Here's a discovery that could make secular parents say hallelujah: Children who grow up in non-religious homes are more generous and altruistic than children from observant families. ...
A series of experiments involving 1,170 kids from a variety of religious backgrounds found that the non-believers were more likely to share stickers with their classmates and less likely to endorse harsh punishments for people who pushed or bumped into others.
The results "contradict the common-sense and popular assumption that children from religious households are more altruistic and kind toward others," according to a study published this week in the journal Current Biology.
Worldwide, about 5.8 billion people consider themselves religious, and religion is a primary way for cultures to express their ideas about proper moral behavior — especially behavior that involves self-sacrifice for the sake of others.
-- submitted from IRC
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Whoever on Sunday November 08 2015, @12:21AM
I have always thought that people who need religion to be altruistic are not truly altruistic people.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 08 2015, @01:34AM
You are in good company with that thought.
See Divine Command Theory and the Euthyphro Argument for details.
(Score: 2) by davester666 on Sunday November 08 2015, @04:25AM
It's more "God picked me to be special, so I am. And I spend my time lording it over anyone I can."
(Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday November 08 2015, @05:05AM
were more likely to share stickers with their classmates
Post back when they start evaluating something that matters.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Mr Big in the Pants on Sunday November 08 2015, @05:37AM
If anyone is surprised by this finding then they simply do not understand human nature.
(Score: 2) by Dunbal on Sunday November 08 2015, @11:09AM
Matches my observations too. In fact I find that there's a direct correlation between religious fervor and being an asshole. Since correlation is not causation, it's unclear to me whether religion attracts assholes or religion turns you into an asshole.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Sunday November 08 2015, @11:39AM
Matches my observations too. In fact I find that there's a direct correlation between religious fervor and being an asshole. Since correlation is not causation, it's unclear to me whether religion attracts assholes or religion turns you into an asshole.
Sounds like someone has an idea for some new research.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Sunday November 08 2015, @03:01PM
It might also be that assholes are less likely to lose a religion they got as child.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by DNied on Sunday November 08 2015, @01:17PM
That's pretty much religion's intended and original purpose: programming moral rules into everyone who isn't smart enough to understand why an altruistic behaviour is in mankind's best interest.
The trouble with this trick is that, once the belief system is in place, it can (and will) also be misused for literally all kinds of evil purposes.
(Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Sunday November 08 2015, @04:48PM
you can think of religion as a 'human rootkit'. once its installed (and installed early enough) the bad guys can insert any kind of message they want and the subject has no choice but to accept the programming.
or, maybe a better analogy is a bootloader. religion is a bootloader with the fuse blown; and once the knock-on sequence is triggered, the subject happily will accept the byte stream and 'run it' without questioning it.
oh, and the crc mechanism is broken so even corrupted byte streams still are accepted and run without question.
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 2) by Bot on Monday November 09 2015, @01:33AM
Do you realize, though, that every guy who refused religious teachings as he grew up, probably including you, is invalidating your pretty metaphor?
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by quacking duck on Sunday November 08 2015, @05:06PM
Worse, there's a figurative get-out-of-jail free card in the form of either atonement (confess sins and be forgiven for minor ones), or "God will be the judge" when you reach the afterlife... i.e. after the world you lived in is no longer able to punish you for transgressions.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 09 2015, @12:02PM
The idea of punishment is particularly religious, actually, and it behooves us to lose it in favor of concern for optimizing human behaviors, both at individual and aggregate levels. Nothing is gained by anyone by punishing someone, in and of itself, though one may argue that it discourages others (which does not seem to be the case, going by recidivism figures by justice system and the effects of cutting sentences in Europe to reduce prison loading (zero effect on anything else)), in itself ethically dubious as it instrumentalizes humans for the purpose of "making an example", and practically dubious as it fails to correct behavioral issues, instead relying on imposing an artificial disincentive through public spending so the entrained patterns don't manifest.
Nietzsche voiced the opinion that one might imagine a society so powerful (which we may take as "well developed and wealthy") that it need not punish wrongdoing. I would argue that the Scandinavian countries offer an early example of precisely such a constructive approach, though it's not quite there yet. Studies on feedback mechanisms show positive feedback has a greater utility than negative feedback, too. In short, everything I've seen seems to support the idea that a hole in your wall cannot be removed using a chainsaw, but must rather be filled with substance; in this analogy, that punishment is a dysfunctional relic whose only remaining function is to indulge vengeful sadism, which is a rather common cause of crime in the first place and probably not something we want to collectively endorse.
Let's build better people.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by linkdude64 on Sunday November 08 2015, @12:24AM
...the issue is in the belief, "I am Right, according to an authoritative source." Paired with the fact that other people inevitably disagree, means, "You are Wrong, and Wrong People deserve punishment." (Whether in "this life or the next.")
Get two culturally dissimilar people who are ironically identical in their ways of thinking together and boom - unchecked rampant egoism and childish insecurity about our position in the universe disguised as a holy war. The great thing about Science, even if it is a "system of belief" as it is so commonly argued (without basis), is that it doesn't mandate punishment for people who disagree or are legitimately uninformed. So of course it's more compassionate.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Covalent on Sunday November 08 2015, @12:59AM
Exactly right. Faith is a dangerous thing. People ask me all the time if I believe in God. I say no. I also don't believe in spaghetti, or aluminum foil, or Thursday. Faith is not a thing I do. I try to judge the world based on evidence. I have awoken every day and have never floated to the ceiling. Therefore I have high confidence in Gravity. But I do not BELIEVE in Gravity. Gravity might be invisible pink unicorns that pull on my feet and they might go on strike tomorrow. It's just unlikely, given the evidence. I don't believe in climate change, though the evidence is very strong. It is less strong than the evidence for gravity.
