Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

The Harm Done By Religion


Doug1066
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Dejarma said:

are there some subjects you feel you do not have a messy way of thinking? what are they, prey tell

:lol:  Anything related to my job, math, cooking and my children and grand children.  

  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dejarma said:

yes it is! it's just a different way of putting it..... so what is your point?

This thread is about the harm done by religion.  If you are the victim of a muslim airplane hijacker, or a Christian who blows up your office building, it really doesn't matter which god they prayed to.  It's still evil.

Doug

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Desertrat56 said:

I agree, except when she keeps Walker going. How many times can you say the same thing before you realize you are talking to the wall?    I put her on ignore just so I could get through this thread.  I will take her off ignore later.

I completely understand Dee, and support your decision. :wub:

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Doug1066 said:

This thread is about the harm done by religion.  If you are the victim of a muslim airplane hijacker, or a Christian who blows up your office building, it really doesn't matter which god they prayed to.  It's still evil.

Doug

yeah bloody hell, i get that... i agree!!! the belief in a god is the crux of it though, is it not????

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Religion doesn't harm anyone; the religious are another matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Deuteronomy 7:3-6:  Thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them, thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor show mercy unto them.  And thou shall consume all the people which the Lord thy God shall deliver thee; thine eyes shall have no pity upon them….for they will turn away thy son from following me…so will the anger of the Lord be kindled against you, and destroy them suddenly…the Lord Thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are on the face of the earth.

Was this God, or Heinrich Himmler?

 

Adolph Hitler took an idea from Mussolini and channeled massive state funding to Germany’s Catholic and Lutheran churches.  By so doing, he ensured that these large institutions would remain loyal to him and the Nazis – he bribed them.  He plunged Germany into genocidal madness, making a charnel house of Europe.  After the war the churches continued to profit from their agreement and to this day they continue to take tax money from Germany, assuring their ability to resist reform across the world.

It’s going to take an awful lot of gorgeous cathedrals, devotional paintings and Bach Masses to make up for that one.

What harm has religion done?  It has done tremendous harm.

 

Hitler purged some of the most vocal Volkish Nazi radicals in a move to reduce ecclesiastical opposition.  By including both Catholics and Protestants as top party officials, he reduced the risk of party sectarianism.  The mirage of harmony induced Hitler to attempt to unite German Protestant churches into a single Volkish body under Nazi control.  This promptly failed.  The evangelical sects were as unwilling as ever to get along with each other, even though many clergy joined the Nazi Party.

Even after the Enabling Act, Hitler’s position was tenuous.  He needed to deepen support and cement relations with a dubious military.  What solidified Hitler’s position?  A foreign policy coup:  the Concordat of 1933 between the Nazis and the Vatican.

The Concordat was signed on July 20, 1933.  It was a classical kickback scheme.  The church endorsed the end of democracy and free speech and bound the bishops to the Reich by means of a loyalty oath.  In return the church received enormous tax income and protection of church privileges.  Religious instruction and prayer in schools were reinstated.  Criticism of the church was forbidden.  This applied only to Catholics.  Nothing protected non-Catholics.

Just a year before, the Holy See had only been able to dream of these concessions.  Catholics thought the Concordat was a masterpiece.  It was so successful that Hitler had to defend himself to Protestant clerics and Nazi radicals who viewed it as a betrayal.  If at any time, the regime chose not to honor the Concordat, there was no legal recourse.

It is argued that the church had no choice but to accept the Concordat, but Protestants suffered no more than Catholics, though the Protestant churches lacked protective agreements.  The net effect of Vatican policy was collaborative.  The 1933 Concordat is the ONLY diplomatic accord negotiated with the Nazi regime that remains in force anywhere in the world.

German Christians looked to the Nazis for a revival of “Christian” values to counter atheism.  Most welcomed the elimination of chronic public strife by terrorizing, imprisoning and killing the German left.  In newspapers and newsreels the Nazis proudly published their new concentration camps:  the German people knew what was going on.  Most followers of Jesus made no objection.  The large number of “legal” executions met indifference or approval.

So Hitler co-opted the church by a very simple means:  he bribed them.

