth with internet access. It makes me incredibly sad that religious people view humans as being unworthy, or sinners, or in need of outside guidance. We are so much greater than that and we are only on the potential starting line of our growth. Just another block adding weight to the idea that religion is ultimately a detriment to progressive causes.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2017 11:43
|
|
|
Bolocko posted:This is something a lot of people — religious and non — don't always grasp, which reveals itself every time someone scoffs and says, LOL, but if the Torah/Bible/Qur'an/other were really the so-called word of God then wouldn't he have thrown some advanced physics in there? Some advanced chemistry for formulating important medicine? I think you fundamentally missed the point. Even the people in developing nations being exploited at sweat shops are still winning. They don't have to actually worry about survival or passing on their genes. The Bible is a political document that outlines the structures and some specifics for family structure, politics, worship method, the nature of existence, etc. The Bible is not primarily about relationships, and it's kind of a cop out to frame it that way. The idea that humans are flawed, sinners, in need of redemption, comes from a religious interpretation. The idea that we can be saved because we are worthy is ridiculous on its face. Why did we need to be saved in the first place then? I think love is important too but that's a weird rear end thought train. 1. Love is the most important thing. 2. We don't love each other often enough. 3. We should be ashamed at our societal level lack of love and tendency to hate. 4. Humans are therefore giant fuckups in general, but still worthy of divine grace. It still seems the foundational level of that perspective is seriously flawed, sorry.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2017 22:00
|
|
|
CountFosco posted:If your conception of victory is merely the continuation of human genetic material, and simple existence then I really don't know what to say. It basically is though ultimately? I mean surviving the death of our solar system would be the most amazing thing imaginable. We could outlive the life cycle of our original planet. Of course doing that is all sci-fi now but if we manage to not kill ourselves maybe in a few thousand years. It's about viewing our scope in both the world and the universe as accurately as possible. We "won" life on Earth already. We are currently the most successful species on land. Life on Earth is competition, and we simply outcompeted every other species because we utilized our intelligence. We reshape our local environments and species to better accommodate humans. It is unprecedented for a single species to affect things at the global scale like humans are able to. Agriculture, infrastructure, fishing, animal husbandry, medicine, etc. and now even direct genetic modification. So yes on the biological scale humans have already won, we just don't know what to do with the spoils. I think our societies and general communal constructs have a lot of improvement that needs to be done. Especially given how unnecessarily harsh living conditions are for most people. But as a species, humans are hardcore winners. My conception of personal and societal victories, my "purpose" in life, does not need to counter the fact that humans have dominated the Earth and are an incredibly successful and capable species. It's one of the points of abrasion in a progressive and scientific understanding of the universe versus spiritually grounded thinking. Conceiving of people as flawed, fallen, needing a connection to the divine, and all the other nonsense forged in religious thought just muddies the water when trying to change society.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 00:31
|
|
|
TomViolence posted:We've pretty much already killed the planet we live on, we extinguish entire other species on a daily basis. I don't really consider this winning. We may dominate our natural environment, but if we carry on with our current trajectory this will have dire consequences for the viability of life itself on this planet and the distant dream of slipping earth's surly bonds and forging on into space is as deluded as believing in the rapture. We have one planet and we're loving it up massively. If we somehow do find a way to abandon spaceship earth and carry on elsewhere it'll only be a few of us and billions of folk will carry on living and dying on this toxified, decrepit sphere of ruin until our habitat becomes truly untenable -- a state of affairs creeping closer by the day. That's why I said we circle back around to losing. Unless we can get enough of the species on board with serious measures to protect the environment, we are sort of hosed. Even then though it will likely not be a species killing event. We might lose 40-50% of our population, and that would be horrific. Lots of horrible things coming with climate change, but again we will still survive as a species and hopefully learn our lessons. Religion does not have the answer for these global problems. Sure there are good examples like Japan protecting massive amounts of forests for spiritual reasons, but overall a religious method of thinking makes most people not worry about it because God(s) can fix things anyways. Countries with higher religiosity trend towards not giving a poo poo about the environment, and that's a big goddamn deal that gets brushed away because not every single religion acts that way. I don't have a rapture/lottery winning idea I will personally be saved. I said it's not happening for thousands of years, if at all. CountFosco posted:I can think of several things more amazing. I maybe should have said one of the most amazing things, but still it would be an achievement that takes our species to a whole new level. It's crazy this isn't a long term (hundreds of years) goal for people.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 07:11