Faith leads to segregation between us and them. Segregation leads to hatred. Hatred leads to suffering.
You can't rationally argue somebody out of a position they didn't rationally get into.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 08 2015, @01:20AM
*tips fedora*
(Score: 4, Informative) by Gaaark on Sunday November 08 2015, @01:24AM
I can't believe you just wrote that! (But there is strong evidence you just did).
But i also can't believe it's not butter...
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. I have always been here. ---Gaaark 2.0 --
(Score: 3, Funny) by Ethanol-fueled on Sunday November 08 2015, @01:51AM
Posting song lyrics is pretty Fedora, but Iron Maiden's Holy Smoke is relevant here:
Now, religion ain't all bad. It was intertwined with the worlds best art, history, music and to understand religion is to understand the world is why the way it is. I have found that coming from a religious background is often a plus in the dating scene, as the women usually don't have literal interpretations but a foundation of solid, monogamous values. And I'm only talking about Christians, Buddhists, taoists, and Hindus in a positive manner -- Jews and Muslims are still scum.
(Score: 2) by ticho on Sunday November 08 2015, @02:18AM
Hey, I belong to the Pinkunicornian Gravity Church, and us pinkies are apalled by your lack of belief, you insensitive clod!
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 08 2015, @02:17PM
All hail her hinederness SunButt! Party cannons to maximum! Love and tolerate all the non-believers!
(Score: 3, Funny) by maxwell demon on Sunday November 08 2015, @09:56AM
The FSM will punish you for that! :-)
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 09 2015, @02:33AM
Indeed, the death of thousands as a result of the next tsunami is solely on his hands!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 09 2015, @07:46PM
I try to explain this as a matter of probability. Not that I have exact numbers but that I have a rough estimate of probability that something is true or not. While I don't have issue with people who choose a path of absolutes, there is some probability they are right, I don't find it compatible with my mode of thought. Anyway, I wrote more on this subject on my blog: http://about98percentdone.blogspot.com/2015/09/belief-absolute-conviction-or.html [blogspot.com]
- JCD
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Sunday November 08 2015, @01:56AM
Maybe it doesn't mandate it, but I've definitely never seen a creationist ruthlessly mocked around here before...
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Some call me Tim on Sunday November 08 2015, @02:39AM
"The great thing about Science, even if it is a "system of belief" as it is so commonly argued (without basis), is that it doesn't mandate punishment for people who disagree or are legitimately uninformed. So of course it's more compassionate."
That's very true until politics get involved.
http://ecowatch.com/2015/03/16/al-gore-sxsw-punish-climate-deniers/ [ecowatch.com]
Galileo would understand.
Questioning science is how you do science!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 08 2015, @09:19PM
...traveling on an orthogonal course and in a different universe. Or maybe you didn't make yourself clear.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 08 2015, @02:51AM
Cue the next round of debate about global warming. Right then, I'll just go get me coat.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by bziman on Sunday November 08 2015, @12:35AM
I've had religious people ask me what keeps me from thieving and murdering with a god telling me what to do. I always reply that I know right from wrong, and that they frighten me that fear of retribution is the only thing they have controlling them.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by mrpg on Sunday November 08 2015, @01:06AM
Right from wrong, that's Ethics, we need more of that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 08 2015, @01:29AM
A better source, the best source on the internet is Stanford's Encyclopedia of Philosophy. [stanford.edu]
Go ahead, type something into the search box. A big question, a small one, there will be something of value for your.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 08 2015, @01:17AM
that I know right from wrong
Yes, and you came up with your morals all on your own. It's just pure coincidence that they both align with religious morals and the de-facto morals of the society you live in!
Sarcasm aside, morals aren't intrinsic. They're imposed on you by your society and culture; whether or not those morals can be classified as 'religious' is completely irrelevant. See: Why do atheists believe in religion? [blogspot.com] and Jaroslav Hašek and the kernel-monitor meme [blogspot.com].
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday November 08 2015, @03:21AM
Modded up - that Moldbug character's posts are well worth reading.
ICE is having a Pretti Good season.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Sunday November 08 2015, @09:50AM
It's just pure coincidence that they both align with religious morals and the de-facto morals of the society you live in!
Except they don't; not always. I hold many beliefs that a grand majority of society does not share, but it could still be said that society helped me come to those conclusions by creating the issues in the first place.
When my moral code does align with something some religion said, it's often not for the same reasons. Religion often tells you to do something or refrain from doing something without explaining why it's a good idea. You can come up with perfectly secular and logical reasons to have some moral code. Sure, I came upon many of these ideas more quickly because they had already been discussed by society and implemented within it. But religion is just an irrelevancy in this case, because people usually demand explanations, and a growing number of people won't accept "Because a magical sky daddy that can't even be proven to exist said so!" Religion is part of society, and not the other way around, so I would have just left it at "society".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 08 2015, @12:58PM
I hold many beliefs that a grand majority of society does not share
I'd like an example. Unless you're going to say you're completely OK with murder or rape I don't believe for a second you hold any beliefs that are unacceptable in modern society. To be a functioning member of a society you need to adopt its morals.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Sunday November 08 2015, @01:07PM
Well, you're just silly. I don't think possessing child pornography should be illegal, and think that that whether rape occurred should be determined on a case-by-case basis in a courtroom rather than relying on inflexible age of consent laws. I think absolutely all drugs should be legalized. I believe in absolute freedom of speech; if someone yells "fire" in a crowded theater when there is no fire and people panic, any damage they cause while panicking is their own fault and not the fault of the speaker. There, you have a few examples where I disagree with a grand majority of society (some of those cause more disagreement than others).