Doug

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Doug1066 said:

Deuteronomy 7:3-6:  Thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them, thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor show mercy unto them.  And thou shall consume all the people which the Lord thy God shall deliver thee; thine eyes shall have no pity upon them….for they will turn away thy son from following me…so will the anger of the Lord be kindled against you, and destroy them suddenly…the Lord Thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are on the face of the earth.

Was this God, or Heinrich Himmler?

 

Adolph Hitler took an idea from Mussolini and channeled massive state funding to Germany’s Catholic and Lutheran churches.  By so doing, he ensured that these large institutions would remain loyal to him and the Nazis – he bribed them.  He plunged Germany into genocidal madness, making a charnel house of Europe.  After the war the churches continued to profit from their agreement and to this day they continue to take tax money from Germany, assuring their ability to resist reform across the world.

It’s going to take an awful lot of gorgeous cathedrals, devotional paintings and Bach Masses to make up for that one.

What harm has religion done?  It has done tremendous harm.

 

Hitler purged some of the most vocal Volkish Nazi radicals in a move to reduce ecclesiastical opposition.  By including both Catholics and Protestants as top party officials, he reduced the risk of party sectarianism.  The mirage of harmony induced Hitler to attempt to unite German Protestant churches into a single Volkish body under Nazi control.  This promptly failed.  The evangelical sects were as unwilling as ever to get along with each other, even though many clergy joined the Nazi Party.

Even after the Enabling Act, Hitler’s position was tenuous.  He needed to deepen support and cement relations with a dubious military.  What solidified Hitler’s position?  A foreign policy coup:  the Concordat of 1933 between the Nazis and the Vatican.

The Concordat was signed on July 20, 1933.  It was a classical kickback scheme.  The church endorsed the end of democracy and free speech and bound the bishops to the Reich by means of a loyalty oath.  In return the church received enormous tax income and protection of church privileges.  Religious instruction and prayer in schools were reinstated.  Criticism of the church was forbidden.  This applied only to Catholics.  Nothing protected non-Catholics.

Just a year before, the Holy See had only been able to dream of these concessions.  Catholics thought the Concordat was a masterpiece.  It was so successful that Hitler had to defend himself to Protestant clerics and Nazi radicals who viewed it as a betrayal.  If at any time, the regime chose not to honor the Concordat, there was no legal recourse.

It is argued that the church had no choice but to accept the Concordat, but Protestants suffered no more than Catholics, though the Protestant churches lacked protective agreements.  The net effect of Vatican policy was collaborative.  The 1933 Concordat is the ONLY diplomatic accord negotiated with the Nazi regime that remains in force anywhere in the world.

German Christians looked to the Nazis for a revival of “Christian” values to counter atheism.  Most welcomed the elimination of chronic public strife by terrorizing, imprisoning and killing the German left.  In newspapers and newsreels the Nazis proudly published their new concentration camps:  the German people knew what was going on.  Most followers of Jesus made no objection.  The large number of “legal” executions met indifference or approval.

So Hitler co-opted the church by a very simple means:  he bribed them.

Doug

there's a lot of words there but what is your point with regards to this thread topic?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Religion doesn't harm anyone; the religious are another matter.

Religion creates the religious 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

Religion creates the religious 

Religion doesn't create anything, anymore than a shovel does. You can dig a ditch with a shovel, or beat someone to death with it, but it ain't the shovel's fault. Religion is just a tool, just like a shovel. What good or harm done with it depends on the intent of the user.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Religion doesn't create anything, anymore than a shovel does

 what are you talking about, it does= it creates religious people... How an individual acts within their religion isn't in question here

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

 what are you talking about, it does= it creates religious people... How an individual acts within their religion isn't in question here

The question's a misnomer, since any damage is done by the practitioners of religion. Religion is as harmless as philosophy. A bible, sitting on a shelf, never harmed a soul, but an individual, reading his own prejudices, hatreds and angst into it can do a lot of harm. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

The question's a misnomer, since any damage is done by the practitioners of religion. Religion is as harmless as philosophy. A bible, sitting on a shelf, never harmed a soul, but an individual, reading his own prejudices, hatreds and angst into it can do a lot of harm. 

well yeah, of course I agree.

An analogy if I may:

if gun manufacturer's didn't exist then no one would be shot dead

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Dejarma said:

well yeah, of course I agree.