|
|
|
Secular Humanist posted:*hot take incoming* Religious garb for women that covers them "sexually" has always been a huge sore spot in meshing religion with progressive ideology. Whether it be nuns, hajibs, or just a head scarf there is a not subtle implication that women are sexual objects. The main counter argument is that it is a choice and that is what feminism is all about. That falls flat though when the religion does not have the same restrictions for men. Even if it is a choice, that choice reinforces stereotypes and objectification and should be frowned upon. American's puritan history makes us not immune to this at all. Up through the early 20th century women had to wear and be depicted in "modest" clothes. It was a scandal that Emma Watson showed half her breasts in an artful Vanity Fair cover because of worldwide religious reinforcement of "purity" and "chastity" for women. It's a complete bullshit double standard that religious clothing only helps perpetuate.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 12:01
|
|
|
Tonetta posted:Meanwhile, muslim men are wearing hijab in protest of middle eastern laws requiring women to wear them Ok that's cool? Still makes the hijab horrible. I also said that nuns in habits have the same exact problem. TomViolence posted:The flip-side of this is stuff like France's burkini bans, though, where the implication is not "woman, cover thyself", but "woman, reveal thyself." If modest dress standards enforce objectification, I'd argue that enforcing immodest standards of dress does the same, demanding that women make their bodies available to male delectation. Clothing in western secular society is gendered too, though perhaps more fluidly, and is geared towards a certain presentation and expectation. I mean, sure, some western women choose to wear high heels, but even if it is a choice, that choice reinforces stereotypes and objectification and should be frowned upon, right? Nope this argument is full of poo poo. A legal requirement to wear more revealing clothing is a continuation of objectification. Are you seriously comparing wearing heels to be the equivalent of someone wearing a habit or full veil? One of them has religious connotation specifically protecting the modesty of women, the other is a freaking shoe.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 18:56
|
|
|
TomViolence posted:My point was that it's not merely religious societies where women's modes of dress are influenced by an objectifying male gaze. An incredibly weak point. Patriarchal hegemony is a huge issue worldwide, and religion is absolutely a major factor in spreading and maintaining societal and gender identities. Pretending otherwise is misguided at best. TomViolence posted:The colonialism, slavery and apartheid that drove much of western society economically throughout the 19th century certainly seems to have been explicitly justified on the basis of a pseudoscientific racial hierarchy. If we take "secular morality" to mean the prevailing ethical norms of a society divorced from any singular religious tradition, then I think it'd be fair to say european and american 19th century society was explicitly racist in its secular morality, to the point of being a fundamental belief. Racism wasn't just an unpalatable side dish to european enlightenment values, it came part and parcel with many of the young sciences of the time. Anthropology, for instance, was intimately intertwined with justifying and abetting the imperial project through study of native cultures. This shows a serious lack of historical knowledge on the subject. Eugenics is definitely a lovely secular ideology, but where oh where did the idea that non European Whites aren't fully human come from? Certainly couldn't be based off the idea that it was questioned whether Africans and Native Americans even had souls during the early colonial days. The primary source letters are ripe with great quotes about how they are incapable of being "saved" by Jesus because of their subhuman qualities. Racial hierarchies are religious based ideas, not secular ones. It's explicitly written in religious texts that certain tribes are favored by God and the others should be destroyed or are hell bound. The conservative wing then, like assholes from the Heritage Foundation now, used secular and scientific rhetoric to mask their regressive world views. It must be some wild coincidence that actual scientists at the forefront of innovation just happen to be in the progressive end of their generations overall, while religious leaders trend conservative overall. Even during the Nazi eugenics days the overwhelming majority of real scientists said  are a load of poo poo. Nice historical revisionism to make religion seem better and secularism seem worse, though.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 23:14
|
|
|
TomViolence posted:Okay, here I'm gonna transcribe a source from one of my textbooks to try and demonstrate that scientific attitudes based on supposed physiological difference were a significant basis of the secular, pseudoscientific racism of the nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries: Eugenics was literally a flash in the pan. It only had credence from the early 1900s to the 1930s, by which point it's practices and underpinnings had been criticized and debunked. A brief academic history of eugenics Eugenics took early knowledge of evolution and synthesized it with folk theory. It literally would not have happened without the previous bigotry instilled by and reinforced by religion. Darker skin had been associated with being "impure", which was the basis for "weak" genetics in some races. poo poo Mormonism held that belief into the 70s, and most White churches in the 1800s through the early 1900s were not that cool with race relations. Scientists and especially biologists are not shy about the lovely history of eugenics, and will gladly explain in clear terms why it was wrong and how we can prove it was wrong. Again I'm not saying that religions are the sole cause of these societal problems, I'm saying they are hurting far more than they are helping. Gender roles are realized and reinforced by religion in a generally sexist fashion; I didn't think this was a contentious fact.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2017 00:25