Unless you were only referring to beliefs that no one other than yourself holds, but in that case, there are probably very few such beliefs. I'm sure a few people believe that murder and rape are okay.
To be a functioning member of a society you need to adopt its morals.
Bullshit. People challenge society all the time. You can agree with many of society's rules but disagree with some or many of its rules and still be functioning. What you just said is complete nonsense.
I'm honestly dumbfounded that you could say something so blatantly absurd.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 08 2015, @01:28PM
hold any beliefs that are unacceptable in modern society
where I disagree with a grand majority of society
Unacceptable in modern society, not disagreed with by the grand majority of society.
In the examples you've given, there is not one where you disagree with the fundamental values of society. You are just weighing them differently than others would. You value personal liberty more than security; a valid (and accepted) stance to take.
What you just said is complete nonsense.
I do not see how, and you've not presented much of an argument why I would be wrong. If you live in a society, you need to act according to its morals (codified in law). Those who do not follow these laws (morals) on a structural basis are removed from society. It does not even matter if people believe in the morals, as long as they act according to them. Of course people 'rebel against the system'. But they do so from within the system.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Sunday November 08 2015, @02:04PM
Unacceptable in modern society, not disagreed with by the grand majority of society.
I said "I hold many beliefs that a grand majority of society does not share" and you replied to it as if you disagreed with that, so I thought you were speaking of mere disagreement.
What do you mean by "unacceptable"? Illegal? I don't know of any beliefs that are outright illegal to have, at least not in many first world countries. So I don't know what you're talking about.
I do not see how, and you've not presented much of an argument why I would be wrong. If you live in a society, you need to act according to its morals (codified in law).
Well, you didn't really present any reason for me to believe that they can't be functioning members of society.
And laws are different from morality. Just because something is illegal that doesn't mean a majority of society finds it wrong. It could just be that a select few plutocrats pushed a lot of laws through while the public was being entertained by bread and circuses and distracted by hot topics like immigration. Don't confuse morality with law, even if you're talking about society. If you do, you don't have a very useful definition of morality from my standpoint.
Those who do not follow these laws (morals) on a structural basis are removed from society.
You seem to assume that the laws are perfectly enforced or even well enforced. That is not often not the case. So even someone who has beliefs that are "unacceptable" to society can be a functioning member of society, even if it's just because they hide what they believe.
Still need to know what "unacceptable" means exactly, however. Since the topic is about beliefs, it doesn't make much sense to me.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 09 2015, @11:17PM
There are plenty of places where being okay with gay marriage, polyandry (not to be confused with polygyny) or people having the right to commit suicide, will get you ostracized (at best), or tortured and then killed.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Refugee from beyond on Sunday November 08 2015, @11:55AM
Except when they don't. Who is allowed to marry or live with whom, how many people should live together, what you can criticize and what is wrong (burning hells included), what you can eat and what you cannot, etc.
Instantly better soylentnews: replace background on article and comment titles with #973131.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 09 2015, @03:17AM
Oh, look! MikeeUSA finally got a username! How cute!
(Score: 2) by Dunbal on Sunday November 08 2015, @12:18PM
Sarcasm aside, morals aren't intrinsic. They're imposed on you by your society and culture
Not sure I'm with you there. As individuals we can reject the morals of society and culture. We call those people eccentric, anti-social, or criminal, depending on the degree of rejection. You can't say morals are imposed on an individual when you clearly have individuals who are not bothered by them at all. Otherwise you're left trying to explain away why this imposition fails on some people. The other way around makes more sense - that we're taught what our parents and our society wants as a norm as we develop, and some people clearly reject this in favor of their own (usually selfish) code that disregards right and wrong as a whole and focuses on whatever that individual wants at the moment or thinks is correct. Then you don't need some magical failure mechanism (like, say, "he didn't go to church enough") when "I just don't give a shit" is much simpler. Occam's razor, etc.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 08 2015, @01:06PM
As individuals we can reject the morals of society and culture. We call those people eccentric, anti-social, or criminal,
Yes, that's the idea. If you reject the morals of a society, that society rejects you.
You can't say morals are imposed on an individual when you clearly have individuals who are not bothered by them at all.
Why not? I never claimed a 100% success rate. I'll have to pull the old English-is-not-my-native-language excuse here, perhaps 'impose' has that connotation, but I certainly did not mean it.
that we're taught what our parents and our society wants as a norm as we develop
And that's not a form of imposition? If a child deviates from societal norms, does it not get disciplined? If a person breaks the law, do they not get fined or jailed?
(Score: 2) by Dunbal on Sunday November 08 2015, @03:41PM
And that's not a form of imposition? If a child deviates from societal norms, does it not get disciplined? If a person breaks the law, do they not get fined or jailed?
