Are believers less intelligent than Atheists? Discuss

[cole grey]

The American South became an industrial non-entity and a technological backwater under slavery. Slavery was the downfall of the South. I find it farfetched to think that nobody saw it coming, that nobody struggled to preserve it despite the economic decline.

An owner saying, "i wonder why we are losing money, the slaves are working harder than ever", is far different from saying, "we are losing money because we have a slave economy, and we could switch to x, but i don't want to because it is against my philosophy". Show that the latter makes sense as having been the driving fiscal policy, somehow, and you will have made a point. EDIT - i agree it would be foolish to say there wasn't some actual racial hatred or religious contempt involved, i don't think anyone is saying that. I just maintain that those factors would not be high enough to keep the slave trade functioning.

 

[universaldistress]

I said:

I think the driving factor with slavery was economic gain.

You said:

I'm dubious about the economic motivation behind slavery - from the white slave-owners' viewpoint, that is.

I have explained and offered links to data supporting the fact that slavery was a profit driven exercise in human cruelty. The fact many Europeans got rich on it is testament. British Empire particularly profited. The fact slavery died out once attitudes changed doesn't counter the driving force.

Any slave owner's motivation to have people working for them for free as opposed to paying them is of course economically motivated. And you jibe about intelligence.

To say that later slavery held on because it was a social norm may have substance alongside economic factors. But this wasn't the driving force, but simply part of the decline in slavery as an accepted (and/or viable) practice. I know for damn sure that if I was a landowner and, for some specific set of reasons, a more viable economic model arose I would soon free or sell my slaves. Not to say some idiots may have held on to slaves towards the end, of a some specific economic-viability circumstance, for status; but this doesn't counter the fact that the main motivation behind slavery was money and the saving of money.*

Me saying "the driving factor" does not preclude other factors. Of course other factors worked alongside financial gain, but this doesn't change the fact that financial gain was the DRIVING factor (as in primary) across the whole course of slavery in its many forms.

*There were many people holding onto slaves for social reasons who found that keeping slaves saved them money. If you had one or two slaves working in your house in the deep south. And the choice was paying a maid and a chef/gardener, or keeping your slaves instead of freeing/selling them, which would seem to be the most economically viable option?

 

[spidergoat]

The American South became an industrial non-entity and a technological backwater under slavery. Slavery was the downfall of the South. I find it farfetched to think that nobody saw it coming, that nobody struggled to preserve it despite the economic decline.

...

What? Many people got incredibly rich under slavery. It created a whole class of rich elites. Of course they didn't do industry, they didn't have to, all the mills were in the north.

 

[universaldistress]

What? Many people got incredibly rich under slavery. It created a whole class of rich elites. Of course they didn't do industry, they didn't have to, all the mills were in the north.

I can't believe the idiotic resistance I'm getting on this thread. Check this out:

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/muslim-lady-doc-charged-with-modernday-slavery/679985/

Why did the Doc. do this. Why didn't she employ a house keeper and pay them? Slavery is cheaper.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3808387/Held-gypsy-gang-that-caged-slaves.html

This was a whole workgang. Why did they keep them? Oh it was so expensive for them to keep the slaves instead of employing people for 7.50 an hour . . .

 

[cole grey]

When I hear someone claiming they believe in God, I per default assume that this person claims to be perfect and to have full realization of God. And I hold them to that.

you aren't listening to them then. You are insisting on using your definition to define their word.

For me, this assumption is simply the consequence of taking matters of God with a life-or-death seriousness.

this would seem to make you a fundamentalist and someone who trusts cognition absolutely.

If I were to go and publicly claim, directly or indirectly, that I believe in God, for me the requirement to do so would be precisely perfection and full personal realization of God; without the perfection and realization, I do not think it is appropriate to tell anyone I believe in God.

i think this is a reasonable but impractical idea. As long as people aren't saying, "it is not me who lives, but christ in me," as some do, or trying to be a guru, you can cut humanity some slack. Gurus are for people who can live or think vicariously, you can't, so you can stop looking for a guru.

It is so easy to cause people so much worry and suffering by informing them wrongly about God. Which is why I think that by all means, one must talk on the topic of God with utmost qualification, and then only.

quite a responsibility. If you tell people their first responsibility as a believer is to not trust you but find out for themselves, I think it is ok.