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Actually if you destroy those stones can anyone tell that such a place ever existed? Also I was referring to the secularists ignoring the racist history that has accompanied those who declare that reason is why they commit their actions. Lol the rationalism for colonialism was spreading the glory of the crown. They came up with secular arguments to try to justify their royalty (Divine right) driven genocide.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2017 01:53
|
|
|
rear end struggle posted:Capitalism drove colonialism. But you're right besides that. It's obviously a huge and complex issue mostly driven by greed, but trying to claim it was a secular movement is stretching. Crowsbeak posted:The third Republic had a monarch? Because one secular government formed in 1870 totally was the impetus behind the colonialism that started centuries before that. poo poo colonialism started before there was the first fully secular (in name at least) government.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2017 06:24
|
|
|
Agnosticnixie posted:Also the third republic only started veering towards the hard secularism of modern France in the 20th century. The first governments of the third were largely conservatives and monarchists who couldn't agree on who should be the king. All the way to the interwar period the implication that a presidential candidate was an atheist was sufficient to hurt him massively in the polls. It's strange how much resistance there is to the idea that more secular trends towards more progressive. I've never argued that religions only hurt things, or that secularism has a perfect track record. The point is that there is enough evidence that encouraging secularism, and discouraging spiritualism, makes populations far more likely to be progressive. Religions have far too many problems in so many varieties that they ultimately provide more resistance to progressive ideology than aid. This is actually important, because if we want to move entire countries to the left, discouraging religion is something that will actually help on a large scale. This doesn't mean outright bans on any religion. It means a shift in media and culture, and on a governmental level actually enforcing tax codes. No churches should ever directly endorse politicians, and this goes for Democrats and Republicans. If a priest says that Obama is a Muslim infiltrator from the sermon, or that Mitch McConnell doesn't represent real Christians, then they lose their tax status. This poo poo is never enforced despite Southern churches being massive political vehicles. I know that Black Churches have a history of busing and helping their constituents vote, but this is far outweighed by the overwhelmingly conservative trend of churches in general. It's 2017, we can start replacing those programs with secular ones that don't fill their constituents with false hope.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2017 10:42
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Well the day of Judgement means the end of everything, and a new creation. I don't see how that relates to a five year old burning ants. Because that's exactly what a 5 year old burning an anthill does? A destructive petulant being destroys the lives of millions without batting an eye. Then the actual workers are left to rebuild things.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2017 11:04
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Actually it means there would be no one to rebuild as everything ceaces to exist as we know it. Christian end of times philosophies are so loony. Why couldn't another species take our place within a few hundred million years of evolution even if God did rapture all humans away? The rest of the Earth would be just fine. Or do you think God will take every paramecium, cockroach, slime mold, sea urchin, dog, etc. into heaven along with humans? When you start to get into any factual details about religious poo poo it always falls apart. The rapture would absolutely be a kid on an anthill arbitrarily deciding who would be "saved" and gleefully exterminating the rest. But oh wait God is actually worse because instead of the sweet release of oblivion you get tortured forever instead.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2017 19:34
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Because if you believe that God created humans you probably don't think that they could evolve on their own. Yes I get that it's why it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. At this point it's not about belief in evolution but acceptance of evolution. We are basically 100% sure it happened over the scope of hundreds of millions of years. We are more sure of this than we are sure that the Earth revolves around the Sun. All that apologetics and long-building theological philosophies are literally at odds with the observable universe. Which is why religious thinking is fundamentally flawed and poses a roadblock to progress.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2017 19:51
|
|
|