But what about when discipline does nothing to correct the problem? Kids who grow up to be anti-social adults do not do so because of a lack of discipline from the parents. It's because their own values override any possible effect of that discipline. There are some kids you can discipline all you want and you won't get an iota of change out of them. Likewise for prison. Not all people can be "rehabilitated". So no, it's not really imposition. It's an ATTEMPT at imposition.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 08 2015, @05:15PM
And in many cases, its society that's in the wrong, because the values codified into law no longer represent the society's members or declares certain human rights as "wrong". A transaction between 2 consenting adults that involves nobody but those 2 consenting adults, illegal? That's a problem with the laws. Similarly, certain substances illegal to put in one's own body by one's own free will, illegal? Another problem with the laws, rather than the individuals who choose to do that. Possessing drawings that appear to depict an individual under 18? Modifying one's own belongings in ways the producer of those items disagrees with? The list could go on and on where society's laws are very much in the wrong and are very anti-human rights, determined to punish people for merely being human.
(Score: 2) by bziman on Sunday November 08 2015, @07:32PM
As it turns out, I more or less did. I wrote a paper in college whose thesis was that modern morals were derived from religious teachings, and ended up convincing myself of the opposite. (I won't go into all the specific ways that my personal belief system seems to differ from the rest of society. I'll mention sexual and linguistic taboos as a single example.)
I truly believe that the "social compact" that governs human morals largely predates religion. I don't commit murder, not because I'm afraid of punishment, but rather because I believe it is in my best interest that we all mutually agree not to kill each other. I don't thieve for the same reason. These things are "wrong" because I don't want them done to me, and the best way to ensure that is to mutually agree with everyone else not to do it.
There are many, many "rules" in the Bible, most of which are ignored by even the most backwards of religious zealots. The laws against gay sex in Leviticus are in the same chapters that describe the sorts of burnt offerings you're supposed to make, and the size of the tent in which your alter stands, and the laundry list of foods that can't be eaten or eaten together. They describe a strict patriarchy, and how you should marry your sister-in-law if your brother dies. The "rules" that we, as a society, hang on to didn't come from the religion... they were the things that actually make sense for civilization to exist... that's why we still hold to them, even as religion declines.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 08 2015, @01:20AM
>"I always reply that I know right from wrong ..."
You didn't answer their question. Their question is, "How do you know right from wrong?" What religion does is codify what is right and wrong, so that everyone is working with the same set of rules, and not using what may be conflicting versions of right and wrong. One problem with that is that there is a tendency for fascists to seize power within a religion, and run it for their own benefit. One answer is to use government to codify right and wrong, but unfortunately, we have not found a means of government that is significantly more resistant to power hungry fascists than religion is.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 08 2015, @01:31AM
You have heard of the middle east right?
Some morals are subjective, others not. Discerning the difference and choosing what to do is the role of rational ethics. You should look into it.
(Score: 0, Offtopic) by Francis on Sunday November 08 2015, @02:04AM
Indeed. According to the Israelis, it's not murder if you kill somebody that doesn't support Israel's land grab on the Palestinian land.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 08 2015, @06:44AM
To be fair, that sort of thinking does come from the old testament, and the new for that matter. At least they aren't hypocritical in their hatred.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Sunday November 08 2015, @09:56AM
You have heard of the middle east right?
I don't follow. Does morality randomly become objective when you feel particularly strongly about a certain issue? That makes no sense.
Some morals are subjective, others not.
I see no evidence for non-subjective morals. Everything points to morality being subjective and based on people's subjective values. Do you vehemently disagree with murder? So do most people, but that doesn't mean that isn't a subjective feeling in the end.
Morality being subjective doesn't mean you can't criticize others or act against them (which is a sort of criticism that I see often); it just means you must recognize that it's simply your opinion, and probably the opinion of many others in many cases.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Sunday November 08 2015, @11:37AM
I see no evidence for non-subjective morals. Everything points to morality being subjective and based on people's subjective values. Do you vehemently disagree with murder? So do most people, but that doesn't mean that isn't a subjective feeling in the end.
Morality being subjective doesn't mean you can't criticize others or act against them (which is a sort of criticism that I see often); it just means you must recognize that it's simply your opinion, and probably the opinion of many others in many cases.
An excellent point, Pumpernickel.
I'd go even farther and say that not only is morality subjective, its application is limited to an individual making a particular moral choice at a specific time. As such, there is no such thing as a group morality.
Morality is inherently an individual practice. While various people may have similar ideas about specific moral choices, an individual determines his or her actions. This creates a unique moral code for each individual.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1) by Francis on Sunday November 08 2015, @04:13PM
People object to murder mainly because of the way it's defined. Very, very few people think that it's never OK to kill somebody on purpose. Where people differ is under what circumstances it's permissible or whether there should be any rules at all.
For example, the Israeli government has no problem killing thousands of innocent Palestinians, but has a huge problem with killing a small number of Israelis. The US government was OK with tens of thousands of largely innocent Iraqis being killed in the sectarian violence that followed the Iraqi military being shut down, and little problem with thousands of service members being killed because there weren't sufficient troop levels to do the job. But were appalled by the smaller number of people killed in 9/11.
Serial killers and mobsters have little or no problem killing people for little or no reason.
The Black Lives Matter movement automatically considers shootings by the police to be immoral, regardless of what the evidence eventually shows.
Most people consider those to be unacceptable, but they still happen because there's enough people that don't consider those killings to be immoral. Or worse, consider the killings to be justified or necessary.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 08 2015, @05:22PM
No, people object to murder because it violates another's self-sovereignty. Its the old "your rights end where mine begin" - their life is not yours to take. And the right to self-defense is also a basic human right, if somebody tries to take your life, you have a right to defend yourself, using up to and including deadly force if necessary, thats why self-defense doesn't fall under "murder".
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 08 2015, @12:39AM
less likely to endorse harsh punishments
but... but... but... my 6000 year old book tells me that it's okay to kill people for no good reason!
