Simple question
Based on the majority of threads on this board, I get the impression that atheists think that Christians are uneducated, brainwashed, unintelligent people. Is that correct? Do you really believe that?
Also, reasons
I would be interested in reading some honest thoughtful answers.
the rare times I actually think about Christians, to me they are non-thinking types.
Education doesn’t matter for people who don’t think. What the the basic charastic
that Christians must follow? It is FAITH. And faith doesn’t require thought, only belief.
A christian hold’s their faith despite what science says, despite the overwhelming evidence
to the contrary. An example of this is evolution.
Kropotkin
Kropotkin:
There are “non-thinking” types of all persuasions. Many who accept evolution do so unthinkingly. They do so not because they understand it but simply because science says it is so. This is not to doubt science’s credibility, for I am a scientist as well as Christian. I am simply a Christian first… Loving is more important than knowing (as good as it is to know that evolution exists…). And this makes faith more important than knowledge (which is to say faith in the loving way, that it leads to eternal life).
alyoshka: I am simply a Christian first… Loving is more important than knowing (as good as it is to know that evolution exists…). And this makes faith more important than knowledge (which is to say faith in the loving way, that it leads to eternal life)."
K: thank you for making my point for me.
Kropotkin
Kropotkin:
What point is that?
Are you suggesting it’s more important to know the workings of evolution than it is to help a child in need? (Or that other scientific pursuits are to be put before loving acts?)
How very cold and callous of you! How very scientific…
This has held true in my experience. The more rational and emotionally sane the person, the less likely it is that they are religious. The more emotionally disturbed a person is, the more religious they likely are…this i think can probably explain why there are so many religious people in prison (1. cause they’re too stupid to get away with it 2. cause they’re emotionally unstable). Also, the more religious the culture of the upbringing, the more likely it is that the person will end up being religious, so I do think religious people are brainwashed. I think that their rational arguments are not what caused them to be religious. I doubt an atheist, which I believe we all are when we come out the womb, ever started looking at the proofs for God and then had one of the proofs convince him and cause him to start believing and keep on believing. Most religious folk you’ll meet, even if you disprove the arguments they give and even if they acknowledge that their proofs suck, will still believe. It’s not through reason that people become religious. It’s through dogma…brainwashing. Everybody knows it…it’s why the religious indoctrination must start before a kid’s rational faculties actualize.
My reasons?
The rational v emotional thing is from experience. The brainwashed part…I’ve yet to meet a religious person who started believing on the basis of rational arguments, instead of just using the rational arguments to seem smart and not brainwashed.
Oh, and I also think that christians in particular are very resentful and generally speaking dishonest with their feelings. Unpleasant people, really, because they feel guilty whenever they feel anything not nice. They’re not comfortable being human, and as a human, I find myself uncomfortable in their presence.
I’ve written a book’s worth of words on this subject before. They’re all gathering dust on my hard drive. I’m not entirely sure where to start, but I’ll try to keep it relevant to your specific question.
First, I think it’s important for us to know exactly what you mean by Christian. I am of the belief that no two people on this planet have the same perspective on the inner working of reality. Lumping a couple billion people under the title ‘Christian’ does not say anything meaningful about what they actually believe, much as we’d like it to.
Second, the same is true of Atheists
Third, when any group of people spouts polemics at another, presumes ill qualities upon them (uneducated, brainwashed, etc), there is some reason for doing so in their minds. Now of course, the inimitably rational and stalwart, truth-tongued, positively-intentioned Atheists would never, if confronted, defend such guileless and unsubtle stereotypes. Rather, when they say such things it is because they are upset about something and are using polemics to incite debate. You see, they feel that if they are able to get their missile-lock of logic upon you and pull the trigger, you will be helpless, you will surrender, and you will become one of them.
Therefore: Observation #1 - polemics (name calling) incite debate, but logic is meant to be the primary (secret?) weapon once dialogue is opened.