CountFosco posted:You can't group nuns in there. No one (at least nowadays) is forced to be a nun and take the habit. It is a symbolic piece of clothing that a nun wears as part of her vows. Male monastics have similar rules about clothing. How does that line of thinking work? The overwhelming majority of women in veils and headscarves are not forced to wear them either, that's only in a few regressive places. The habit is absofuckinglutely a piece of clothing thats intended purpose is to desexualize the female body. Monk robes are supposed to be more about staying simple and not crazy guilded expensive clothes like the Pope and Cardinals could be criticized for wearing. The symbolic gesture of hiding the tatas, leg skin, and hair is that women's bodies are a sinful temptation and hiding that makes one more "holy" or "open to God" or "chaste" or whatever. It has the exact same sexist implications as Muslim garb and Hindu garb that covers women. Trying to say nuns aren't literally doing the exact same thing with the habit is ridiculous.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2017 20:00
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:While you can make the obvious comments about the difference because of patriarchy, monks are expected to be chaste, as far as I know. I think all Catholic Church positions take vows of chastity, and they are all stupid. Men shouldn't wear anything "chaste" or be sex shamed either. But funnily enough having these weird sex hang ups inevitably affects women more in worse ways. The historical track record is always double standards for men, and using the idea of purity to keep a stranglehold on women's sexual agency.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2017 21:01
|
|
|
Bolocko posted:Maybe the person with weird sex hang-ups is the one frustrated by others voluntarily committing to abstinence? It's frustrating because it makes me sad to see people hurt themselves and others. In almost every case, voluntary abstinence is not good for either biological or psychological health. It also reinforces repressive beliefs in society, equating godliness or virtue to being abstinent or desexualizing yourself. It's all around unhealthy outside of extreme circumstances like sex addicts and abusers. It ties directly in with habits and veils and placing value in people's sexual "purity". The whole thing is a crock of poo poo that ultimately frames women's roles as a sexual receptacle and men's as sexual aggressors. So the reason a real leftist might have an issue with these things is because they are actually a part of the problem. Being able to hide behind ridiculous religious tradition to perpetuate this oppression and nonsense makes it that much more difficult to reach gender equality. And again no sane people are proposing bans on these or taking away women's agency to choose to wear their oppressive clothes. But it is something that should be publicly frowned upon and criticized. These milquetoast apologetics always manage to sidestep discussing the misogynistic consequences of supporting these traditions. Also don't forget that until the early 20th century women in America didn't wear clothes that showed their ankles in public because of all this religious based modesty. Women being able to break from the bonds of their constricting, decorative, and diminutive clothing definitely played a part in feminism and improving gender equality.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2017 01:25
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:On the other hand suggesting that women who adopt religious dress codes are shameful and obviously not in their right minds and are clearly just self harming is not the most, uh, progressive message in the world. I never said we should call the women crazy? I said that the action of wearing those clothes should be pointed to as having negative effects on society, so maybe they should rethink their position. Progressivism and feminism isn't all sunshine and rainbows. You can't hold hands and sing with everyone until they get along. Negative social reinforcement is a huge part of cultural shifts. Like calling Black people the N word has been curtailed (not stopped unfortunately) through negative reinforcement, so too can carrying the torch for regressive practices in gender. It's a decades long multigenerational undertaking, not some blanket ban or unfiltered ostracizing.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2017 02:02
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I haven't ever found "hate the sin, not the sinner" particularly convincing. Stop obfuscating with this bigoted horse poo poo. That only applies to veiled attempts to legitimize hate for LGBTQ people. That's not the argument I made at all.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2017 02:10
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:It sure as hell sounds like it. Collateral damage from education and debate? Did I advocate organized public shaming? I'm failing to see the hatred in moving away from archaic and gender binding clothing. Equating this to the hateful rhetoric surrounding homophobia is a load of poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2017 02:30
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:"I don't want people to be individually shamed just a general nonspecific 'negative social reinforcement'" is not at all convincing. You know full well what that means and the most charitable explanation I can afford you is that you don't particularly care. It's pretty simple. Don't make someone a spectacle in a crowd, and don't be condescending and aggressive. It's actually pretty easy to communicate to different sexes in a respectful manner You still haven't gotten around the base problem that these religious clothes reinforce gendered oppression. We can decide on the best way to try to phase this out of society, and you're the only one insinuating that we should be publicly shaming these women or sidelining them. OwlFancier posted:Preferable solution: This is basically what people against habits and veils are arguing. Nobody is saying to deny services, equal pay, or respect because a woman is wearing something. They can however be criticized, as they are using a tool of hegemony.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2017 06:13
