It basically works on the idea that your belief system entitles you to the moral high ground. This sense of self-righteousness leads one to believe their decisions are morally justifiable even when they aren't.

I had an Evangelical floormate my sophmore year at college. This might be routine in other locales, but in the backwoods of New England it was little unusual.

Anyway, this man was saved. He knew he was saved, because he told us. He was going to heaven. And so he routinely helped himself to his roomate's food and drink without so much as asking. Something none of us heathens would ever think of doing.

I'd like to see some further study into this that doesn't rely on parental reporting. Parents are not always good judges of their own children. There is a built-in bias there.

Looking at the index of papers in Current Biology, it looks like a reputable journal. These days, one has to check. There are so many "pay-to-publish" journals that are questionable.

be able to form an opinion about that.

You, however, are free to hold any opinion you can think up. You are not subject to peer review before publication.

As any military trainer can tell you, you can turn a nice kid into a deadly killer in a very short amount of time.

But based on the study, and assuming a non-coercive, peaceful government, I'd guess a secular society would increase kindness. "Non-coercive government" means people have full freedom to believe and worship as they wish.

It's also only one study, so we would need more data before forming a scientifically valid conclusion.

Governments are comprised of people.

So if a Government run by atheists is just as coercive as those run by theists, what advantage is there for those being coerced?

Is it better to be coerced by a non-theist?

It only asked about how to make nicer children. If the study is to be believed, then raising them without religion might help.

There are a number of criticisms you could make of the study. None of those criticisms have to do with form of government.

And if these "nicer children" grow up to be citizens of a coercive Government, and support that Government, what net gain is there?

If people without religion behave similarly to people with religion, I fail to see the advantage or disadvantage of raising children without religion.

than those with religion. That would seem to be a valid end in itself.

Whether that has any implication for when they grow up would require a longitudinal study which are expensive and difficult to perform. However, if you are curious, perhaps you could suggest to the researchers that they follow up with these kids 20 years from now.

But if the behavior does not last, and if the behavior is seen in nearly every large society, even a non-theistic society such as China, of what use is the study?

It seems to me that the authors might have started with an assumption, and when in search of "proof".

It seems to me you are making assumptions and demanding answers to things beyond the scope of the project and that they are not qualified to answer.

Part of your question can only be answered by a follow up study and the other part would be best studied by sociologists.

As another poster noted this week.

And this same poster has posted this "soft science" piece, perhaps because it is in accord with what he already believes.

I have a lot more faith in the social sciences than many people do, but I acknowledge it is difficult to do good social science research and people often misinterpret social science to suit their own agendas.

or reproduced exactly, they are seen by some as lacking value.

Who else is stupid enough to place the same value on a study that can’t be reproduced?

So that means it has lots of value.

Chinese citizens. Secular citizens, most of them. And these concentration camps are staffed by...….people from the same pool of secular citizens.

And the household spies are....yes, you guessed it, the same, secular citizens.

I understand the need of some to feel, to believe, that non-theists will somehow behave far better than their theistic counterparts. All that is lacking for that belief- based position is actual proof.

Why do you constantly bring it up in completely unrelated ways in an attempt to "prove" atheism is bad?

It's a matter of "See? Atheists can be bad people too, so stop criticizing bad things about religion because the bad stuff is everyone being human and religion is 100% pure and good and can never ever inspire people to do evil."

It's religious bigotry, plain and simple. He believes religion is superior to non-religion, that true religious people are always good, and bad people are those who aren't truly following religion.

He's never disputed this by stating how I might have that wrong, either. He'll just belch out "misframing" or "choir" or "11th commandment" or one of his standard hateful tropes.

since he hasn't responded to anything I post since we had a bit of a disagreement a while back.

And I appreciate it when someone else responds to my comments to him.

When a religious person does something good, "Thanks, religion!".

When a religious person does something bad, religion can't possibly be to blame because that's just human nature and has absolutely nothing to do with religion.

So yeah, the doublethink is strong with this one.

Gil's agenda is hatred of atheists. He will pretend otherwise, but his decidedly un-Christian actions betray his true motivation.

Or at least with anyone who dares to suggest there might be a teaching or two within a religion here or there that miiiiiiight not be the most noble of concepts.

asking him to continue doing what he is doing, and praising his efforts in this group. There is that.

What we're seeing is religious privilege in action. DU has all those groups for religious people, with rules that clearly spell out their intolerance for any differing opinions. Disagreement, criticism, awkward questions, and the like are not permitted in those groups. Only in this one lone group on DU can we have the kind of discussion that takes place here, and that is just one too many for some people. Knowing that others have tried unsuccessfully to get rid of this group altogether, or to change the rules to make it a clone of those other groups, the only recourse is to disrupt as many conversations as possible.

Kinda like when he creates 10 new threads on the same subject and a few spin off threads beyond that. Then when someone dares to call him out for his obvious shitposting, he claims he’s being persecuted by a conspiracy of people who are denying his privileged access.

With vague assertions, and an obvious bit of agenda in the silly title.

What is this but a reply to my previous post?