Now, Atheists are no more mean-spirited, unilateral, rigid, or intolerant than anyone else (EDIT - which is to say, they are all of these things). I don’t believe that, deep down, they really give a flying fck whether you believe in god or jesus or bahamut. What they object to are the manifestations of those beliefs. What Atheists are afraid of are the same things that, quite frankly, all of us should be afraid of. The things they really want Christians (or anyone else) to see are the implications of modern scientific understanding.
It does not matter to an Atheist that you believe in the words of the Bible. However when you ‘go forth and multiply’ so as to overpopulate their planet, they start to get a little upset.
It does not matter to an Atheist whether you believe we are descended from primates, but it does matter to them that you recognize that our cognitive structure is inclined toward certain things that are no longer relevant to modern imperatives. Sentimentalism for human biomass is killing the planet, and it is an evolutionary affectation whether you’d like to believe it or not.
It does not matter to an Atheist if you believe spreading the faith to be an important mandate. They only wish you would recognize that their children in the public school system are a captive (and impressionable) audience, and that spreading propaganda in such a venue is simply unfair (I don’t think even Jesus would be on board with such insidious tactics).
It does not matter to an Atheist if you want to claim that god has a plan, so long as you open your eyes. Atheists (mostly - I won’t stereotype) see the majority of faith-based decision making to be senseless and irrational, to be exacerbating all the problems that are further sealing the fate of the species. If it’s part of god’s plan, then it is your sacred duty to witness the works of your creator unfold before you.
If you can really see what’s going on in the world and remain faithful, then I applaud that faith. I think that many Atheists are envious of it (ignorance is bliss?) But if you are simply closing your eyes to the potential realities we face as a species, then you are quite simply part of the problem, not the solution, and it is for this that the Atheists call you names.
Sorry if that hurts your feelings.
*note - not an Atheist, and not a Christian, but I do have my eyes open.
alyoshka: What point is that?
A: Are you suggesting it’s more important to know the workings of evolution than it is to help a child in need? (Or that other scientific pursuits are to be put before loving acts?)
K: a bogus attack because I never in any way, shape or form said anything about a child in need.
Loving acts and children? That sounds very christian indeed or at least priest like.
A: How very cold and callous of you! How very scientific…"
K: again with the totally bogus attack. How very christian.
Kropotkin
Please keep in mind that most people are not vocal about their religious beliefs. Whether atheist or Christian. Those who are vocal about their beliefs are often the fanatics. The Christian fanatic will look down on the atheist and true to convert him. The atheist fanatic will look down on the Christian and try to convert him.
When analyzing any group it is important to examine the population within that group, as well as how that population compares to the society as a whole. The New Atheism of Dawkins et al is a reactionary movement and therefore is most often embraced by those who are reacting against something. That means that the population of self-identified atheists is heavily enriched for people who were raised in very strictly religious households. A lot of the psychology of it is a reaction to their upbringing. That isn’t necessarily bad (as in: sometimes it is, sometimes it isn’t), that is how change happens.
Couple that with how the media likes to cover fringe groups because they generate the most news. That means that the balls-to-the-walls Christians (who are usually typified by being openly scornful of education and intellect). So Atheists see the sort of Christianity that they are reacting to portrayed in the media all the time. Given those two, making the jump to “that is how all Christians are” isn’t too difficult. It doesn’t help that for a long time the Republican party has worked on making that sort of Christian a key element in their base, giving them a very large national presence.
Throw in some human nature regarding in-group/out-group dynamics, and you get precisely what you’d expect.
Personally, I think it is rather tragic. There are plenty of sane Christians out there. But the mantra of “there are no moderates” or “the moderates just serve to legitimize the fanatics” is counterproductive (IMHO) because, well, if someone goes out there and insults an entire group, err, those in-group/out-group dynamics are gonna take over on that side too. The moderates are only a shield for the fanatics when we force them to be.
No, you never really said anything. All you said is you don’t like Christians because they don’t think. In response I said many scientists (those who uphold the findings of science) don’t think either. They believe in the statements of science just like Christians believe in the statements of Christ. In other words, the belief or faith you speak of is on both sides…
Beyond this my point was: I am Christian first because to me it is more important to help others in need than it is to know something, i.e., the nature of the cosmos for example.