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:I have to say, after the probations the thread went quiet and then quickly became a bunch of fedora atheists arguing with a bunch of bad faith arguments ranging from "Have you ever considered the fact that maybe 18th Century Humanism was hella racist? Am I blowing your mind?" to "Let's go in depth with some Bible passages and thereby cede the argument via re-framing" and "Let's present the false choice of mandated sexual modesty vs sexual exhibitionism. Secularism means the government will mandate babies getting blowjobs!" I try to not be a fedora atheist, but I probably come across that way sometimes. It's really hard not to get flustered because almost nobody engages in good faith arguments when defending religions. It's constant goalpost shifting and reframing. I actually think religions have a lot of anthropological value and spiritualism has a fascinating history with development of civilizations and social movements. Still think it's all wrong though and causes more problems than it helps with in the modern world.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2017 08:22
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:I can recognize the value of phlogiston theory while recognizing it has no place in the modern world. Same thing with the spheres theory. Geocentrism wasn't a ridiculous idea like Flat Earth nonsense. It appeared as though everything circles around us, with a few minor exceptions, the planets. Which actually comes from the word for wanderer, because they change their positions in the stars over a period of years. There was seriously complex math for how it all worked too and it made sense in that construct. Until Copernicus and Kepler blew that wide open. But geocentrism also belongs in the dustbin of history because it's obviously completely wrong.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2017 08:31
|
|
|
To get back to the original question, let's take a look at how religiosity on a large scale relates to leftism! A list of counties by how important religion is Country Yes, important No, unimportant Sweden 17% 82% Estonia 16% 78% Denmark 19% 80% Norway[a] 21% 78% Czech Republic[a] 21% 75% Japan 24% 75% Hong Kong 24% 74% United Kingdom 27% 73% Finland[a] 28% 70% Vietnam 30% 69% France 30% 69% Australia[a] 32% 68% The Netherlands[a] 33% 67% New Zealand[a] 33% 66% Belgium[a] 33% 58% Cuba[a] 34% 64% Bulgaria[a] 34% 62% Russia 34% 66% Belarus 34% 56% Luxembourg 39% 59% Hungary 39% 58% Albania 39% 53% Latvia 39% 58% Germany 40% 59% Uruguay 41% 59% Switzerland 41% 57% Canada 42% 57% Lithuania 42% 49% South Korea 43% 56% Kazakhstan 43% 48% Taiwan[a] 45% 54% Ukraine 46% 48% Slovenia 47% 52% Slovakia[a] 47% 52% Spain 49% 51% Azerbaijan 50% 49% Uzbekistan 51% 46% Israel 51% 48% Serbia 54% 44% Ireland 54% 46% Austria[a] 55% 43% Belize[a] 62% 33% Argentina 65% 34% United States 69% 31% Croatia 70% 28% Chile 70% 29% Singapore 70% 29% Jamaica[a] 70% 30% Montenegro 71% 28% Greece 71% 28% Portugal[a] 72% 26% Italy 72% 25% Moldova 72% 19% Kyrgyzstan 72% 25% Mexico 73% 25% Armenia 73% 25% Poland 75% 19% Haiti[a] 75% 23% Cyprus 75% 25% Macedonia 76% 22% Botswana[a] 77% 23% Bosnia and Herzegovina 77% 21% Venezuela 79% 21% Costa Rica 79% 20% Turkmenistan 80% 18% Togo[a] 80% 13% Georgia 81% 16% Turkey 82% 15% Ecuador 82% 17% Iran[a] 83% 16% Colombia 83% 16% El Salvador 83% 16% Peru 84% 14% Iraq 84% 11% Nicaragua 84% 15% Honduras 84% 15% Romania 84% 12% South Africa 85% 15% Puerto Rico[a] 85% 14% Tajikistan 85% 12% Mozambique[a] 86% 14% Philippines 96% 4% Malta 86% 10% Brazil 87% 13% Dominican Republic 87% 13% Lebanon 87% 12% Zimbabwe 88% 12% Cote d'Ivoire 88% 12% Burkina Faso[a] 88% 12% Panama 88% 11% Angola[a] 88% 11% Guatemala 88% 9% Tanzania 89% 11% Bolivia 89% 10% Syria 89% 9% India 90% 9% Kosovo 90% 8% United Arab Emirates 91% 8% Kuwait 91% 6% Namibia[a] 92% 9% Trinidad and Tobago[a] 92% 8% Paraguay 92% 8% Pakistan 92% 6% State of Palestine 93% 7% Sudan 93% 7% Uganda 93% 7% Madagascar[a] 93% 7% Benin[a] 93% 7% Nepal 93% 6% Tunisia 93% 5% Saudi Arabia 93% 4% Central African Republic[a] 94% 6% Kenya 94% 6% Liberia[a] 94% 6% Democratic Republic of the Congo 94% 5% Bahrain 94% 4% Ghana 95% 5% Zambia 95% 5% Qatar 95% 4% Algeria 95% 4% Chad 95% 5% Rwanda 95% 5% Republic of the Congo[a] 95% 5% Mali 95% 3% Cameroon 96% 4% Malaysia 96% 3% Nigeria 96% 3% Cambodia 96% 3% Senegal 96% 4% Jordan[a] 96% 4% Myanmar[a] 97% 3% Afghanistan 97% 3% Laos[a] 97% 3% Guinea[a] 97% 3% Morocco 97% 2% Egypt 97% 2% Comoros 97% 2% Thailand 97% 2% Burundi 98% 2% Djibouti 98% 2% Mauritania 98% 2% Somaliland 98% 2% Somalia[a] 98% 2% Sri Lanka 99% 1% Malawi 99% 1% Indonesia 99% 1% Yemen 99% 1% Niger 99%+ 0% Ethiopia 99%+ 0% Bangladesh 99%+ 0% While obviously not a panacea to conservatism, it definitely seems like there is an extremely high correlation between countries being less religious and leaning much father left. While obviously not perfect, the lowest ranking countries include Sweden, Norway, Denmark, France, the Netherlands, Belgium, etc. that are among the most "leftist" counties. Rounding out the top in the 95+% is a hodgepodge of horribly repressive countries that swing wildly conservative. Russia and Japan are both low in religiosity, and they have has their own serious brands of conservative issues. But it does definitely seem like decreasing religiosity leads to more leftism. Let's take