An analogy if I may:

if gun manufacturer's didn't exist then no one would be shot dead

Thanks for understanding.:tu:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Dejarma said:

there's a lot of words there but what is your point with regards to this thread topic?

 

13 hours ago, Doug1066 said:

So Hitler co-opted the church by a very simple means:  he bribed them.

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rosenstrasse:

Hitler often discontinued, modified or concealed initiatives that threatened the regime’s popular approval.  When the German churches refused to unite, Hitler deferred his efforts to reform Christianity to a dreamlike utopian future.  When Nazi supporters stripped Bavarian schools of their crucifixes vigorous protests by the mothers of school children resulted in their replacement.  When Hitler denounced opposition bishops Hans Meiser and Theophil Wurm and ordered their ouster, public anger boiled over.  One demonstration drew 7000 in opposition.  Hitler reversed course.  Strong opposition to killing the mentally disabled forced the practice underground, saving lives.

Opposition leaders were often harassed and sometimes killed, but the Nazis knew how limited their power was.

Some 30,000 Jews lived openly in Germany as the spouses of Christians.  Oriented toward “family values,” the Nazis couldn’t decide what to do about these people without violating the sanctity of marriage.  In 1943 Goebbels decided to cleanse Berlin by rounding up the last Jews.  Two thousand Jewish men were seized and taken to a large building on Rosenstrasse with the intent of deporting them to the camps.

For a week gentile wives stood in the winter cold chanting “We want our husbands back.”  Other Germans often joined them.  Six thousand people participated.  They faced down the Gestapo and SS in the face of machine guns while British bombers pounded the city.  The Nazis dared not fire on defenseless Aryan women.  Berliners saw it; foreign diplomats spread word of it all over the world.  The BBC broadcast the story back to Germany.

This was Germany’s only mass demonstration to save Jews.  Two thousand Jewish men were released back to their wives, including about two dozen that had already been sent to Auschwitz.

The church could have acted to save Jews.  But in so doing would have risked losing its tax money and privileges.  The church had sold out to the Devil.

 

“The failure to speak out against racial persecution is a disgrace…because the Nazis feared the propaganda or political power of the churches.”  --Sarah Gordon

“Christians had the power to protect the lives and well-being of others and the potential to confound Hitler and his minions.  They need only have applied it.”  --Christopher Hitchens

Doug

  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/7/2021 at 5:48 PM, Doug1066 said:

So Hitler co-opted the church by a very simple means:  he bribed them.

Hi Doug 

The Catholic church also help them escape to other countries at the end of the war and the mafia did enforcement and recruitment for the Nazi party in America during the war.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, closed for business said:

The Catholic church also help them escape to other countries at the end of the war and the mafia did enforcement and recruitment for the Nazi party in America during the war.

"Ransom"

Quote
BONN, June 9—Karl Grabau, a former SS (Elite Guard) captain, told a Frankfurt assize court today that he had watched ...
 
18 Aug 2017 — In secret talks, would-be saviours duped Himmler into thinking he should stop the extermination of ...

~

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/7/2021 at 7:32 PM, eight bits said:

Dear Mr W,

Speaking only for myself as a bestower of a laugh emoji, the many fatal difficulties with your googledumps of "proven medical and scientific facts" have been pointed out to you again and again, by a variety of different posters, over the course of years. And none of it makes a dent.

@Sherapy rightly infers, IMO, some need-to-believe that specifically religious activity and adherence to a religion adds something to the undisputed benefits of maintaining a social life and having something to care about (better yet, somebody). Nor does anybody deny that many religions promote moderation in diet, alcohol consumption and avoidance of risky behaviors of whatever sort.

From the topic perspective, being on the right side of some of these issues counts against "the harm done by religion." Being right, even being right for the wrong reasons, counts for something.

On the other hand, claiming that some of the benefits of healthy living accrue only to the godly is, on its face, bad health advice. Bad health advice is harm (even more obvious these days than usual, as people ingest horse dewormer medicine to ward off covid).

If somebody has a religious practice or believes in the supernatural, then that's peachy. Either way, if changes in diet, exxercise, alcohol consumption, etc. are indicated, then people don't need to wait around for divine intervention.

Religion and Health Among Older Adults

For many seniors, spiritual connection, faith, and being part of a religious community can bring a sense of purpose. These things can also help prevent loneliness, feelings of isolation, and depression.

