- Home
- Find a Therapist
- Topic Streams
- Get Help
Mental Health
Addiction
ADHD
Anxiety
Asperger's
Autism
Bipolar Disorder
Depression
Eating Disorders
Insomnia
OCDPersonality
Passive Aggression
Personality
ShynessPersonal Growth
Happiness
Goal Setting
Positive PsychologyRelationships
Low Sexual Desire
Relationships
SexEmotion Management
Anger
Procrastination
StressFamily Life
Adolescents
Child Development
Elder Care
Parenting
SiblingsRecently Diagnosed?
Diagnosis Dictionary
- Magazine
- Tests
- Psych Basics
- Experts
Atheists are heavily concentrated in economically developed countries, particularly the social democracies of Europe. In underdeveloped countries, there are virtually no atheists. Atheism is thus a peculiarly modern phenomenon. Why do modern conditions produce atheism? Read More
A reason why some people in developed countries are religious
There is one shared characteristic of non-religious people in developed countries: they're smarter than religious people.
There is certainly a high
There is certainly a high attraction for atheism for many intellectuals, resulting in a higher average IQ level for atheists. But I venture that the attraction is based on atheism's lack of a community/social responsibility element. If you are gifted with great ability then as a religious person you would also be burdened with great responsibility to use that gift for the betterment of all of God's people. A religion without a God, or even a common ethos, has no such burdens and Atheists are free to be as self serving as they desire. That understandably has a great appeal to those who think that they could do better "on their own".
Might you be implying that....
Might you be implying that atheists are more selfish than the religious? I demand an experiment to test these claims, it wouldn't be hard to put together.
exactly - I think atheists
exactly - I think atheists are even more humanitarian, but on a broader scale. When they go out to help people they go out to HELP PEOPLE. They are not like missionaries who will help people on the conditions they accept the religion being sold.
Religion has long been a way to understand the unknown. From the Greek Gods that caused volcanoes and the dawn to Yaweh who caused flooding. Atheists are more scientifically minded, though, and thus more intelligent. It is not a god that's causes these things, it's part of nature. If we don't understand it then, unlike our primitive ancestors, we will try to find out why it is occurring, instead of assigning a god to the task.
I just moved out of tornado valley. While I was in there, people were handing out free night-time tornado alarms (that will go off if a tornado warning's issued and you're asleep - allowing you to wake up and get to safety). However though they were going for free, many people weren't taking them. Why?
"Well, if god loves us, he will keep us safe of the tornado. If the tornado hits us, it just means god wants us to be with him."
...it is really a no-lose situation for god, there!
...and that is what makes atheists more intelligent - the ability to see the ridiculousness of statements like those.
exactly - I think atheists
I disagree with the comment above. I believe in a God and I doubt if I'd be considered "unintelligent". I too can see the ridiculous nature of the hypothetical statement you produced - and I would not hesitate to denounce it to any congregation I preached to. As evidence of anything, that statement is plain malarkey to anyone who thinks, whether they be an atheist or a "believer".
As to what modern missionaries do or don't do, much has changed, thankfully. Many missionary societies have no agenda other than genuinely seeking the welfare of the people into whose communities they are invited. Sure, they do their "religious" stuff, but it's never a bargaining tool. Not all missionary organisations are like that, true; but I think the majority are these days.
The story is undoubtedly apocryphal but it tells of Francis of Assisi going with another monk to "preach the gospel" in a nearby village. They spend all day in the village, chatting to folk and helping with their projects. At the end of the day they make ready to leave. Francis' companion asks about this "preaching the gospel" business and Frank supposedly replies, "Brother, if these folk haven't understood that we have preached the gospel to them today, then reading from a book won't make any difference..."
Speaking as an Anglican priest, I think religion is tainted beyond redemption. But atheism, so far, doesn't adequately address any of the issues spirituality (not religion) seeks to wrestle with. The article's author, unfortunately, proposes a rather simplistic and facile argument, ignoring many of the more difficult "inexplicables" that excite spiritual curiosity. Heh; I prefer Dawkins, any day.