a look if this applies within the United States! All states, ranked by ... % of adults who are “highly religious” 1. Alabama 77% 1. Mississippi 77% 3. Tennessee 73% 4. Louisiana 71% 5. Arkansas 70% 5. South Carolina 70% 7. West Virginia 69% 8. Georgia 66% 8. Oklahoma 66% 10. North Carolina 65% 11. Texas 64% 11. Utah 64% 13. Kentucky 63% 14. Virginia 61% 15. Missouri 60% 16. South Dakota 59% 17. Ohio 58% 18. New Mexico 57% 19. Iowa 55% 19. Kansas 55% 19. New Jersey 55% 22. Florida 54% 22. Indiana 54% 22. Maryland 54% 22. Nebraska 54% 22. Wyoming 54% 27. Arizona 53% 27. District of Columbia 53% 27. Michigan 53% 27. North Dakota 53% 27. Pennsylvania 53% 32. Delaware 52% 33. Idaho 51% 33. Illinois 51% 35. California 49% 35. Minnesota 49% 35. Nevada 49% 35. Rhode Island 49% 39. Montana 48% 39. Oregon 48% 41. Colorado 47% 41. Hawaii 47% 43. New York 46% 44. Alaska 45% 44. Washington 45% 44. Wisconsin 45% 47. Connecticut 43% 48. Maine 34% 48. Vermont 34% 50. Massachusetts 33% 50. New Hampshire 33% It also appears that even within the United States increased religiosity correlates strongly to being more shittily conservative. On top of being objectively wrong tautologically, philosophically bunk, and morally questionable there are real world consequences in limiting entire nations and groups of people. It seems more like religion is generally limiting of leftism, not the other way around. The leftist countries and states do not ban religious worship at all, while religious counties do ban leftist policies and ideas.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2017 03:46
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Hmm. I notice Russia is high on that list. A great bastion of reason and social democracy, that Russia. Hmmm I notice that I specifically pointed that out. Take an honest comparison of the bottom and top quartiles against each other in aggregate. It's not good.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2017 06:08
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Hmm, I wonder if perhaps rather than obsessing whether a place is religious or not, you should instead try to be concerned whether people are starving or being ground down by bad regimes. Just a suggestion. I mean I know its easier to say. "THEIR DUMBOS AND LIVE HORRIBLY BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT RATIONAL LIKE ME". But maybe you need to delve deeper than such thinking. You seem to have a serious issue understanding trends and outliers. The less religious areas are, unsurprisingly, diverse but trend towards leftism. The highly religious areas trend strongly conservative. Maybe I actually give a poo poo and want to help these regions and the world in general approve. And religion seems to be a strong barrier to progressive change, so maybe we should be more critical of it. I haven't been 'sperging about "retarded sheeple" or whatever nonsense you're implying at all. Maybe you should try to address the facts instead of sidestepping with some straw man bullshit.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2017 07:07
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:They don't though, quite a few actually are koch labatories. Others are fascist dystonias. Maybe you should actually try to address real problems rather than your, faux concern over the fact that people in some of these places pray. Real problems? You mean like the prevalent rape culture in the United States? Like defunding and dismissing education? Like gender equality? Like climate change denial? All of these giant societal problems that are heavily entwined with religion? And by the way I've protested, volunteered, and/or donated for these causes and more so it's not just "faux concern". Decreasing religions role in policy and society is a catalyst for progressive change, not the impetus.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2017 07:25
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Climate Change? Really? I mean it cannot be that there are people who have a interest in pushing it so they can protect their financial success. Also while I want to get rid of rape culture suggesting its a problem because of religion rather then poverty. (Like in the case of Russia, and Bulgaria). Education. I mean there are certain Chrisitan types that are part of this problem. But then a big push at killing education has been neoliberals who tend to be aligned with secularism.. Now Gneder equality I admit the churches, could work on but the rest seems to be you trying to find reasons to pretend to be superior to others. Rather then address problems at their core, income inequality. You don't think energy group think tanks used religion as a tool to spread climate change denial? It's part and parcel to being and evangelical American Christian. Income equality is of course a much larger issue and I don't dispute that. But don't pretend like religion actually helps with reducing income inequality instead of entrenching it. Education, especially in physical sciences, is no longer something that jives well with religion. That union started to erode when science started disproving dogma centuries ago, and now stands at a "nice but separate and have different points/goals" from the religious perspective. Not every sect is hostile to education, but again as a trend in the the modern world religion trends anti-science. Neoliberals are terrible and have nothing to do with the criticisms against religion being a conservative enabler. Maybe we can try to make the world more progressive without a myopic focus on income inequality, even if it is the biggest single issue. We can't abandon social equality purely in the name of economics, they go hand on hand.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2017 08:10