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 08 2015, @12:48AM
The book isnt 6000 years old, its somewhere under 2000 years old but, by some interprestations, says the earth is 6000 years old.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 08 2015, @01:00AM
Aw your ruining his fun of making fun of others... by using the meme of others who hate Christians.
Having gone to a christian school I could have told you that. The kids are no better or worse than those in public schools. The only thing they lack is the hubris that public school is better. Having been in both. There is little difference other than an extra class or two every few days.
The first post in this discussion puts it into perspective. SOOOO before you go jumping on the bandwagon. I suggest you listen to someone who bothered to read the paper.
https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/3rnzi6/religious_kids_are_harsher_and_less_generous_than/ [reddit.com]
But basically r = .161. That does not say much one way or the other. Other than it may be worth studding more.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 08 2015, @02:57AM
Only the "New Testament" is under 2000 years old, the rest of it is somewhere between 5000-8000 years old.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 08 2015, @08:33PM
Don't forget God III the Final Revelation [wikipedia.org] is even newer than that at a mere 1400 years, give or take.
(Score: 1) by PocketSizeSUn on Sunday November 08 2015, @09:05PM
Judaism and Monotheism isn't that old. So clearly the book cannot be that old either.
At best you could go with the estimated date the Torah was first being written (600 BCE) which would still be closer to 2600 years old. You could use the estimated time of Moses, as the Torah was supposedly dictated to Moses. Using that date would get you to ~1300 BCE so 3300 years old.
The oldest written religious text being the Vedas at ~1500 BCE which only gets you 3500 years old.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by anubi on Sunday November 08 2015, @12:53AM
Mind you, I was raised Southern Baptist.
That said, I began drifting further and further away from "the flock" as my leaders adopted "leadership techniques" which to me seemed so heartless. It seemed almost like the old "diplomatic immunity" thing where we were "above the law" of common social etiquette as we were obedient to a "higher power", which was presented to us to take completely on "faith".
The thing I found so frustrating was my inability to communicate with the faith leaders. Church started at a specific time - then only that which the "leaders" had to say could be said. Through powerful amplifiers. Then church was over. Everybody goes home. Can't discuss a damned thing. Gotta go!
For me, God and Truth seem almost synonymous, just as "faith", "superstition", "naivety", and "gullible" to me are close synonyms. I did not like it at all when "authority of leadership" gets called into play, as I knew full good and well they had no legal hold on me as far as the law of the land goes... all they own of me is what I give them.
Yes, I see all sorts of "leadership techniques" at play. Fancy buildings. Fancy decorations on their clothing. Lots of obedient people around them which will enforce their whim. These are people who never have to raise their voice. One hand-motion and musicians will fire up kilowatts of audio amplifiers to drown out anything - while all the believers go all blank-faced, put their hands up in the air and do the Hitler Thing, rock back and forth, and say "Praise the Lord". Looks like a drug-induced stupor. Damn near enough to make me lose my religious beliefs entirely if I had to go along with it. Its like trying to have a discussion with a drunk.
Yes, I know the "believers" had a responsibility to their leadership to "excommunicate" me if I did not toe the line as to what the microphone man said. I ended up excommunicating them at the same time. About the last thing most of these churches need is anyone who questions authority.
Yes, I do have a belief there is a God. My belief is that "he" ( if I can gender a force ), is what caused this whole existence as I know it to exist. I am also of the belief that the study of the sciences is the truest religion there is, as it studies creation. ( BTW, that is Biblical. Job 12:7-8 ). I have had enough experience with Man to know that he will tell me anything to get me to follow him, aka "leadership skills". Machiavelli and Napoleon were masters at it. Lie like a dog. Threaten people and feed them all sorts of lies to get them to obey. Bullshit!
However a lot of people will go along - for the very same reason gangland protection rackets work. The "leadership" is organized with enforcers, whereas the general public is not.
Almost like a gang, a lot of "organized religious" people come off as assholes because they have leadership assholes egging them on.
A lot of the churches are concerned about declining memberships. I sincerely hope they read what I wrote and consider replacing all that judgmental attitude with a genuine concern and love for their fellow man.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 5, Informative) by jdavidb on Sunday November 08 2015, @02:22AM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 3, Disagree) by Runaway1956 on Sunday November 08 2015, @03:24AM
People who make those statements seem to forget part of their own Bibles.
http://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/6-3.htm [biblehub.com]
ICE is having a Pretti Good season.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by kurenai.tsubasa on Sunday November 08 2015, @10:53PM
1st Corinthians 6:1–8 (MSG):
And how dare you take each other to court! When you think you have been wronged, does it make any sense to go before a court that knows nothing of God’s ways instead of a family of Christians? The day is coming when the world is going to stand before a jury made up of followers of Jesus. If someday you are going to rule on the world’s fate, wouldn’t it be a good idea to practice on some of these smaller cases? Why, we’re even going to judge angels! So why not these everyday affairs? As these disagreements and wrongs surface, why would you ever entrust them to the judgment of people you don’t trust in any other way?
I say this as bluntly as I can to wake you up to the stupidity of what you’re doing. Is it possible that there isn’t one levelheaded person among you who can make fair decisions when disagreements and disputes come up? I don’t believe it. And here you are taking each other to court before people who don’t even believe in God! How can they render justice if they don’t believe in the God of justice?
These court cases are an ugly blot on your community. Wouldn’t it be far better to just take it, to let yourselves be wronged and forget it? All you’re doing is providing fuel for more wrong, more injustice, bringing more hurt to the people of your own spiritual family.