While there are many benefits to be found through faith, spirituality, and religion, they may also have a negative impact. As with most everything, finding a balance is important.

Psychological Benefits

Many elderly people say that religion is the most important factor in their lives when faced with health problems and life stresses commonly associated with aging.

Studies have shown that seniors who turn to religion as a coping mechanism are less likely to suffer from depression and anxiety.

Making needed changes is a good thing in and of itself; just get it done.

Nup You are simply wrong (in your opening paragraph)

If i was wrong then this would NOT have been introduced into most modern medical schools , universities and other places as part of modern training  There are now tens of thousands of studies and hundreds of meta studies on this issue  Apart from  a small percentage ALL show the benefits of faith/belief spirituality and religious attendance  

There are now scholarly works looking a t the evolution of belief as a survival trait and the specific causal links between certain beliefs and practices and greater longevity and betrer health

Its not a need to believe by me, it's  a need to disbelieve by people like yourself and Sherapy  You would not argue  against similar studies showing the advantages of having a pet or a partner  or even meditation ,but bring faith /belief or, heaven forbid, religion into it and "Oh no.  That COULDN'T be productive"

and IMO  anyone who argues for only faith based living or healing is just as foolish

The point is that, given equality of physical help ,spiritual belief etc ADDS  major benefits 

This applies in modern health systems and those of poorer countries 

To me you are arguing for only one side of modern healing ie the purely physical.

We now know that almost ALL physical maladies have a psychological/cognitive link.

Help the mind and you help the body, in everything from  pain relief   to the treatment of cancer 

Thankfully, based on this science,  modern medicine and healing has moved on from  this 20th century  materialist philosophy, (which was highly dependent on drugs and physical treatment alone) to a more holistic approach to treatment, prevention and healing 

 Less than 5% of cases report a negative impact. (and about 10% report making no difference) 

Almost exclusively the former are  where the belief or faith is itself  destructive or harmful eg causing fear or guilt  

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/8/2021 at 7:14 AM, Nuclear Wessel said:

This has been going on for, literally, years. I enjoy Sherapy's posts because they are actually quite informative. Paul just pretends to be smarter than he is and gets smoked for it, and can't handle criticism... so he floods you with a bunch of sources that may or may not actually support his statements (there's too many provided to actually bother with sifting through) so he can convince himself that he's right, and that he's won the argument. His nonsensical ramblings usually just make me laugh, at this point. I just don't take him seriously anymore.

There's your real problem in the bit I bolded  (if we accept that you are prepared to hear/listen)

Complex issues involve a lot of detail and yep that requires a lot of reading 

i know some people either struggle with reading or are slow readers, but its really the only way to take on board  new information

I'm lucky that i can find, read, and check/analyse a lot of  data in a few minutes. 

That is my job done. It is up to others to take whatever time the y need to read and process the information

However you are wrong.

My sources always provide evidences for a point of view.  There may be other competing pov and other evidences, and i am aware  of most of those. I even include some conflicting   opinions or data in my sources,  because I have nothing to hide  

To me the real issue here is that my understandings, opinions and values ,often run counter to mainstream, while Sherapy (by accident or design) sticks closely to mainstream opinions, and avoids offending others by presenting anything "out there"   She works hard to seem polite and agreeable which only annoys me if suspect she is not really like that  :)  I was raised to be honest, and even blunt, but not disrespectful to others   Telling the    truth, and being who you are,  is more important than being liked   or popular 

I dont use this as a social forum but one of debate and discussion 

I'm honest about how "smart "I am.   It is not really  "smartness",  as much as a  life spent learning and doing all sorts of things, and thus having many skills and accumulating a huge amount of knowledge on many topics  If you get to 70 and don't have lot of knowledge and practical skills then IMO you  have wasted a lot of your life  (but i have been lucky to have enjoyed between  10 and 15 weeks per year of paid holidays and extensive long service leave (10-15 days per year of service, over 45 years)  which has given me a lot of time to pursue other interests

There may be a touch of jealousy from  some who haven't had the opportunity /luck that i have, or haven't  worked a s hard to fulfill  their potential as i have done  (I have a lot of fun in life but i waste very little of it on non productive activities. )

I appreciate my luck and good fortune, but i also know how hard I have worked to be what I am now  (including many  working weeks of 70-80 hours )

 

Edited by Mr Walker
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

i know some people either struggle with reading or are slow readers, but its really the only way to take on board  new information

Yes, we are aware that you struggle with reading and understanding studies. @eight bits and myself both demonstrated this a while back, in a separate thread--hell, it was even demonstrated in this thread.