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:1. THey do, but they also enable secualr group that spread the gospel of Ayn Rand, which is not about prayer to God, or Gods. 1. Of course they do but it's nowhere near as effective. Prosperity gospel is believed by 25% of the poor in America and that's a serious impediment to implementing leftist economic agenda. 2. I never said we need to wipe out all religion just that in the public sphere it shouldn't be revered and should be criticized. 3. Religion is not the source of all bad things and not all bad things come out of religion. We can call out religious nonsense while also calling out neoliberal shills. They are not mutually exclusive. 4. When did I ever advocate for anything like that? It's a private issue and it's crazy aggressive to scream at people. I never said any course of action should involve aggressively interfering with people. Are you actually making a good faith argument that I ever said we should run into churches and yell that they are all deluded fools, or blare a megaphone during a prayer vigil or when some random person is clasping their hands in prayer or whatever in a public place? It's about public policy, education, and media. We need to not allow religious institutions to directly influence politics, better education for everybody, and more people speaking up for how ridiculous religious thinking is and news organizations not allowing religious slants or bringing in religious figures as experts on anything other than their religion. None of these things clash with a leftist philosophy, and present a peaceful way to make society better without ever trampling on people's rights or dignity like you keep suggesting I want to do.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2017 10:37
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:1. Prove that many beleive the prosperity gospel. 1. I already covered that earlier in thread, but here's a link. It's actually 28%, I was rounding down. 2. This is not really true. Here is how NYT covers religion, not much different than any other major publication. "What a Buddhist Monk Taught Xi Jinping", "Reza Aslan Thinks TV Can End Bigotry", "understanding what bonds is together as humans is not the job of science", "What Jesus Can Teach Today's Muslims". Do you really not see the reverence religion is given by the tone of these articles? 3. Again, not mutually exclusive and the neoliberals aren't the sole impetus behind lovely education. 4. Better media representation is exactly what I'm saying. Asshats like Hitchens and Dawkins somehow became the face for atheism, instead of non bigoted people like Sagan and PZ Meyers. Atheist characters on TV and movies are usually depicted as detached nerds that have weak social skills. Things are getting better, but we aren't there yet. Don't forget we are only a couple decades out from when it became publicly acceptable to be a nonbeliever. Oh dear me posted:Maybe, for some meanings of 'left', at any rate. For the definition of "left" where people should have equality in social status snd economic justice, then yes. I'm not saying that religion is the sole cause of these problems, but that it hurts more than it helps. When the entire population of a region is highly religious, it is almost always oppressive. Did you seriously look at all the 95+% countries and not see an alarming trend? Secularism appears to be a catalyst for progressivism, and religion appears to be a catalyst for conservatism. That doesn't mean when someone converts they immediately become more Nazi-esque or when deconverting they start become champions of socialism. It means that having high religiosity in a population makes it more reactive and tradition bound, and is therefore something that we should try to change.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2017 20:15
|
|
|
ISeeCuckedPeople posted:Want a real discussion? How does that work with the developmental history of religions in the United States? Religious people were the more conservative ones starting from the Puritans. Sure there are some nice groups like the Quakers we like to highlight historically, but overall the early Protestant and Catholics that made up America leaned conservative pretty hard. The liberal foundational idea of a secular government came mostly from Deists, who are closer to agnostic/atheist than Christians. The reason the right "co-opted" religion is because religion has always been in bed with the right wing. It's a nice relationship that's been going on for millennia.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2017 21:44
|
|
|
Oh dear me posted:No. Correlation does not imply causation, and you cannot make it imply causation by saying you're sure there are other causes as well, or calling it a catalyst instead. I have provided extensive evidence that religiosity correlates strongly with conservatism, and laid out the mechanisms by which religion causes more conservatism. Religion fosters appeals to authority, appeals to tradition, the just world fallacy, reactionism, and a multitude of philosophical, moral, and reasoning problems. But since you insist on even more evidence, Here's an academic study Key take away: religious participation increases economic conservatism among the poor. (Even if it decreases with the rich). Also that it decreases with societal development in general. Here's more hard data directly linking increased religiosity to increased conservatism Key take away: As American states become more religious, they become more conservative. You can try to pussyfoot around the facts, but both historically and in modern times religions help push conservatism.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2017 23:38
