RobM wrote:

quas wrote:they are angry at god.

How can I be angry with something I have no reason to believe is there.

True enough.

But if I tell you there's a loving god who loves everyone equally and intervenes regularly in our daily affairs to make everyone's lives better, but in fact your life has been miserable as far as you've lived and you don't see how it's going to get any better, you know that sort of perspective.

In order to be non-religious, you don't necessarily have to lack belief in the existence of any deity. It could simply be the rejection of the premise of god as fair and loving - god as most religions know it. If your life is miserable, you would probably think of god as an evil god who loves torturing his creations, a neglectful god who has abandoned his creations, an impotent god incapable of interventions, etc. Which is why the author is wrong in thinking that suffering always leads to religious beliefs. Not everyone who is in deep misery is fucking stupid enough to accept the contradicting belief of an all-powerful, all-loving god.

The_Metatron wrote:

ADParker wrote:

The_Metatron wrote:One can be those things, but I'll bet your opening assertion is wrong. I'll bet you that poor people are far more often theists than rich people.

True. Although I suspect that the correlation is even closer between the extremes of education than that of wealth. And the latter being largely due to that correlation; between wealth and education.

Probably, but education is a strong indicator of wealth, also.

True that. To a large extent:
More wealth tends to offer better opportunity to obtain more education.
And more education offers better opportunities to gain more wealth.
And around it goes.

And vice versa of course.

ADParker wrote:

The_Metatron wrote:One can be those things but I will bet your opening assertion is wrong. I will bet you that poor people are far more often theists than rich people

True. Although I suspect that the correlation is even closer between the extremes of education than
that of wealth. And the latter being largely due to that correlation between wealth and education

Yes because one of the fundamentals of a good education is that it teaches one to think for oneself. And the better it is
the more expensive it is. Though having an enquiring mind is something anyone can possess regardless of anything else. And hackenslash is a wonderful example of that because he never had a higher education and yet his intellectual ability is on a par with that of anyone else here. If you were unaware of that then you would swear blind that he was university educated too because of the sheer breath and scope of his knowledge. That plus his reptilian way of looking at things certainly makes him unique. But his lack of formal qualifications should be an inspiration to us all. One does not need rich parents to have an enquiring mind. That comes for free the day you are born. So not to use it seems such a waste

If all it takes is education to eliminate superstitious beliefs, then why do some of the hijackers, bombers and terrorists purportedly have a degree in engineering or medical science? How is it not possible to be highly-trained in academic fields and still be fucking stupid?

In fact, come to think of it, isn't education possibly dangerous for these folks? A terrorist more educated in engineering might use his knowledge in engineering to be make better bombs/weapons.

There's more than one type of wealth...

quas wrote:
If all it takes is education to eliminate superstitious beliefs then why do some of the hijackers bombers and terrorists purportedly have a degree in engineering or medical science ? How is it not possible to be highly trained in academic
fields and still be fucking stupid ?

In fact come to think of it is not education possibly dangerous for these folks ? A terrorist more
educated in engineering might use his knowledge in engineering to be make better bombs / weapons

Knowledge in and of itself is neither good nor bad. It is what it is used for that makes it so. There is nothing wrong in someone having a degree in engineering or medicine. It is when they have an ulterior motive. The way round that is to address the issue of why they think like that rather than deny them access to higher education. Though easier said than done of course. Problem is that no one is going to openly advertise those intentions when enrolling on a course. If only there was a foolproof way of denying knowledge to such individuals. Short of universal surveillance there is no absolute answer to that one unfortunately [ although a favourable foreign policy would certainly help ]

quas wrote:If all it takes is education to eliminate superstitious beliefs, then why do some of the hijackers, bombers and terrorists purportedly have a degree in engineering or medical science? How is it not possible to be highly-trained in academic fields and still be fucking stupid?

In fact, come to think of it, isn't education possibly dangerous for these folks? A terrorist more educated in engineering might use his knowledge in engineering to be make better bombs/weapons.

It's not a magic bullet of course. One does not guarantee the other.
Another thing to consider is that the well educated, and just plain smart, can also be really good at rationalizing whatever batshit crazy beliefs they might have.
But that being said; education is invaluable. I think primarily in that it can aid in improving ones critical thinking skills (note that certain avenues of education may not do so, or do it as well as others), and ones education may push one over that tipping point to drive them to critically examine their most cherished (indoctrinated, religious...) beliefs, where their 'natural' tendency/talent for that may not have been quite enough.
Some are lucky enough to reach that point without extra education, and some will never do so no matter how much or what education the go through.

So, this guy feels remorse because he has earned all his money working at Wall Street practising "predatory economic rationalism" and thereby probably destroying the lifes of a lot of people. And now he has found an easy way to instead of professing his own guilt and speaking out against capitalism, he puts all the blame on his past "atheism".