But this thread is about @Doug1066's views--I'm not wasting anymore time fuelling your ego.

Edited by Nuclear Wessel
  • Thanks 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think by now everybody can see my point that the Holocaust was, in large part, the result of moral and ethical failings on the part of German Christian churches, mostly Roman Catholic and Lutheran.  SO:  this is going to be my last post on Hitler/Germany.  However, there are other areas in which religion has failed to live up to its own standards.  The Indian Wars lasted 500 years and initially had a religious component in the early English and Spanish stages.  And Protestant Christians were instrumental in stealing the land grants made by Spain and Mexico.  And then, there's on-going religious harm done in our current society.  So I still have quite a way to go.

 

The Nazis and the churches had a schizophrenic relationship.  Hitler plotted and schemed against the churches, but dutifully paid them what he had agreed to.  The Nazis once took crosses from schools they had encouraged to teach religion and then held rallies at churches with crosses everywhere.  Goering declared that the stiff-armed salute was “the only salute to Christ.”  Some religious schools and monasteries were closed and confiscated, while others were protected.  Pope Pius XII protested one such seizure, yet sent Hitler fawning greetings and cheerful birthday messages each year.  One has to feel sorry for Germans who questioned the Nazi regime, but whose church leaders led them in circles.

A few people of religious persuasion, like the future Pope John XXIII, did rescue Jews.  But most didn’t.  Although these efforts were laudable, by 1945 80% of Europe’s Jews were dead at the hands of people who called themselves Christians.

Sick and ill-fed prisoners were marched to and from work in open view of the citizenry, who could scarcely have avoided seeing their wretched condition.

The Holocaust could not have happened without Hitler, but neither could it have happened without traditional Christianity.  Hitler was no Buddhist, nor was he a secular humanist.  He was a Catholic who never renounced his faith and was never excommunicated.

Doug

Edited by Doug1066
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/9/2021 at 6:53 PM, Nuclear Wessel said:

Yes, we are aware that you struggle with reading and understanding studies. @eight bits and myself both demonstrated this a while back, in a separate thread--hell, it was even demonstrated in this thread.

But this thread is about @Doug1066's views--I'm not wasting anymore time fuelling your ego.

lol "In your dreams, kiddo."

The point was made that some people don't bother reading the sources I provide, yet   still argue that I don't know what I am talking about 

The  reason was given that the sources were too long,  and even the quotes supplied were too lengthy to be bothered reading 

I admit that I  often don't take that into account, because they seem quite short to me    

I'd rather people found their own sources, but as most don't bother, the least the y can do is read the ones I supply,    before trying to  rebut any point I make 

The thread is about ANYONE'S views on the positive and negative  outcomes of religion. 

This is a discussion  forum, not a soapbox :)  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

The  reason was given that the sources were too long,  and even the quotes supplied were too lengthy to be bothered reading 

No, it wasn’t—the sources themselves aren’t too long—the list of sources you provided is too long. You need to revamp your reading comprehension. You also didn’t read through all of those studies that you cited.

This reminds me of the thread I was alluding to, in a previous response of mine. It was the one in which you asserted that atheists were less trusted than religious people and provided an article from quartz, which actually linked an article that didn’t support your assertion (nor the quartz assertion), as it was actually attempting to determine whether or not religious in-groups were trusted more than outgroups. It had nothing explicitly to do with atheism. @eight bits also identified a serious methodological flaw within one of the sources you provided in that thread, which you should have been able to spot, given how well-versed you are in studies. It was the conjunction fallacy. 

You do not have the right to claim that others don’t properly read through sources when you poorly do so, yourself.

This is why your posts get laughs, and why it is difficult to take you seriously. Repeatedly asserting that your years of experience indicates that you really are as knowledgeable as you project means nothing when you can’t back it up with actual evidence, as has been demonstrated for years in countless threads. You aren’t convincing us.  