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:A quarter agree god can reward good deeds that doesn't mean they're all literal prosperity gospel believers. No, a quarter believe God gives monetary reward for good deeds. It's insidious and is something far more widespread than we like to admit. It's giving a critical weight behind religious perspectives and approaches that is undeserving. Secular state solutions are orders of magnitude more effective than religious ones, but they run articles like these pretending these faiths can effectively solve anything. Neoliberals are not a good friend to education, but don't pretend they are the "main group" making it worse. Full on conservatism and libertarianism is anti-intellectual and actively trying to tear down education on a national level. You think Hillary's Secretary of Education would be worse than Betsy Devos or would be trying to cut education as much as Trump? You keep repeating "correlation is not causation" like a mantra, but it doesn't work that way. When you see such a strong correlation, you investigate to see if there is causation. And to no surprise there are many ways that religions directly increase conservatism including messaging, political activism, and psychological/philosophical influence. In aggregate, religion trends heavily conservative. From this we can surmise that religion does have a causative role in increasing conservatism. This doesn't mean every iteration of religion is conservative or bad, but that collectively it has a net negative influence. It is incredibly easily corrupted because demagogues have perceived divine influence, making it a shaky potential ally at best. Given all this information, religion presents, and will always present, more barriers to leftism than it can help with. Increasing secularization acts as a catalyst for leftism, and should be encouraged alongside the intertwined and important fights for social and economic equality.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2017 00:52
|
|
|
Oh dear me posted:Thank you, this is something - though the article is about participation rather than belief, and specifically argues for a more complicated and two-way story of causation than the one you were offering. The problem is this is a nebulous "truth in the middle" approach that religion can sometimes be bad and sometimes be good so we can't really make any judgements. If you take a critical look at the history of religion and politics for the last 1,000 years, it's incredibly difficult say that religion lands somewhere in the middle on conservatism and progressivism. In fact it's especially damning that "leftist" religions mostly formed out of more extreme conservative religions in the first place, and largely adopted more secular reasoning and practices. Framing it as "missionary atheism" isn't the approach I suggested. Firmer separation of religion and politics, better education, and more responsible media is how we can make these changes without being assholes to people.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2017 01:04
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:1. Yeah you're putting words into the responders mouths there. "God will always reward true faith with material blessings." was the question. Don't try to obfuscate the data because it's an unpleasant fact. No, I said religious coverage and religious experts should be limited to religion. Running articles on how faith can erase hatred between political religious groups is giving credence to religion that is undeserving. Want to do an article about Monks or whatever? Run it in the same way as a cultural piece about Trekkies or nature enthusiasts, not as a social or political authority. I'm not yelling at the NYT, I'm saying this bias exists and curtailing it will ultimately help progressive causes. Considering that Turkey ranks at 82% importance of religion and Syria at 89%, I fail to see how these are indicative at all of secular nations. Religion is a cause of conservatism because it is inherently reactionary, tradition bound, and authoritarian. It is also a large influence in people's behaviors and worldview. Given the evidence, religion ultimately enables conservatism and acts as a roadblock for equality.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2017 02:33
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 12:40 |
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Ohlol, so when it actually does do something good, you say it should be ignored. Also you do know that Iraq, Syria and Turkey spent at least 50 years run by regimes that preached a message against religion influencing their states? Didn't work out to well as it turns out. In many ways it reinforced religion. I never denied that good things come out of religion, the point I keep having to make is there are significantly more bad outcomes than good ones. Syria and Turkey running authoritarian regimes trying to suppress religious opposition is not a reflection of progressive politics, nor were there methods anything like what I have advocated. You don't get rid of religion by trying to strangle it, you do it by increasing the education and opportunities of a population while limiting religion's influence in public policy and education. Your points are aggressively disingenuous. You keep demanding evidence and explanations despite being given an ample amount of both. You've offered absolutely no evidence to prove that religiosity helps progressivism on any large scale, nor any evidence that religion doesn't foster conservatism. You've offered no counter arguments on key points of religion being reactionary, authoritarian, and tradition bound, nor an explanation as to why countries with extremely high religiosity are oppressively conservative without correlation to economic prosperity. Do you have any actual evidence for your positions? Or are you just pointing fingers at outliers while being shown strong groupings?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2017 05:50
|
|