I have a couple of responses:

The biggest problem I have with anything like this, is the publishing or completely rotten pseudo-logic, as though it has validity. Someone already pointed out the absurdity of the guy claiming that Atheism is to blame for his being a jerk his whole life.

On another tack...I notice that the writer stopped cold dead, at his mild self-flagellation. No mention of changing his ways, not even a HINT that he was now going to donate his vast fortune to those he is caterwauling about.

Therefore, I would say it's pretty clear that all there is to this, is that he is proving that the key to EVERYTHING about his character as a human being is, that it's all about HIM. Writing a mea-culpa article, including self-righteous slamming of someone else for being Atheist, is his way of letting himself off with "time served." Now he can go to heaven with a clean conscience (and full pockets, driving a Rolls) because he confessed his sins. He doesn't have to actually change his ways, or make up for his previous failures.

Finally, it reminds me of the conversion of Saul. He started out as an egotistical self-righteous persecutor of the Christians, and then had an epiphany: after which he awarded himself a high place in Heaven, because from then on he dedicated himself to being an egotistical self righteous persecutor of NON Christians.

What makes these guys Holy (in their minds at least) is WHO they spit on. Not whether they spit on fellow beings or not.

From the article though it sounds as if he is still an atheist, he only thinks you shouldn't be vocal about it.

And this is in my opinion even more arrogant. Thinking that religion is not true, but one mustn't attack it because "the poor" need it.

The_Metatron wrote:I think the key is to fight for that education, for yourself, for your kids.

I think I agree that the key is to fight.

I don't think education in itself is the key. At least in countries like Canada, even poor people have access to decent education and information if they want it (at least in my personal experience). Instead, I think the key is the attitude towards that education. An education is only good if the mind is willing to receive it.

If a parent has the attitude that education and learning (or even religion, for example) are a priority, life/family routines will reflect that. Children learn to value these priorities as important and use them as a framework on which to build their lives. Of course, I think it is also much more complex than that with competing priorities and individual differences also playing a role.

quas wrote:If all it takes is education to eliminate superstitious beliefs, then why do some of the hijackers, bombers and terrorists purportedly have a degree in engineering or medical science? How is it not possible to be highly-trained in academic fields and still be fucking stupid?

In fact, come to think of it, isn't education possibly dangerous for these folks? A terrorist more educated in engineering might use his knowledge in engineering to be make better bombs/weapons.

Again, I don't think it is education that makes a difference with regard to superstitious beliefs, it is the attitude towards the education (or new information). If the priority is given to a religion over new information then any 'education' that contradicts the religion is ignored. I think part of religious training is learning to ignore (or for some to rationalize) information that is contrary to the belief. It is possible to pass tests and obtain qualifications without letting any of the contrary information to change your beliefs. I agree that this may lead to the formation dangerous tendencies in some people.

The_Metatron wrote:.. poor people are far more often theists than rich people.

I don't think that's strictly true. At the lowest end of the education level, where people are still driven by uninformed superstition, possibly yes, but in societies like that, i.e. where the clan chief, or tribal leaders are wealthy in what gives value to that society, even the wealthiest people have those same uninformed superstitions. So it has to be that "wealthy and educated people" are less likely to be theists. But then how do you account for people like the Bush family, some of whom are educated people, for example. Or other right-wing politicians in developed countries.

RobM wrote:

quas wrote:they are angry at god.

How can I be angry with something I have no reason to believe is there.

What does get me angry is the followers of these superstitions who think they have the right to impose their unsubstantiated views on me.

Exactly. To me God doesn't exist except as a character in mythology. I've been extremely angry about what religion does, but never angry at the characters in the mythology stories, only angry about what the believers in the mythology do, claiming it was the will of the god they worship.

Thommo wrote:Atheism - Intellectual luxury for the wealthy

Education - Intellectual luxury for the wealthy
Freedom from violence - luxury for the wealthy
Freedom from disease - luxury for the wealthy
Art appreciation - Intellectual luxury for the wealthy

Overall, I'm not certain how much of a hard hitting criticism "intellectual luxury" turns out to be. I cannot see how finding out that people who aren't pressured to believe, who have the time, resources and intellectual capacity to explore the idea of gods tend towards the conclusion there are no good reasons to believe is anything other than an argument for non-belief.

ADParker wrote:

The_Metatron wrote:

ADParker wrote:

The_Metatron wrote:One can be those things, but I'll bet your opening assertion is wrong. I'll bet you that poor people are far more often theists than rich people.

True. Although I suspect that the correlation is even closer between the extremes of education than that of wealth. And the latter being largely due to that correlation; between wealth and education.

Probably, but education is a strong indicator of wealth, also.

