![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
This is an article I found on Slate.com.
( Full text )
Anyway, it talks about whether religion makes you nice and atheism makes you meaner/not as nice. I think it's a good point when they mention religious people believing they're not really "alone" and someone's watching their actions anywhere, anytime. And the part about the poster with eyes, too... I sometimes feel people only do things because it rewards them in some way, be it Heaven, reputation, love, their good-will feeling... But I find it more interesting when the article opens saying a Gallup poll found "a majority of Americans say that they would not vote for an otherwise qualified atheist as president, meaning a nonbeliever would have a harder time getting elected than a Muslim, a homosexual, or a Jew. Many would go further and agree with conservative commentator Laura Schlessinger that morality requires a belief in God—otherwise, all we have is our selfish desires." This was something I had asked a friend about during the election, if religion would make be a harder bias to break than sexuality in the presidential race. There are times I cringe when someone says "God bless America/England/etc." and I sometimes think those easy sayings "discriminate" a bit against atheists/agnostics. The American dollar bill states "In God We Trust," doesn't it?
The part about dualism made me pause. I would have expected atheists to not believe in souls, and be materialists (hard-core or not). Or embodied reasonists. Otherwise, I would think someone who believes in souls, but not a particular religion would think themselves as spiritual, or something like that.
I may be overly sensitive, but it hit a wrong nerve when the end of the articles states that people this study cites, define "religious" and "secular" not in terms of religious beliefs, but in religious attendance. I'm not a believer in any organized religion, and I have a big chip on my shoulder against Islam, but this kind of definition seems to make religion...shallower, if that's understandable. It's good the people find communities they can get support from and vice versa, but I feel religion should be about beliefs, and not only the sole sake of finding a community to belong to.
I put Zuckerman's book on reserve at the public library and maybe that'll fill up some holes.</td>
( Full text )
Anyway, it talks about whether religion makes you nice and atheism makes you meaner/not as nice. I think it's a good point when they mention religious people believing they're not really "alone" and someone's watching their actions anywhere, anytime. And the part about the poster with eyes, too... I sometimes feel people only do things because it rewards them in some way, be it Heaven, reputation, love, their good-will feeling... But I find it more interesting when the article opens saying a Gallup poll found "a majority of Americans say that they would not vote for an otherwise qualified atheist as president, meaning a nonbeliever would have a harder time getting elected than a Muslim, a homosexual, or a Jew. Many would go further and agree with conservative commentator Laura Schlessinger that morality requires a belief in God—otherwise, all we have is our selfish desires." This was something I had asked a friend about during the election, if religion would make be a harder bias to break than sexuality in the presidential race. There are times I cringe when someone says "God bless America/England/etc." and I sometimes think those easy sayings "discriminate" a bit against atheists/agnostics. The American dollar bill states "In God We Trust," doesn't it?
The part about dualism made me pause. I would have expected atheists to not believe in souls, and be materialists (hard-core or not). Or embodied reasonists. Otherwise, I would think someone who believes in souls, but not a particular religion would think themselves as spiritual, or something like that.
I may be overly sensitive, but it hit a wrong nerve when the end of the articles states that people this study cites, define "religious" and "secular" not in terms of religious beliefs, but in religious attendance. I'm not a believer in any organized religion, and I have a big chip on my shoulder against Islam, but this kind of definition seems to make religion...shallower, if that's understandable. It's good the people find communities they can get support from and vice versa, but I feel religion should be about beliefs, and not only the sole sake of finding a community to belong to.
I put Zuckerman's book on reserve at the public library and maybe that'll fill up some holes.</td>