And the same goes for oneself: It is so easy to drive oneself into the deepest pits, simply by the way one thinks and talks to oneself about God.

deep pits might be the place to hang out sometimes, hence the bodhisattva you mention in your post might want to kill someone because they were just about to get to the place where they would be lost to the heaven delusion for millions of years years, instead of being reborn to human realm, where they have a better chance of achieving union with buddha-mind. ALSO, what if the person (or myself) were already in a deep pit?

So it is out of concern for one's own wellbeing and the wellbeing of others that one ought to make claims about God only when one really is sure about their veracity.

Christians think the whole world is a very deep pit people need to be saved out of, so don't accuse the majority of them of being reckless. Or contemptuous.

...and I don't go and do harm to people in the name of God. And that ought to count for something.

Well Sartre might say you are a bad human if you don't act responsibly and actually "act". And the world moves on without you in the situation you describe and perhaps something more sinister will fill the void of your inaction. I personally think it is worth something, not for your deed, but for your intent.

(Note that there are many people who claim to be "really sure" about their notions of God. But as it often turns out, when they talk on the topic a bit, they reveal to actually have all kinds of doubts and uncertainties about God. I find few things as frustrating as talking to a theist who at first appears to be fire-and-brimstone sure about God, but who, after 15 minutes of conversation, utters "I am just a seeker like you", or who, at some point, exclaims "I am the most fallen one!" or "I am mostly in maya, I just occasionally fall into Krishna" - these are verbatim quotes from actual people.)

the world is a beautiful teaching tool, and all of those people were perfectly placed in it. Anyone who uses the phrase "just a seeker" is deluded. ALSO, you are looking for a teacher in this matter, so I guess finding a colleague would be very frustrating.

In one sense, my extreme attitude, however torturous it may seem, has at least one remarkable advantage, though: I can't fall prey to cultists, fundamentalists and the like,

i would say the opposite, unless by not falling prey, you mean not finding anyone perfect enough to qualify, which is probably true. You are more likely to fall prey than someone who believes people are imperfect even after they find God.

No, because he'd be in your house, as a guest, under your care and protection.

So I could respect the guest, even consider him my better, and still say, "your ideas about toasters are totally messed up, get back".

If the Dalai Lama came against you, with a knife or a gun, looking like he is intending to kill you, would you gladly assent? Would you say, "Oh, this infinitely compassionate being is coming to kill me, how nice of him, I will just stand still and let him do it!! I am so happy!" - ? Would you?

I am not prone to cultish behavior. So...

Would you trust another human so much?

no.

What, and now we should suddenly cut all those self-appointed theists some slack?!

yes, and we should move this to another thread because we are hijacking it with our wonderful off-topic ideas, i think.

 

[universaldistress]

Cole Grey, the thread was of mine inception; banter and bark and derail all you like as far as I'm concerned. When the debate is flowing it seems wrong to falsely pinch it off before natural corollaries or conclusions have been evolved to

 

[spidergoat]

...Why didn't she employ a house keeper and pay them?. . . .

I don't know. Racism maybe. Some people are sadistic. While economics may have been the starting position, a racist worldview is required to make sense of slavery. This racist worldview can persist far beyond economic necessity as we see today.

 

[cole grey]

I don't know. Racism maybe. Some people are sadistic. While economics may have been the starting position, a racist worldview is required to make sense of slavery. This racist worldview can persist far beyond economic necessity as we see today.

i think the correct view is to say it often (not always), looks like this -

- I want x (insert anything here, gold, labor, whatever)
- I don't have x but another person has x
- To get x without feeling that i am going to hell, or to be able to look my children in the face, i must make the people who have x cease to be considered people, they can be 2/3 people, or savages, or whatever
- I solidify that idea
- I take x
- I give some of x to the pope just in case I'm not safe on the "those people are not people" debate

 

[wynn]

When I hear someone claiming they believe in God, I per default assume that this person claims to be perfect and to have full realization of God. And I hold them to that.

you aren't listening to them then. You are insisting on using your definition to define their word.

Sure. I can understand a word only as I can understand a word. I cannot understand a word in a way I don't understand it.
I would think everyone is like that.