DO YOU DENY THIS? i.e., DO YOU THINK IT IS MORE IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THE WORKINGS OF NATURE THAN IT IS TO HELP THOSE IN NEED?
It would be nice if you could say something more than “what a bogus attack”, or “how very Christian”. Come on! This is a philosophy board for Christ’s sake! Use your head and answer the question… Don’t sneak out of it with your snooty, self righteous and ultimately empty retorts.
I’m not atheist, but I think many followers of organized religions are relatively less capable in thinking logically.
I think it’s visible and evident.
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=166695
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=165856
Not “Brainwashed” but “indoctrinated” and are uncritical, most of the time, about what dogmas they must believe because of fear of hell.
Not unintelligent, but men and woman who rather sacrifice their intellect if it makes their belief in Gof possible because with God they retin the promise of someday understanding what would otherwise be unaccetable. Without God that comfort is denied to them and when the choice comes between reason and faith, faith shall always win. A belief might sem absurd, when looked at from reason, but is retained nonetheless out of faith, out of the humble belief that what is now ignored will in the future be made clear.
And as far as educated, they are known for considering education sufficed by knwledge of the Bible.
As a statistical group christians aren’t as intelligent/educated as nontheists. As a statistical trend the more fundamental the less educated. Some christians are obviously educated/geniuses though. At least outside their religious beliefs.
When someone mentions their a christian, you can’t draw certain conclusions but you can make some assumptions which are likely to be accurate.
It appears to me that some of you are making some false assumptions in your answer to the OP’s question. You are assuming that the Christians you have meant or observed in your life that are uneducated:
a)represent the majority of Christians
and
b)therefore because they represent the majority, you assume that Christianity is a world view for the uneducated, and that the majority of the time it does not stand up to scrutiny from an educated mind.
There are a lot of problems with these assumptions(and I won’t list them all here, that would take too long). First, lets assume A is correct. The majority of Christians on earth are uneducated. Assuming that we are measuring education based on the American standard of your completed grade level in high school, or the level of degree you have obtained from a university (with a PhD being the highest level), this is probably true. But as noted above by a poster, the reverse is most likely also true; there are most likely many more uneducated atheists and agnostics than there are educated atheists and agnostics. So by your standards, is it fair to assume that atheism or agnosticism is also a world view for the uneducated, and that it won’t stand up to the scrutiny of an educated mind?
Further more, I think most of us here would agree that too many people believe what they are told by people in positions of authority, such as the media or their high school or college science teacher, and take them at face value without ever examining those beliefs deeper for themselves. Just as many people only decades ago claimed to be Christians because they were told it was the one true belief by people in positions of authority, these same types of people (weak minded, uncritical, sheep, whatever you prefer to call them) are choosing their skepticism based on the recent explosion of media attention on a “science” driven atheism paired with a never before seen amount of freedom to chose our personal beliefs without being socially outcast.
Anyway, what I am getting to here is that you can’t base your validity of a world view on how many, or what kinds of people believe it. This criteria says nothing of whether something is true or not. The best analogy I can come up with at the moment is(bare with me): If you were the last of the math professors in the entire world, and not a single person was left that ever studied math, and you tried to tell everyone that 2+2=4 and the entire world told you it equaled 6, would you abandon your belief? I highly doubt it, because you know what you you’ve been taught. You’ve studied it in depth, you’re an expert on it.
Life appears to teach us that most people always have, and always will believe what they are told by the people they trust. These people usually include their parents, friends, coworkers, their school, the media, and their government. How much time do you think those same people in your life have spent seriously debating, thinking, arguing, studying and mediating on their own personal worldview? Again, it appears life teaches us that like water flowing down a hill, people will take the path of least resistance.
So if you are an atheist and trying to say that Christianity is wrong because of an uneducated following, or vice versa, I’d get a new argument if I were you. You may soon find yourself on the receiving end of that same accusation.