Absolutely
You're quite right that atheism "doesn't adequately address any of the issues spirituality (not religion) seeks to wrestle with." But then, it's not fair to ask that of atheism, which is nothing more than a position of disbelief.
As for issues of spirituality, I think they CAN be addressed by humanistic philosophy, as long as we define spirituality more broadly--that is, if we remove any metaphysical presumptions and simply use the word to refer to the deepest and most profound experiences we can have as human beings. (I realize that most people will equate such experiences with God, but I think that those experiences have a value that is independent of whether or not their source is divine.)
If their source is not Devine
If their source is not Devine then scientifically dose not exist
If their source is not Devine
If their source is not Devine then scientifically dose not exist
If their source is not Devine
If their source is not Devine then scientifically dose not exist
Absolutely
You're quite right that atheism "doesn't adequately address any of the issues spirituality (not religion) seeks to wrestle with." But then, it's not fair to ask that of atheism, which is nothing more than a position of disbelief.
As for issues of spirituality, I think they CAN be addressed by humanistic philosophy, as long as we define spirituality more broadly--that is, if we remove any metaphysical presumptions and simply use the word to refer to the deepest and most profound experiences we can have as human beings. (I realize that most people will equate such experiences with God, but I think that those experiences have a value that is independent of whether or not their source is divine.)
Absolutely
You're quite right that atheism "doesn't adequately address any of the issues spirituality (not religion) seeks to wrestle with." But then, it's not fair to ask that of atheism, which is nothing more than a position of disbelief.
As for issues of spirituality, I think they CAN be addressed by humanistic philosophy, as long as we define spirituality more broadly--that is, if we remove any metaphysical presumptions and simply use the word to refer to the deepest and most profound experiences we can have as human beings. (I realize that most people will equate such experiences with God, but I think that those experiences have a value that is independent of whether or not their source is divine.)
It appears that you haven't
It appears that you haven't spent much time mixing with "Christians" from other "valleys" beyond the tornado 'valley'.
I realize it's very easy to permit subjectivity to creep into your perceptions and stated when it is such a closely guarded opinion as a 'religious' or, in your case, an 'anti-religious' one.
You're not doing yourself any favors by citing the lowest 'common denominator' from your selective slice of Bible-belt Americana. You display an arrogance that doesn't do the 'non-cause' of atheism any favors either.
If you've honestly completed an honest search for some metaphysical truths, and you have concluded that those are unknowable. So be it. . .
Just know that there are others whose IQ certainly exceeds yours, and they have dug deep for evidence that demands a verdict and have subsequently changed their minds on many issues related to this 'unknowable' realm, as you call it.
Your arrogance cries out. . . either you are conceited in your own mental / intellectual prowess to empirically deny the possibility of Creator. . . or you really need to mix it up with some Christian specimens other than your "tornado valley" neighbors.
well actually
That is mostly church goers who have those unintellectual thoughts.
Jehovahs witnesses know better than to assume that every religous
persons death is the result of "god wanting to be with them" why would god want a good person to die (not that all religous people are good)and also Jehovah God and TRUE science go hand in hand.
Your generalizations themselves are unintelligent so....
Atheists never help people
Atheists never help people they just make things worse
Atheists never help people
Atheists never help people they just make things worse
Atheists never help people
Atheists never help people they just make things worse
Atheists never help people
Atheists never help people they just make things worse
Atheists never help people
Atheists never help people they just make things worse
Atheists would shoot
Atheists would shoot themselves in the head in a "scientist" told them to
Atheists would shoot
Atheists would shoot themselves in the head in a "scientist" told them to
retard :=)
retard :=)
and a Christian would if the
and a Christian would if the Bible told them to.