For me, this assumption is simply the consequence of taking matters of God with a life-or-death seriousness.

this would seem to make you a fundamentalist and someone who trusts cognition absolutely.

Fundamentalist - yes.
Someone who absolutely trusts cognition - no. Because I do believe that it is ultimately possible to have proper understanding of things and express it verbally - and this is more than just "trusting cognition."
(It's usually people who aren't very good with words that distrust them. Lol.)

If I were to go and publicly claim, directly or indirectly, that I believe in God, for me the requirement to do so would be precisely perfection and full personal realization of God; without the perfection and realization, I do not think it is appropriate to tell anyone I believe in God.

i think this is a reasonable but impractical idea.

Oh, I know it is impractical.

As long as people aren't saying, "it is not me who lives, but christ in me," as some do, or trying to be a guru, you can cut humanity some slack.

But they do say such things, they do want to be my guru, directly or indirectly!
I've developed a fine nose for spotting attempts to take the upper hand.

Gurus are for people who can live or think vicariously, you can't, so you can stop looking for a guru.

Why, thank you, guru mine!

quite a responsibility. If you tell people their first responsibility as a believer is to not trust you but find out for themselves, I think it is ok.

If that is so, then why waste their time and your own time with talking about God?

deep pits might be the place to hang out sometimes, hence the bodhisattva you mention in your post might want to kill someone because they were just about to get to the place where they would be lost to the heaven delusion for millions of years years, instead of being reborn to human realm, where they have a better chance of achieving union with buddha-mind. ALSO, what if the person (or myself) were already in a deep pit?

The motivation behind that bodhisattva vow is this story: Once, the Buddha was in a boat with several other people, on troubled seas. Being able to read minds, he read the mind of one the people in the boat - that man had the intention to kill someone. So the Buddha pushed him overboard before the man had the chance to act on his intention.

But this story appears to be limited to the Mahayana tradition.
In comparison, a story from the Theravada tradition: There was a ruthless villain named Angulimala. He had killed many people, and wore a necklace made of their fingers. Once, the Buddha decided to pay him a visit. The Buddha's companions warned him against doing so, fearing that Angulimala would kill him too. But no. The Buddha went to visit him anyway, had a conversation with him - and Angulimala changed his ways, ordained and became the Buddha's disciple.
By all means, Angulimala was in a deep pit, with his killing sprees. And yet the Buddha was able to reason with him, without killing him.
(According to the Pali Canon, it is always unskillful to kill, this is one of the few absolute principles therein.)

I prefer the story with Angulimala. IOW, I see no need for the requirement to kill people, even if it is supposedly for their own good. Apparently, the Buddha simply was more advanced than the Mahayana bodhisattvas (who have not yet actually attained buddhahood anyway, given that they wait that everyone else will be enlightened before them).

Christians think the whole world is a very deep pit people need to be saved out of, so don't accuse the majority of them of being reckless. Or contemptuous.

Do you feel personally hurt by my stance?

the world is a beautiful teaching tool, and all of those people were perfectly placed in it.

I think that is a statement of faith.

Anyone who uses the phrase "just a seeker" is deluded.

Why??

ALSO, you are looking for a teacher in this matter, so I guess finding a colleague would be very frustrating.

I don't understand? Does this have to do with what you are offering?

In one sense, my extreme attitude, however torturous it may seem, has at least one remarkable advantage, though: I can't fall prey to cultists, fundamentalists and the like,

i would say the opposite, unless by not falling prey, you mean not finding anyone perfect enough to qualify, which is probably true. You are more likely to fall prey than someone who believes people are imperfect even after they find God.

Well, I've never joined a cult, nor developed cultish religious behavior, although I was very much enticed to do so.

No, because he'd be in your house, as a guest, under your care and protection.

So I could respect the guest, even consider him my better, and still say, "your ideas about toasters are totally messed up, get back".

Sure. There are, of course, different ways of expressing criticism and admonition, some respectful, some not.

If the Dalai Lama came against you, with a knife or a gun, looking like he is intending to kill you, would you gladly assent? Would you say, "Oh, this infinitely compassionate being is coming to kill me, how nice of him, I will just stand still and let him do it!! I am so happy!" - ? Would you?