What Paul is saying here is that it's better to turn the other cheek than to submit to corrupt “justice” i.e. better to just take whatever abuse than leave it to the lawyers (e.g. Pharisees, scribes, etc). The lawyers will destroy a community.
(The early Christian church will destroy libraries, particularly the one at Alexandria, but that's a matter for another time.)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 08 2015, @09:10PM
Doesn't the Invisible Hand of the Free Market take care of all that stuff anyway?
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Monday November 09 2015, @02:44AM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 3, Interesting) by HiThere on Sunday November 08 2015, @09:22PM
The bible tells people the things they want to hear from it. In that way it's rather like a Ouja board. Come with a perspective, and you can find a section that confirms it. It was used to justify both slave holding and abolitionism with equal vigor...and that's just one example of a pair of opposites that are justified by the same "holy scripture".
I once had to read the whole thing, and though I don't remember most of it, I certainly lost all respect for it during the process.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Monday November 09 2015, @02:46AM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 3, Interesting) by jdavidb on Monday November 09 2015, @02:50AM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Monday November 09 2015, @05:59PM
BTW, for anyone who liked this, let me point out that the Bible all tells Christians not to be "troublesome meddlers." In other words, they are very emphatically supposed to mind their own business and leave everyone else alone.
My observation is that there seem to be two types of Christians (this probably applies to all religions). You have your genuine spiritual Christians who try to live by following the teachings of Christ. These tend to be fairly rare, at least as far as being in the public view goes. Then you have your Christian supremacists. Following the teachings of Christ is something that is only done by accident. What they really try to do is force "Christian" law upon others, everyone should live and work in a proscribed manner, determined by that particular sect, and anyone who does not is to be condemned. This is more an authoritarian thing, it is easier to control people if they are behaving predictably. It depends greatly on cognitive dissonance, the flock bleating thoughtlessly ("Four legs good, two legs better!") repeating the commands of the leaders, and backed by selectively using aspects of their dogma as needed and ignoring anything that contradicts. That dogma becomes all important, it is important to force others to accept it, even the contradictory parts, in order to better be able to use it for even greater control.
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Monday November 09 2015, @06:49PM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Gaaark on Sunday November 08 2015, @01:03AM
I have seen more 'religious' people who can talk the talk like a preacher, but stumble like crazy when they try to walk the walk.
I 'behave' in a 'religious' manner because that's how i was raised, how i want my kids to be raised and how i want to be perceived... i don't do it because my Dog might be watching, or that 'well, i go to church a lot, so it won't be too bad if i have sex with this child just once.... i'll confess and Dog will forgive me'.
Walk the walk!!!
(If it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, but molests children....)
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. I have always been here. ---Gaaark 2.0 --
(Score: 3, Insightful) by marcello_dl on Sunday November 08 2015, @01:14AM
other religions might vary but christians are defined by actions, mt 21:31
So it's not about whether religion makes you this or that, but whether what you do defines you as religious.
Of course a study cannot take this philosophical distinction into account.
But, the study reminds me of the one stating that speed limits don't make roads safer, which is counterintuitive all the same. The problem is that the good driver(tm) will drive under the limits not to take unnecessary risks, because speed amplifies problems except few corner cases.
I also don't see many religious family stops being religious so that their offspring can be more religious, yet it's not fault of the study.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by kurenai.tsubasa on Sunday November 08 2015, @01:26AM
I'm assuming you meant Matthew 21:31. Let's start at Matthew 21:12 (MSG).
Jesus went straight to the Temple and threw out everyone who had set up shop, buying and selling. He kicked over the tables of loan sharks and the stalls of dove merchants. He quoted this text:
My house was designated a house of prayer;
You have made it a hangout for thieves.
Now there was room for the blind and crippled to get in. They came to Jesus and he healed them.
When the religious leaders saw the outrageous things he was doing, and heard all the children running and shouting through the Temple, “Hosanna to David’s Son!” they were up in arms and took him to task. “Do you hear what these children are saying?”
Jesus said, “Yes, I hear them. And haven’t you read in God’s Word, ‘From the mouths of children and babies I’ll furnish a place of praise’?”
Fed up, Jesus turned on his heel and left the city for Bethany, where he spent the night.
To get to the parable, let's start at verse 18 (MSG). Jesus says:
“Tell me what you think of this story: A man had two sons. He went up to the first and said, ‘Son, go out for the day and work in the vineyard.’
“The son answered, ‘I don’t want to.’ Later on he thought better of it and went.
“The father gave the same command to the second son. He answered, ‘Sure, glad to.’ But he never went.
“Which of the two sons did what the father asked?”
They said, “The first.”
Jesus said, “Yes, and I tell you that crooks and whores are going to precede you into God’s kingdom. John came to you showing you the right road. You turned up your noses at him, but the crooks and whores believed him. Even when you saw their changed lives, you didn’t care enough to change and believe him.
This does not bode well for a lot of people who shout, “Imma Christian!” while defiling the planet and telling their brother, “I've got mine, fuck you!”
Agree or disagree with the conclusion of the study, but it really does seem that people who understand the Bible as a philosophical guide rather than a rigid commandment endorsing genital mutilation, slavery, homophobia, transphobia, and all kinds of other things wind up with a better understanding of philosophy!
(Score: 2) by kurenai.tsubasa on Sunday November 08 2015, @01:31AM
To get to the parable, let's start at verse 18 (MSG).