True that. To a large extent:
More wealth tends to offer better opportunity to obtain more education.
And more education offers better opportunities to gain more wealth.
And around it goes.

And vice versa of course.

How does the idea of education explain the vast numbers of people who are highly educated yet still are regular attendees at Sunday services. I can think of a whole lot of people who have advanced education who are still followers of particularly Christianity, but for evidence, look to the entire Republican Party in the US, and how many of their serving politicians, and their children, were educated at some of the world's best universities. These people also are some of the most wealthy people in the world, and they are also regular churchgoers. Is Sarah Palin a university graduate? She possibly is, and is also an example of how the US education system is lacking.

There's more to it than wealth, appreciation of art, and freedom from disease. It's application of the education to become more educated, to keep on developing the education that will eventually lead the individual to question the validity of mythology and superstition. Please, I've heard highly educated, successful physicians suggest "alternative medicine" and "meditation" when their scientific therapies don't work. I've personally been told my specialist physicians that my fibromyalgia would probably benefit from chiropractic, acupuncture, meditation etc etc. Needless to say I've not gone back to them for any further treatment. Even when I've discussed my quirks, lack of social skills, obsessions, depression etc with physicians, I've been told a whole lot of nonsense, over the past 50 years, rather than been sent to be diagnosed for what I now know is a pervasive disorder, and that I had to self diagnose before I was sent to speak to someone who understood what I was talking about. So I really don't place much value on the objectivity of highly educated, wealthy people. I think that if you're going to buy into nonsense, your wealth and education isn't going to change your thinking, and if you're going to think critically, and reason that superstitious mumbo jumbo is just mumbo jumbo, you don't always have to be wealthy to do that. Poverty doesn't necessarily make you stupid, and wealth doesn't necessarily open your mind.

Edited to fix punctuation.

Agrippina wrote:

The_Metatron wrote:.. poor people are far more often theists than rich people.

I don't think that's strictly true. At the lowest end of the education level, where people are still driven by uninformed superstition, possibly yes, but in societies like that, i.e. where the clan chief, or tribal leaders are wealthy in what gives value to that society, even the wealthiest people have those same uninformed superstitions. So it has to be that "wealthy and educated people" are less likely to be theists. But then how do you account for people like the Bush family, some of whom are educated people, for example. Or other right-wing politicians in developed countries.

RobM wrote:

quas wrote:they are angry at god.

How can I be angry with something I have no reason to believe is there.

What does get me angry is the followers of these superstitions who think they have the right to impose their unsubstantiated views on me.

Exactly. To me God doesn't exist except as a character in mythology. I've been extremely angry about what religion does, but never angry at the characters in the mythology stories, only angry about what the believers in the mythology do, claiming it was the will of the god they worship.

Thommo wrote:Atheism - Intellectual luxury for the wealthy

Education - Intellectual luxury for the wealthy
Freedom from violence - luxury for the wealthy
Freedom from disease - luxury for the wealthy
Art appreciation - Intellectual luxury for the wealthy

Overall, I'm not certain how much of a hard hitting criticism "intellectual luxury" turns out to be. I cannot see how finding out that people who aren't pressured to believe, who have the time, resources and intellectual capacity to explore the idea of gods tend towards the conclusion there are no good reasons to believe is anything other than an argument for non-belief.

ADParker wrote:

The_Metatron wrote:

ADParker wrote:
True. Although I suspect that the correlation is even closer between the extremes of education than that of wealth. And the latter being largely due to that correlation; between wealth and education.

Probably, but education is a strong indicator of wealth, also.

True that. To a large extent:
More wealth tends to offer better opportunity to obtain more education.
And more education offers better opportunities to gain more wealth.
And around it goes.

And vice versa of course.

How does the idea of education explain the vast numbers of people who are highly educated yet still are regular attendees at Sunday services. I can think of a whole lot of people who have advanced education who are still followers of particularly Christianity, but for evidence, look to the entire Republican Party in the US, and how many of their serving politicians, and their children, were educated at some of the world's best universities. These people also are some of the most wealthy people in the world, and they are also regular churchgoers. Is Sarah Palin a university graduate? She possibly is, and is also an example of how the US education system is lacking.

There's more to it than wealth, appreciation of art, and freedom from disease. It's application of the education to become more educated, to keep on developing the education that will eventually lead the individual to question the validity of mythology and superstition. Please, I've heard highly educated, successful physicians suggest "alternative medicine" and "meditation" when their scientific therapies don't work. I've personally been told my specialist physicians that my fibromyalgia would probably benefit from chiropractic, acupuncture, meditation etc etc. Needless to say I've not gone back to them for any further treatment. Even when I've discussed my quirks, lack of social skills, obsessions, depression etc with physicians, I've been told a whole lot of nonsense, over the past 50 years, rather than been sent to be diagnosed for what I now know is a pervasive disorder, and that I had to self diagnose before I was sent to speak to someone who understood what I was talking about. So I really don't place much value on the objectivity of highly educated, wealthy people. I think that if you're going to buy into nonsense, your wealth and education isn't going to change your thinking, and if you're going to think critically, and reason that superstitious mumbo jumbo is just mumbo jumbo, you don't always have to be wealthy to do that. Poverty doesn't necessarily make you stupid, and wealth doesn't necessarily open your mind.