I am not prone to cultish behavior. So...

Would you trust another human so much?

no.

Exactly. Then - why should I, or anyone else?

I am the first to point out the necessity of deferring to authority, especially in religious matters - and this primarily on the grounds that trying to play it solo is solipsistic insanity.
But at this point, I don't have the wisdom to figure out how a person who is outside of organized religion can come to relate - in some sane way - to the authorities that are inside religion.

What, and now we should suddenly cut all those self-appointed theists some slack?!

yes, and we should move this to another thread because we are hijacking it with our wonderful off-topic ideas, i think.

Okay then, I'll probably start a new thread then.

 

[universaldistress]

I don't know. Racism maybe. Some people are sadistic. While economics may have been the starting position, a racist worldview is required to make sense of slavery. This racist worldview can persist far beyond economic necessity as we see today.

You make a valid point. I'm sure racism was a contributing factor to it all (blacks wrongly seen as second class citizens, and lower class whites for that matter). A combination of Racism with Elitism I feel? I suppose this postion is pretty much required to be able to buy and sell humans as cattle. One wouldn't treat a human being one generally respects in this manner? (though of course the complications of the human condition are ever more complicated . . .)

 

[sideshowbob]

i agree it would be foolish to say there wasn't some actual racial hatred or religious contempt involved, i don't think anyone is saying that. I just maintain that those factors would not be high enough to keep the slave trade functioning.

And yet it did keep functioning to the point that it destroyed the South.

 

[sideshowbob]

The fact slavery died out once attitudes changed doesn't counter the driving force.

You make my point. Slavery died out because of changing attitudes. Those attitudes prolonged its life past ita natural economically-driven lifetime.

To say that later slavery held on because it was a social norm may have substance alongside economic factors.

That's what I'm saying.

 

[sideshowbob]

Many people got incredibly rich under slavery. It created a whole class of rich elites. Of course they didn't do industry, they didn't have to, all the mills were in the north.

Mr. Blue says, "Free the slaves or there will be war." Mr. Gray keeps his slaves and takes on the added cost of war, which he ought to know he can't win without industry. Does Mr. Gray think this will make him richer?

 

[spidergoat]

Mr. Blue says, "Free the slaves or there will be war." Mr. Gray keeps his slaves and takes on the added cost of war, which he ought to know he can't win without industry. Does Mr. Gray think this will make him richer?

Yes, they had no choice. Agriculture was the only realistic option.

 

[wynn]

Yes, that would be a non-economic motivation.

I don't know how the subject of slavery even came up. I just find it odd that in a thread about intelligence, people would say, "Economics is THE motivation. The end. Switch brain off."

Economics, or politics, social issues, psychological issues, as the case may be. Like I said, I find the explanations that theists often give in these things to be simply politically correctness. "The Crusades took place due to social, economical, political and psychological reasons" sounds really palatable - but is it true?

If the Crusades really took place due to social, economical, political and psychological reasons, then why did the Crusaders give religious reasons? Why did they say they were fighting in the name of God? Why didn't they say they were fighting due to social, economical, political and psychological reasons?

If the Crusades (or slavery, or Apartheid, witch hunts, religious bullying in the family, in schools, in the workplace, or any other such troubling phenomenon) really took place due to social, economical, political and psychological reasons, then how are we supposed to interpret the fact that the Crusaders gave religious reasons for fighting, claiming they were fighting in the name of God?
When your parents beat you in the name of God, how are you supposed to understand that - especially given that your trust for your parents is what leads you to trust in God?


I'd like to believe that the motivations for the Crusades etc. actually weren't religious, but instead the result of sub-standard and misguided attempts at religiousness; ie. attempts at religiousness that were guided by social, economical, political and psychological reasons.
But such a view of religiousness would recast vast numbers of people who traditionally consider themselves "religious," as non-religious or sub-standard religious.

 

[universaldistress]

You make my point. Slavery died out because of changing attitudes. Those attitudes prolonged its life past its natural economically-driven lifetime.


That's what I'm saying.

As I said this was the ending of slavery, not its success and reason for being in the first place.

You pick out sentences and agree with them. But do you now concede to the thrust of my argument? Remember you started this off by countering my position.