The quality of your writing
The quality of your writing suggests that perhaps you are not well qualified enough to be a valid participant in this discussion. However, the fact that you misspell and make sweeping assumptions is also not reason to call you a retard.
atheists are less caring
The empirical evidence that atheists are less caring than the religiously observant is clear and abundant. Judging by these comments, atheists are simply in denial about the evidence. For a review and discussion of the empirical research, see Arthur C. Brooks, Who Really Cares? America's Charity Divide: Who Gives, Who Doesn't, and Why It Matters. The religious give far more in time, treasure, and talent to secular as well as religious charities. This despite the fact that they are less affluent. The same is true across countries too: secular, anti-clerical France being much stingier than the U.S., and secular Europe as a whole being stingier.
Atheists have fewer children--not only a factor militating against their demographic triumph but also an expression of their selfishness. (But the differential rate of parenting is not simply a matter of believers having more children. It is also that people who have children are more likely become believers and return to practice of their religion.)
Misleading.
The data in Arthur C. Brooks book is:
1) Suspicious. The 2000 SCCBS data he quotes flies in contrast to figures from the GSS and ANES.
2) Much more exaggerated than the title of his work suggests. We're talking a few percentage points here, and when religious "charities" and organizations are removed from the picture, the rate is about the same. I'm not sure if you should be given credit for donating to your local church, but Brooks includes it.
3) Brooks found that liberals are more likely to volunteer than conservatives.
Brooks and atheist tightwads
Are we reading the same book and the same data, Dan?
1) The Brooks I read cites all three sources and to the same effect. For example, it is from GSS data that we learn that religious people were far more likely to donate blood, to give food or money to a homeless person, etc. (Brooks, p.39).
2) The differences are not small and apply even if only giving to secular charities and causes is considered. "[R]eligious people were still 10 points more likely to give money to nonreligious charities such as the United Way (71 to 61 percent), and 21 points more likely to volunteer for completely secular causes such as the local PTA (60 to 39 percent)"(pp.38-39). For secularists, religious charitable giving to houses of worship is replaced by...nothing.
In reality, the differences are dramatic and apply across faiths and and as measured by other behaviors as well as regular attendance at services. People who pray daily are 30 points more likely to give money to charity than those who never pray(83 to 53%). Those who say they devote a great deal of effort to their spiritual lives are much more likely to give than those who devote none(88 to 46%). Even those who say that 'beliefs don't matter as long as you're a good person' are dramatically less likely to give charitably (69 to 86%) and to volunteer (32 to 51 percent) than those who think that beliefs do matter (Brooks, p.36).
3) See #2 above. Here Dan switches from religious to political groups, a different if related topic. But even here, Brooks finds that the differences are dramatic--in favor of conservatives, not liberals (p. 24). Both secular conservatives and secular liberals are poor givers of time and money, but here, it is true, the liberals do slightly better. Both secular groups, however, are far outshone by both religious conservatives and religious liberals. As Brooks demonstrates, "Religious people are, inarguably, more charitable in every measurable way" (p.40).
Even atheists are beginning to acknowledge the huge charity gap instead of dismissing it. Like the Roman emperor Julian who tried to emulate Christian charity as part of his effort restore paganism, they are developing non-profit foundations along the lines of faith-based charities to promote atheist giving (see Samuel Freedman's New York Times column for April 2, 2010.)
(There's much more to be said, of course. For some of it, see my blog at http://ethcisculture@blogspot.com)
Only religiouse people do it
Only religiouse people do it out of fear of punishment. Or in other words, they do it for selfish reasons.
motives for giving
do you have a shred of evidence to support the claim that the religious are more charitable out of fear--or is that just prejudice?
Evidence
Do you have a shred of evidence that God exists?
evidence
Yes.
Take a look at philosopher Antony Flew's last book, There is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind. John Pasquini has a new book that synthesizes the scientific arguments. It's called The Existence of God: Convincing and Converging Arguments.
Post new comment