Argh! Should have been 28. Apologies.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Gaaark on Sunday November 08 2015, @01:34AM
Nice! I give you 3 hail mary's and +5 religion (now where is my d20???)
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. I have always been here. ---Gaaark 2.0 --
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Francis on Sunday November 08 2015, @02:13AM
Most people you can identify as Christian would be going to Hell if such a place actually existed.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 08 2015, @03:03AM
Communist! White Jesus would never perform such abominable acts, he'd be the heard merchant selling out the spaces in the temple to the merchants.
(Score: 2) by kurenai.tsubasa on Sunday November 08 2015, @09:07AM
Allow me to illustrate what AC is saying. Matthew 19:16–24 (MSG):
Another day, a man stopped Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?”
Jesus said, “Why do you question me about what’s good? God is the One who is good. If you want to enter the life of God, just do what he tells you.”
The man asked, “What in particular?”
Jesus said, “Don’t murder, don’t commit adultery, don’t steal, don’t lie, honor your father and mother, and love your neighbor as you do yourself.”
The young man said, “I’ve done all that. What’s left?”
“If you want to give it all you’ve got,” Jesus replied, “go sell your possessions; give everything to the poor. All your wealth will then be in heaven. Then come follow me.”
That was the last thing the young man expected to hear. And so, crestfallen, he walked away. He was holding on tight to a lot of things, and he couldn’t bear to let go.
As he watched him go, Jesus told his disciples, “Do you have any idea how difficult it is for the rich to enter God’s kingdom? Let me tell you, it’s easier to gallop a camel through a needle’s eye than for the rich to enter God’s kingdom.”
Compare and contrast. Matthew 25:14–30 (MSG). Jesus says:
“It’s also like a man going off on an extended trip. He called his servants together and delegated responsibilities. To one he gave five thousand dollars, to another two thousand, to a third one thousand, depending on their abilities. Then he left. Right off, the first servant went to work and doubled his master’s investment. The second did the same. But the man with the single thousand dug a hole and carefully buried his master’s money.
“After a long absence, the master of those three servants came back and settled up with them. The one given five thousand dollars showed him how he had doubled his investment. His master commended him: ‘Good work! You did your job well. From now on be my partner.’
“The servant with the two thousand showed how he also had doubled his master’s investment. His master commended him: ‘Good work! You did your job well. From now on be my partner.’
“The servant given one thousand said, ‘Master, I know you have high standards and hate careless ways, that you demand the best and make no allowances for error. I was afraid I might disappoint you, so I found a good hiding place and secured your money. Here it is, safe and sound down to the last cent.’
“The master was furious. ‘That’s a terrible way to live! It’s criminal to live cautiously like that! If you knew I was after the best, why did you do less than the least? The least you could have done would have been to invest the sum with the bankers, where at least I would have gotten a little interest.
“‘Take the thousand and give it to the one who risked the most. And get rid of this “play-it-safe” who won’t go out on a limb. Throw him out into utter darkness.’
Obviously, a literal reading will do no good here. It won't even make logical sense! That doesn't mean these passages don't mean anything.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Sunday November 08 2015, @10:32AM
What is the difference between a thief and a crook? Jesus seems to hate thieves but love crooks.
(Score: 2) by kurenai.tsubasa on Sunday November 08 2015, @10:47PM
This cuts to the quick. I prefer The Message translation because of exactly this issue. I believe the term used in the popular New International Version and American Scholar's translation is “money-changer.” There a lot of bullshit and woo in the Bible, but I believe that if taken with other works, it can be a helpful guide to ethics and philosophy.
The point is that Jesus became angry after seeing money-changers in a temple that was supposed to be dedicated to his father, Abraham's god. Yet, if a criminal reforms his ways, then Jesus has all the sympathy in the world for that person who has seen the error of his ways.
So, to answer your question, as I understand the ancient document, the difference between a thief and a crook is little. However, the difference between a man who continues to profit off lies and a man who realizes the error of his ways is the difference between hell and heaven.
Does that help?
(Score: 2) by kurenai.tsubasa on Sunday November 08 2015, @11:07PM
I wasn't clear. Consider Mark 12:13–17 (MSG):
They sent some Pharisees and followers of Herod to bait him, hoping to catch him saying something incriminating. They came up and said, “Teacher, we know you have integrity, that you are indifferent to public opinion, don’t pander to your students, and teach the way of God accurately. Tell us: Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar or not?”
He knew it was a trick question, and said, “Why are you playing these games with me? Bring me a coin and let me look at it.” They handed him one.
“This engraving—who does it look like? And whose name is on it?”
“Caesar,” they said.
Jesus said, “Give Caesar what is his, and give God what is his.”
Their mouths hung open, speechless.
The issue of money-changers being in a temple for Abraham's god is that they were not rendering to God what was God's. Their presence created a lie, and they fully intended to keep on profiting by counterfeiting Caesar's currency for Abraham's god.
This is not too different from the current situation. We have people living with the just world axiom who mistake what mammon values (compound interest, H1Bs, TPP, TTIP, TISA, enslaving the working class, stealing from the true innovators with abuse of the patent system) over what the Light values. (I believe there may be such a thing as the Light of Creation, but my personal beliefs are too unsettled. Perhaps the Light of Creation cannot exist without the Dark of Creation. I suppose that digresses into paganism.)
(Score: 2) by kurenai.tsubasa on Monday November 09 2015, @02:43AM
(Full disclaimer: as an Amazon, I do not believe anything literally. I am hoping the the stories I've heard about the Jesus Buddha in the Good News [Gospel] are as true as the stories I've heard about the other Buddhas. The Gautama and Amida Buddhas have spoken. Next comes the Maitreya Buddha, who will most probably take female form, as far as she may project her presence in limited 3rd dimensional spacetime.)