I said:

I think the driving factor with slavery was economic gain.

You said:

I'm dubious about the economic motivation behind slavery - from the white slave-owners' viewpoint, that is.

By saying "behind slavery" you are suggesting that the driving factor wasn't economic (opposing my statement). But you now concede that I was right, because the sentences you extract are in agreement with and are part of the contextualisation of my position. Both quotes are forming my argument that the driving factor was economic, and don't counter my position but support it as part of an extended argument/presentation; the quotes which you then agree with for god's sake. You are really giving out mixed messages here.

The driving factor of slavery WAS economic gain.

The fact attitudes changed towards the end doesn't counter my argument though you try and present it as such to have some kind of imaginarily conclusive final word. If you just wanted to talk about the way slavery died out then that would be different. But you didn't clarify in this way, you erroneously attacked my position before thinking about the full implications of your position and assertions.

My position is a lot more complex than yours, and a lot more complex than the odd sentences you extract and attack or agree with. Now if you countered all of my points which destroy your premise then maybe you would be getting more respect here. As it is your debate is weak and ill conceived.

I am all for you changing your original dubiousness and conceding the point. Shame you haven't got the balls to admit when you're wrong.

 

[Quantum Quack]

If the Crusades (or slavery, or Apartheid, witch hunts, religious bullying in the family, in schools, in the workplace, or any other such troubling phenomenon) really took place due to social, economical, political and psychological reasons, then how are we supposed to interpret the fact that the Crusaders gave religious reasons for fighting, claiming they were fighting in the name of God?
When your parents beat you in the name of God, how are you supposed to understand that - especially given that your trust for your parents is what leads you to trust in God?

easy answer, why do pedophile priests say they are abusing children in the name of God?
same reason...
Why does a man spike a girls drink in a bar?
Why is the story of afro-slave women so hmmmm... disturbing?
In the middle ages men went to war mainly rape and pillage. Life was shit and they wanted more shit..

Here we need to distress an especially troubling aspect od American slavery that affected girls and women. Any assessment of slavery in America is incomplete without facing up to this issue. There is no doubt that African American girls and women were routinely raped by slave owners and overseers. In the era where slavery was viewed as a benigh paternalistic institution, this simple fact was largely ignored. Actual historical evidence was not addressed and the very obvious existence of large numbers of light-skined African Americans simply ignored. Modern historians treat the subject more honestly, especially since the relationship between Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemmings came to light. There were a range of relationships involved. Some slave masters brutally simply raped young African American girls using what ever violence was required. The assaults were obviously most commonly visited on teenage girls and young women. Then there was a range of approaches, including threats to the girl or women, to her family, or threats about punishments, added work, sale, or promises of freedom. Whether violence actually occurred or not, such threats to an individual without civil rights can not be considered anything but rape. Then there were relationships with actual emotional involvement. The Jefferson-Hemmings relationship is one such example. As so few Africa-Americans could read and write, there are few accounts of what slave girls and women experienced. There are, however, some accounts. Perhaps the most reviting is that of Hariet Jacobs. [Jacobs]

src , non-verified. content used only for example purposes.

suffice to say do not underestimate the probability of sexual power over slaves as being the most likely driver behind the slave trade. Economics played a minor role compared.. I bet.


The crusades were probably fought more as an escape from trouble at home and a chance to get laid and steal someones fortune along the way than a religious duty...an excuse to raise taxes to fund a campaign. War is fun, in those days it was probaby the greatest past time... killing each other...and raping some other mans wife..drinking someone elses wine... etc

 

[cole grey]

Sure. I can understand a word only as I can understand a word. I cannot understand a word in a way I don't understand it.
I would think everyone is like that.

you are like an english speaker telling a spanish speaker that when an "hombre" is at the door, the man's whole life is called into question, whether he is a "real man" or not , etc etc, and not just that there is someone at the door.

(It's usually people who aren't very good with words that distrust them. Lol.)

words are limited, and even a master usually can't use them to say certain things to certain people. I think it is similar to a classical violinist's level of criticism versus a layman, the criticism just keeps going up as the facility with words goes up. Or it should.