Edited by Nuclear Wessel
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

No, it wasn’t—the sources themselves aren’t too long—the list of sources you provided is too long. You need to revamp your reading comprehension. You also didn’t read through all of those studies that you cited.

This reminds me of the thread I was alluding to, in a previous response of mine. It was the one in which you asserted that atheists were less trusted than religious people and provided an article from quartz, which actually linked an article that didn’t support your assertion (nor the quartz assertion), as it was actually attempting to determine whether or not religious in-groups were trusted more than outgroups. It had nothing explicitly to do with atheism. @eight bits also identified a serious methodological flaw within one of the sources you provided in that thread, which you should have been able to spot, given how well-versed you are in studies. It was the conjunction fallacy. 

You do not have the right to claim that others don’t properly read through sources when you poorly do so, yourself.

This is why your posts get laughs, and why it is difficult to take you seriously. Repeatedly asserting that your years of experience indicates that you really are as knowledgeable as you project means nothing when you can’t back it up with actual evidence, as has been demonstrated for years in countless threads. You aren’t convincing us.  

I do read all the sources i cite.  It takes me a minute to read about 600-700 words  at my normal reading speed,  or I can double that if I use skimming techniques 

And the principle is the same.

How can the number of sources be too long The more sources the more information but yes the y take time to read through

My point was that i forget that others  might take 3 or 4 times as long to read a piece, and thus choose not to The average person has a reading speed of about 200 wpm, with a comprehension of about 60% 

I retain a t least 60% comprehension, with speeds around 700 wpm 

I do try to quote highlights but I get criticism for that also. Better for a reader to read the whole source than my edited highlights 

Atheists ARE less trusted than theists even by other atheists 

I am sure you can find dissenting views but this has been established in a number of psychological studies 

Being reminded of a religious authority figure also increases the honesty of people in trials on this issue.

  I do include sources which present different views and some debate, precisely because that debate exists 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/in-atheists-we-distrust/

 

quote

 

There’s an interesting finding rolling around about what kinds of people Americans would vote for as a president. When asked:

“If your party nominated a generally well-qualified person for president who happened to be [blank], would you vote for that that person?”

Answers varied a bit depending on the blank: 96% of Americans would vote for a Black president (while only 4% would not); 95% would vote for a woman. Characteristics like that don’t really dissuade people, at least in the abstract. Other groups don’t fare as well: only 68% of people said they would vote for a gay/lesbian candidate, and 58% a Muslim. But bottoming out the list? Atheists. A mere 54% of people said they would vote for an atheist. This is also a finding that changes a bit – but not all that much – between political affiliations. At the low point, 48% of Republicans would vote for an atheist, while at its peak, 58% of Democrats would. An appreciable difference, but not night and day (larger differences exist for Mormon, gay/lesbian and Muslim candidates, coming in at 18%, 26%, and 22%, respectively).

As it turns out, religious people are perceived to be more trustworthy than the nonreligious. 

This is where religion in particular might help, as membership in a religious group often involves some degree of costly investment: visits to houses of worship, following rituals that are a real pain to complete, and any other similar behavior. Those who are unwilling to endure those immediate costs for group membership demonstrate that they’re just talk. Their commitment doesn’t run deep enough for them to be willing to suffer for them. When behavior is no longer cheap, you can believe what people are telling you.

There are other explanations, though. The one the present paper favors is the possibility that religious people tend to follow slower life history strategies. This means possessing traits like sexual restrictiveness (they’re relatively monogamous, or at least less promiscuous), greater investment in family, and generally more future-looking than they are living in the present. This would be what makes them look more cooperative than the non-religious. Fast life history strategies are effectively the opposite: they view life as short and unpredictable and so take benefits today instead of saving for tomorrow, and invest more in mating effort than parental effort. Looking at religious individuals as slow-life strategists fits well with previous research suggesting that religious attitudes correlate better with sexual morality than they do cooperative morality, and that religions might act as support for long-term, monogamous, high-fertility mating strategies.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/pop-psych/201805/the-distrust-atheists

The last point is interesting. It suggests that religious belief has evolved/ been bred into humans because religion is seen as a positive trait in a person   others  wish to breed with.

Thus the religious have more children and  this, in turn, promotes both genetic and social tendency to belief. 

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • The topic was locked
  • The topic was unlocked
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.