(Score: 2) by kurenai.tsubasa on Monday November 09 2015, @03:01AM
Sorry to reply to myself yet again, but we live in interesting times. Pope Francis I is the last pope as the prophecy has it. As an Amazon, I must dispute the reliance on water dowsing. The patterns seem to be coming together, however. The Dalai Lama intends to discorporate at the end of his current incarnation.
The Maitreya Buddha won't come for another 10,000 years at least. (A short time in the dreams of the Brahman.)
What is going to happen? They want to backdoor encryption. There's TPP, TISA, and TTIP. I am deeply concerned. I have had many disturbing dreams myself lately, mostly about buying a new house and being unable to transfer my possessions into the new house.
Should I be concerned? Should I plan on discorporation before 2019?
(Score: 3, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Sunday November 08 2015, @03:28AM
Speed limits are not intended to make the roads safer. Speed limits are revenue generators.
Ever heard of the 85th percentile? http://onlinemanuals.txdot.gov/txdotmanuals/szn/determining_the_85th_percentile_speed.htm [txdot.gov] Your belief that speed limits make the roads safer is in itself a matter of faith. We have an entire religion devoted to that faith.
Think about it.
ICE is having a Pretti Good season.
(Score: 2) by turgid on Sunday November 08 2015, @12:33PM
The Jehovah's Witnesses once gave me a little leaflet with a cartoon story in it that argued precisely the opposite, that a Christian is someone who believes really, really hard. Doing "good/God's work" is irrelevant. In fact it seemed to imply that actually trying to do good is counter-productive in personal terms when trying to get into Heaven.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Bot on Sunday November 08 2015, @01:37AM
study highlights, from the study:
•Family religious identification decreases children’s altruistic behaviors
•Religiousness predicts parent-reported child sensitivity to injustices and empathy
•Children from religious households are harsher in their punitive tendencies
N. 2 and 3 seem interdependent, if kid is sensible to things, his innate sense of justice (compensation) will want more punishment. Not mentioning 2 is a problem for 3.
Less empathy is also a problem, we don't want to end up like H.G. Wells' "The time machine". Still, empathy and altruism should go together.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Sunday November 08 2015, @01:54AM
Here's a discovery that could make secular parents say hallelujah: Children who grow up in non-religious homes are more generous and altruistic
Worldwide, about 5.8 billion people consider themselves religious
Why would you be happy that 80% of the world is less generous and altruistic?
Oh, we're thinking in "I'm better than you" mode, not "what would make the world a better place" mode. Silly me.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 08 2015, @04:34AM
I think it was to vindicate the non-religious parents that they aren't raising their kids to be monsters like religious people say they are.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 08 2015, @06:50AM
Arguably the non-religious are the most persecuted group to have ever existed, far outstripping Jews and the like in suffering for their lack of faith. Their suffering continues to this day with half the world prepared to cut off your head slowly on an internet live feed just for not believing in their imaginary friend.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Sunday November 08 2015, @10:36AM
This is why I've never been to Alabama.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 08 2015, @01:53PM
Almost every day of my life I am told indirectly or to my face that my beliefs, or lack there of, are wrong. I just have to sit back and put up with it. Yet, when someone even hints to these religious retards that they might be wrong, they feel the absolute need to "defend" their beliefs. In some cases their religion even dictates they do that. And they are all totally shocked, SHOCKED, I tell you, anyone might even possibly believe differently.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 08 2015, @09:17PM
Maybe we can rate some common regions on their persecution ratio.
P : X
P - Number of persons persecute because of their belief.
X - Number of persons killed by believer(s) because they did not believe and/or properly adhere.
I suspect that the X value is larger than the P value for all of the follow major religious groups:
Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Judaism
(Score: 2) by stormreaver on Sunday November 08 2015, @02:05PM
Oh, we're thinking in "I'm better than you" mode....
No, we're happy that a light has been shone on the hypocrisy of the self-righteous delusional justifications for hatred of people who don't waste their lives trying to please a fictional character, among other reasons.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 08 2015, @02:06AM
Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.
- James 1:27 (KJV)
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Monday November 09 2015, @05:22PM
This is more like the religion that they are speaking of in the study: "If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man's religion is vain." - James 1:26 (KJV)
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2, Insightful) by michel-slm on Sunday November 08 2015, @03:50AM
Too many religious followers are busy thinking about their personal standing with their deity instead of thinking about their fellow human beings and environment.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by sjwt on Sunday November 08 2015, @04:25AM
"contradict the common-sense and popular assumption that children from religious households are more altruistic and kind toward others"
No, the results are exactly what most Atheists and Agnostics have been saying forever! People use religion and Gods to justify shity behaouire where posible, and divine absolution as an option when their religion dosent jsutify that shity behaviour.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 08 2015, @02:00PM
Religion primarily exists as an excuse for those in power to fleece their flock of money, rape children, have multiple wives, or what ever else they think they can get way with if they say their magical sky being says so.
So color me fricken surprised if children who have been mentally raped by people who force them to believe lies about the universe are less likely to be good altruistic people.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Monday November 09 2015, @01:45AM
> who force them to believe
Parser error.
Forcing to believe is impossible, I guess the traditional Jesus supposed fairy tale shows no instance of forced behavior for a reason.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 10 2015, @03:45PM
> Forcing to believe is impossible
You never met my mother.