Why, thank you, guru mine!

anybody who wants to be my disciple should be prepared to be considered an idiot for following a guru. I guess they could just be helpless. A guru distinguishing someone as a helpless or idiotic should say something about the guru's ability to see the inner light in all people. Hence they are just deluded bodhisattvas, grinding out bones on the karmic wheel. Nothing worth following about a person like that.

If that is so, then why waste their time and your own time with talking about God?

there is a pretty ox cart outside, we should all go outside and ride in it, because the smoke in here is getting to me. (i'm sure you know that one)

Do you feel personally hurt by my stance?

If someone calls me stupid I don't feel hurt by that. I am not so foolish as to think i am going to dissolve the ignorance of the world, it is just a part of the landscape. And on yet another level, I need ideas to fight or I will lose my edge, so thank you for giving me things i feel are incorrect.

Why??

A person isn't "merely a seeker". Even the distinction between enlightened and unenlightened is a delusion for those that are enlightened, at least that is the claim. If there are paths which, for most people, don't get us to direct experience that is consistent, final, and permanent, but do work for a very few, then someone on that type of path is "just a seeker' until they get to the end. The seekers on other paths are all just seekers, so they have no right to make the distinction of who is seeking and who is finding.

Well, I've never joined a cult, nor developed cultish religious behavior, although I was very much enticed to do so.

there you go. you almost got in. watch out. Then again, they might have a pretty oxcart that gets people out of the burning house - but no... human rights above human thoughts

Sure. There are, of course, different ways of expressing criticism and admonition, some respectful, some not.

my point is that "contempt" is usually the wrong word to use to describe the theistic team mentality. In japan they have a business term for "insider" and "outsider". i feel that those terms may express actual contempt in a way, but then again i can't speak for them.

I am the first to point out the necessity of deferring to authority, especially in religious matters - and this primarily on the grounds that trying to play it solo is solipsistic insanity.

depending on who you ask scientology is either solipsistic insanity spread to others, or true, or a communal give and take, mostly take, of ideas. I mean are all prophets solipsistically insane? As far from being a scientologist as I am, i still see much of it as sensible, and i am not going to call ron hubbard solipsistically insane (assuming he actually believed himself) - the idea that drugs pollute the body is probably in general correct, although I admit i come to that from a view based on things i have seen, and not from medical expertise. And some things in moderation seem to be beneficial. I mean i would avoid prescription drugs if possible, for example.

But at this point, I don't have the wisdom to figure out how a person who is outside of organized religion can come to relate - in some sane way - to the authorities that are inside religion.

I guess you have to act in a way medically acceptable as healthy. I think sane people have a better idea of how to relate to things in a sane way. It is like falling off a log for them. Would we say that sane people become insane, if they relate to a religious tradition (or their whole lives)in an insane way after they join, or were they insane all along, just waiting for a reason to let the crazy out?

Okay then, I'll probably start a new thread then.

damn i just messed up and kept us on this thread.

 

[cole grey]

If the Crusades (or slavery, or Apartheid, witch hunts, religious bullying in the family, in schools, in the workplace, or any other such troubling phenomenon) really took place due to social, economical, political and psychological reasons, then how are we supposed to interpret the fact that the Crusaders gave religious reasons for fighting, claiming they were fighting in the name of God?
When your parents beat you in the name of God, how are you supposed to understand that - especially given that your trust for your parents is what leads you to trust in God?

i already explained that, although i would be surprised if the people involved experienced it exactly the way i describe. NOW we are going to go BEYOND postulating the subjective experiences, and get into whether the subjective experience or objective reality are more valid? I am sure we can quickly sort THAT question out in a page or two. Oh wait, I mean can not.

I'd like to believe that the motivations for the Crusades etc. actually weren't religious, but instead the result of sub-standard and misguided attempts at religiousness; ie. attempts at religiousness that were guided by social, economical, political and psychological reasons.But such a view of religiousness would recast vast numbers of people who traditionally consider themselves "religious," as non-religious or sub-standard religious.

perhaps the religions were just a little messed up too, and the adherents weren't at fault for being sub-standard. I mean, modern people think women are equal, basically, so isn't catholicism sub-standard in some way?

 

[cole grey]

and a chance to get laid

getting laid is a commodity in the economic model. it is something to get.