It’s not as if your motives and tactics are all that hard to figure out and several here have. As original as you might think yourself to be, it’s not as if you actually are. If you want to pretend otherwise go right ahead, but you aren’t fooling anyone.

If I intended to reply to any of your posts I would have done so. It’s not as if I haven’t before, so please don’t flatter yourself as it doesn’t suit you.

and repeat what you just wrote.

I see a trace of another frequent poster in this reply of yours.

...from people who suck at what they are trying to give advice about.

Whatever underhanded cowardly accusation you’re trying to make here could have been prevented by your own self-reflection had you any skills in that regard.

And no, I am not accusing you of being another poster, simply of being very close in recent style.

I just recognize the source and motivation and write it off as petty bullshit without giving it any more thought. Says far more about you than me.

...to g's bad China atheist theme:

But you did not.

Is it 1:1, number of Chinese citizens to number of Chinese government officials?

Keep digging, I am willing to let you humiliate yourself even more if you'd like. i do quite enjoy it, you know.

is responsible, it's impossible to separate them. Meanwhile every theist is different and you can't assume any of their beliefs at any point.

Meanwhile your favorite example of an exception you pretend makes the rule ignores other far more relevant examples that don’t involve totalitarian despotic regimes. So kinda funny how you never include Scandinavian countries that are far more secular and empathetic towards its citizens.

It’s almost as if you want to make a conscious effort to demonize atheism, but of course this can’t possibly be true. Right, Gil? I suppose if it were, the answer to this is we could just as easily pretend countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran are an excellent representation of where theism takes us, yes?

I am comparing citizens as a mass versus individuals acting as individuals. But every mass of citizens is composed of individuals, so the macro reflects, to some degree, the individual.

But China is an excellent example of a country with no real history of theism, save that imposed by European colonialists. And this country, these mainly non-theistic citizens, comprise a Government that behaves every bit as brutally as the worst of the theistic countries.

Your examples of Saudi Arabia and Iran well illustrate how badly theists can behave. As does most of history, for that matter.

As to the charge of "demonizing atheism", I have no such intent. Nor, as another poster has insisted, do I "hate atheists".

Atheism is a position that I do not share. I do not sat it is a bad position, or that people who share it are bad people. I simply do not share the position.

And islamic colonists too, right?

So these "colonists", as you term them, were actually separate ethnic people who were absorbed by the Chinese.


It was Chinese western expansion that forcibly made the many Islamic tribes part of China.

you should avoid making them yourself, Mr. "I do not sat it is a bad position".

You have proven that I am not perfect.

Sometimes the best we can hope for is just to be less annoying.

And I recognize that this forum is a safe space. That is why I do not take action, so to speak, when I am insulted.

You repeatedly claim to be a victim of the same behavior you exhibit on others. Funny how that works.

Safe from the commentary of people who have negative opinions about religion.

But you've got a dozen groups where that is the case, and you could post to your heart's content without worrying that people might disagree.

Instead, here you are endlessly whining about the mean old atheists who post things you don't like, and so you feel justified in attacking them as members of a "choir" or mindlessly following a fictional "commandment."

Matthew 5:38-40. Do you believe Jesus said that? What does it mean to you, guillaumeb?

And your second sentence reveals your agenda. It seems that you do not wish to have actual theists posting in the religion group.

By your logic, why do you not post in the atheists group where you can expect to find only agreement?

As far as "ruining" DU, naw, others have been much worse than you. You flatter yourself.

Link to them. Many of them.

then I will gladly follow.

Until then, I refuse to bow to your demands. You have destroyed any good will I may have felt toward you at one time. Go ahead and call me a liar now - I don't give a shit what you think. I know the truth.

I'm glad you realize you flushed good will down the toilet when you refuse to hold yourself to the same standards you demand of others.

So, Islam is native to western China, then?

and linear time.

[citation needed]

And the Judaism which came before. It is literally embedded into most aspects of their culture far more deeply than most western religions. To say they have no history of it is quite ignorant.

Your reply started out with an incorrect assertion and from this foundation you built a flawed argument. If you don’t want to defend that assertion I can certainly understand why, but pretending I ignored what was already made irrelevant is kinda silly.

Now if you want to talk about your latest straw man about “soft science”, we can certainly do so, but I’m afraid I must first insist on the level of “focus” you demand of others. If you’re willing to concede your assertion regarding China’s religious history was a colossal fuckup, we can move past that.

is lacking substance.


Unless you are insisting that Buddhists are theists, and that ancestor worship is also theism.

As to the soft science meme, that was your focus yesterday.

It was your assertion not mine. I called bullshit on your assertion.

Focus on this first before attempting to move on to something unrelated.

And I did answer your ahistorical claim.

That is bullshit. Expecting me to disprove what you never proved to begin with is just intellectual laziness. Learning how to think will help prevent your baseless accusations.

And claim a victory.

That way you can just go through life claiming whatever horseshit you like content in the belief you are always right.

I get criticality of thought has been indoctrinated out of you. Learning how to think isn’t for everyone.

...performance art.

At least the 'performance' part is down pat, as indicated by the admission of having a fan base.