Edited to fix punctuation.

There is education...and education. Often, interested parties will try to influence education in terms of political or religious gain.

Darwinsbulldog wrote:

Agrippina wrote:<snipped for brevity/>

There is education...and education. Often, interested parties will try to influence education in terms of political or religious gain.

Yes, there is, but a person who works in a laboratory, and holds an MSc in microbiology is a scientist. A person who holds a specialisation in heart surgery and who works in an operating theatre repairing damaged hearts, is still a scientist. If they are also people who believe that 'God' exists and that they are going to be judged good or evil on their death, they are theists. If someone is a politician who holds a law degree on top of the wealth they've inherited from their ancestors, but advocates keeping religion in schools, they are theists. These are the sort of people I'm talking about. In each case, I'm citing people I know who have argued with me over time about the existence of 'God' and the afterlife. My argument on this particular topic is that saying that educated wealthy people are inclined to be atheists is nonsense. We have the entire Republican Congress in the US as examples of people who are both wealthy and educated (yes perhaps not educated in the sense that they've learnt beyond their college education) and mostly theists.

I have agreed that poverty, and no education does. often, make people more likely to be theists. What I don't agree with is a generalisation that atheists tend to be wealth, educated and cultured people. I've known some pretty ignorant atheists in my time as well. Maybe being an atheist is likely to make you more open-minded, but I think if you're inclined towards wanting to learn more, that doesn't guarantee that you actually will, either learn more informally or seek formal education.

I don't think he was saying his atheism was to blame for anything, only that he saw it as at least partly a consequence of his greater financial security and prospects.

Whether the poor and downtrodden are better off religious or not I'm not sure. The answer probably isn't simple.

Here is a graph I thought interesting, courtesy wikipedia. Note that America, which another thread around here describes as an anomaly as far as religion goes, sits pretty close to the line.

Panderos wrote:I don't think he was saying his atheism was to blame for anything, only that he saw it as at least partly a consequence of his greater financial security and prospects.

Whether the poor and downtrodden are better off religious or not I'm not sure. The answer probably isn't simple.

Here is a graph I thought interesting, courtesy wikipedia. Note that America, which another thread around here describes as an anomaly as far as religion goes, sits pretty close to the line.

I get that, which is why I said:

Maybe being an atheist is likely to make you more open-minded, but I think if you're inclined towards wanting to learn more, that doesn't guarantee that you actually will, either learn more informally or seek formal education.

In my opinion, apart from the statistics you show, which show that theism is higher in poor societies, and with which I agree, if someone is closed-minded and set in their ways, being wealthy and educated isn't likely to make them more open-minded, especially if that education doesn't require critical thinking. Also I think if you're open to learning new ideas, and able to discard the mythology your society teaches, it doesn't necessarily follow that you will be financially successful. (My kids certainly aren't ). It could simply be that some people don't care enough about financial success to seek it. I'm more inclined to say that being closed-minded and theistic is more likely to send you searching for financial success. It's an anomaly that I can't quite figure out about Christians especially. Their religion teaches poverty and humility. I've yet to meet a Christian who is truly humble or not in pursuit of financial success. Most of the devoutly religious people I've met have been extremely obsessed with displays of wealth and success, and they seem to push their children into careers that will provide them with this. Just my personal experience.

When it comes to poverty, yes, the "poor" in this country indeed appear to me to be mostly church attendees and believers in the god introduced to them by their "oppressors." I find this strange as well. If I'd been virtually enslaved by the people who invaded my land, one of the first things I would've done on acquiring "freedom" would've been to kick our their god. But that's just me.

Agrippina wrote:Most of the devoutly religious people I've met have been extremely obsessed with displays of wealth and success, and they seem to push their children into careers that will provide them with this. Just my personal experience.

It might not be just your personal experience..

wikipedia wrote:A study in the United States, published in the Social Forces journal and conducted by Sociology researcher Lisa A. Keister, found that adherents of Judaism and Episcopalianism attained the most wealth, believers of Catholicism and mainline Protestants were in the middle, while conservative Protestants accumulated the least wealth, while in general people who attend religious services achieved more wealth than those who do not (taking into account variations of education and other factors).

Multiple other causes other than preoccupation with wealth acquisition are possible of course.