If you are a Christian or an Atheist that has based your worldview on how well you relate to the mainstream media portrayal of your worldview, on the reasons people you have trusted in your past have told you, or even because a couple of well educated people have given you a well presented argument for their case, I strongly suggest you critically and objectively reevaluate your beliefs.
Starting suggestions include: moral absolutes vs relativism, the influence naturalism has had on modern science, the differences between micro and macro evolution, and the amount of proof vs speculation for each of these theories of evolution.
I don’t know…I don’t think you can effectively link intelligence to theistic belief, but I recall reading there’s an inverse correlation between level of education and belief in a god. I think it’s true that there are fewer theists percentage-wise in academia than in the general population, for example. I’d guess that this is because it’s harder for the highly-educated to find a rational basis for belief in a god. But then again, I’ve read intelligently written and well-reasoned essays by believers. There’s a guy who teaches comparative religion at a local university who does a Sunday morning talk radio show in San Francisco called “God Talk” and it’s very interesting to me, a non-believer. That’s because he’s very articulate and knowledgable on the subject and therefore adds a lot of depth and historical perspective to his topics. He isn’t about proselytizing or convincing anyone, but more about exploring how certain facets of theistic belief came about and how they can be interpreted in the context of the times. I’ve heard him get more frustrated with people calling in who are ignorant believers than with the non-believers.
god wants you to help people in need. what is so hard about that?
christians love helping other people; they pray for them all the time. why would we need science when we can give to charity? the bible tells us that the kingdom of god is for the poor and the destitute, the weak and sick. so why would we want to be rich? christians want to be poor, because god said its better to be poor than rich. if you are rich, youre evil, because you have money that you dont need, that you should have given to someone in need.
the OP’er is trying to show us all the love and mercy of god. renounce your material belongings. give them away to someone else poorer than you, so he can then give them to someone poorer still. soon, no one will have anything, we will all be equally poor and sick and miserable without any wealth or shelter or good food. and then the kingdom of god will be ours, the bible says so. remember, god says to renounce earthly things; whats more earthly than eating?
whats so hard to understand about this? cmon, remember god loves you, he wants you poor and miserable and wretched, sick and deseased begging for an inch of a salvation that you dont deserve. no amount of charity will save your evil wretched sinful soul, but you have to do it anyways, because the bible says that we must help each other.
whats so wrong about love???
your not so smart are you?
the scientific advances in the medical field have only helped almost every one in the world. you make it sound as if science is just a stupid game without an agenda.
the topic of this forum was to ask atheists what they thought about christions why are you even commenting on this forum?
now then what i think of christions and im sorry im not an atheists.
i put christions in to 3 groups
1.the stupid stuckup ones that are high off the smell of there oun farts and feel sorry for all the silly atheists that are going to burn in hell. but follow all the rules to make sure they get to the big fluffy clouds
2.the good old boy type that thinks as long as there good and any one that is truely good will be fine in the after life.
they just dont bring up there religion and you never see mad. i have some friends like this and im ok with them as people on this planit.
3.then there are the ones that say there good and all but are just lieing to themselfs and you can see them “sinning” and asking “god” to forgive them and then they go straight back to there “sins” i hate these ones as much as i do the first.
Largely in observation of all sides involved in this conversation, save for a couple pieces of a couple of posts, I am greatly disappointed that these are minds that hold themselves as pursuers for the pursuit of the betterment of man; that these are the minds that are inspecting in attempt to discover what it is that drives man and makes man what man is, and how one can become better at understanding this relation between man and what man holds of value.
Such reckless disregard for the minds and values of perspectives that aren’t even attempted to be understood by, largely, either side; pathetic really.
I’m sorry, but I simply cannot get over how presumptuous everyone is being in this thread; to hold talk of intelligence based on belief or non-belief and suggest one is better than the other due to given reasons of absolutely no logical bearing that has ever shown evident in man’s history either way.
…With a multitude of spelling errors to boot!