Why Do "Some Of Us" Do This?

45 posts / 0 new
Last post
Stu. K.'s picture
Why Do "Some Of Us" Do This?

**Sorry, I was just going through some old posts and my OCD made me want to edit some mistakes I've made, I didn't know it would put at the top of the forum again, lol.**

Something from a few months ago came up in my head, following along with a question. So my friend, my brother and I were all hanging out a few months ago,and keep in mind he and his family are huge Christians, and he said this observation he made that I think was similar to "if Adam and eve had babies, and those babies had to reproduce, then does that mean they were having sex with their brother and sister?" Which he I think he knew that was sinful or to him, "gross" but just ignored it like it was nothing. And in my head I was yelling "OH MY GOSH YOU JUST PROVED GOD ISN'T REAL!" But then I remembered. I'd probably be that way if I didn't break away from religion sooner myself. My question is, why do some of us call them "stupid or can't think for themselves" when SOME OF the people who say that could of very well been in that very position, but have a brain and enough luck to be able to understand how religion isn't real? Do some of y'all remember when (if) you were religious? Now look back and ask if you got lucky enough to get away from such. We all know they're in this mindset where (maybe) the only way to escape is luck. And as a side but related question, does anybody have the right to call a brainwashed person "stupid" or similar? Tell me if I'm wrong, but I don't think so.

Subscription Note: 

Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.

Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.

The Pragmatic's picture
It depends a little on what

It depends a little on what you mean by "stupid". It originally means "mentally slow" or "unintelligent". But sometimes it's used when people mean "naive" or "ignorant".

There are a lot of statistics that indicate that religion thrives where people have a low level of education (stupid or ignorant) and vice versa. Education could be viewed as inoculation against both naivety and ignorance ("Science is basically an inoculation against charlatans" - Neil deGrasse Tyson).

But there are of course exceptions both ways, unintelligent people that are not at all religious and intelligent people that are highly religious.

It's also close at hand to equate being gullible (stupid or naive) to getting fooled by religion. As an example, take TV-ministers that make money of stuff like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rm-Rf-f5zw4

So, it's not hard to see how people can associate religious belief with stupidity. But there is a difference between actually being stupid and acting stupid.
It easy to make the mistake of criticizing the person instead of their beliefs or actions. An intelligent person can be indoctrinated into beliefs just like an unintelligent person, they just have more tools in the tool kit to disassemble the doctrine and therefore have a better resistance against it. But it is probably more complex then that, due to other factors like social situations, available information or having a need to believe (for example: a need to believe that deceased loved ones continue to exist in an afterlife).

If a person actually is stupid, it wouldn't do any good to criticize them for it. So I think it's often a case where "we" make the mistake of criticizing the person instead of their beliefs or it's an intentional offensive remark, in an attempt to shame them into critical thought (an ineffective tactic, at best).

Kataclismic's picture
I'm beginning to think it's a

I'm beginning to think it's a different level of consciousness. I think we modify or support our level with each passing day. I think we can re-enforce current levels or we can be open to new levels depending on all sorts of variables.

Take an alcoholic for instance. Sometimes the hardest part is breaking it to the person that they have a problem and need to change their behaviour. It requires them to accept a new level of consciousness that most of the time they intentionally avoid. It's hard to convince them that their behaviour is self-destructive because they've spent so much energy re-enforcing their current levels, for whatever reason. Religion is no different. It's only when you can look at it from the outside that you realize what a f*cktard you were. Some never come to that realization because the consciousness required is rejected by their current state. That's my theory anyway.

I spent some time arguing with a believer who is quite convinced that the complexity of consciousness proves there is a god. Now I don't understand how you can be interested in consciousness as a science and not see that drawing a conclusion first is a conscious flaw, but who am I to judge? He actually suggested a book on the logistics of debating before I start accusing him of logical fallacies because apparently I have no idea. If his version of logic comes from a book though, it's one I'll put on my "do not read" list.

Some people can accept consciousness levels just like accepting the world around them, others spend so much time trying to confirm their own view of reality that they deny themselves a consciousness level from the outset. If you are encouraged by your loved ones to deny yourself a consciousness, and you of course want to believe what they want to believe, it's just like a feedback loop that supports itself.

The Pragmatic's picture
Personally, I'm struggling to

Personally, I'm struggling to understand your use of "consciousness" and "level of consciousness" here.

Apart from that, I agree. Especially "it's just like a feedback loop that supports itself" and "It's only when you can look at it from the outside that you realize what a f*cktard you were.". Spot on.

CyberLN's picture
I concur. I also wonder how

I concur. I also wonder how much of the name calling ('stupid' in this case) is self stroking behavior...I'm okay, you're not okay.

Stu. K.'s picture
Thanks Prag and Kat for those

Thanks Prag and Kat for those overwhelmingly long, thoughtful answers. Y'all gave me the answers to what I've asked perfectly ;} Cyber, can you please explain what you just said, I'm not sure I quite understand lol.

CyberLN's picture
I'll explain...Years ago,

I'll explain...Years ago, there was a mental health therapy 'movement' called Transactional Analysis. One practitioner of it wrote a book called, " I'm OK - You're OK". He described four personality types, those who think:
I'm OK, you're OK (the mentally healthy stance)
I'm OK, you're not OK
I'm not OK, you're OK
I'm not OK, you're not OK

So, someone who is #2 on the above list, will diss others in order to feel better about themselves. They are self stroking.

Stu. K.'s picture
Ahhh got it :D. I'm surprised

Ahhh got it :D. I'm surprised its not #3 more than #2.

CyberLN's picture
That would only be if s/he

That would only be if s/he was saying, "you're really stupid and I'm an asshole," or the like....but I frequently hear, "you're stupid or (fill in the word here) and I'm always right (or the only one using logic, or am obviously smarter than qualified scientists who are frequently idiots).

...'s picture
People have thresholds, even

People have thresholds, even religious people. What I mean by this, is that we all deal with conflicting information all the time, and we have to decide whether we change, or whether we remain where we are. A person who changes their mind every time the wind blows, is not looked at as a very stable and thoughtful individual. A person who never changes their mind, despite knowing full well to be in the wrong, is considered a stubborn and obstinate person.

The majority of us lie somewhere in the middle. We all gauge how much contrary information we can absorb before we think its safe to change our position. That threshold may be more delicate for you than for me when it comes to religion. For you religion may need to be absolutely perfect in order to be true. For me, religion needs to be imperfect to be real, because real life is imperfect. Imperfection doesn't equate to wrongfulness for me. A circle under a microscope may be an imperfect landscape of hills and valleys, yet it is still a circle, and it still exists.

You realized that the first human's probably intermarried, and took it as proof that God isn't real. I realized that the first human's intermarried, and that's it, it means nothing more to me. Because no matter how you look at it, we are all one big family regardless. All that nations and ethnic groups are, are just a large collection of distant cousins. So whether you look at it through evolution or creation, we are all related. If there were a realistic alternative to this, it might mean something more to me.

We have different thresholds.

Kataclismic's picture
I think education plays a

I think education plays a large part in that. If you paid attention in biology class you would understand that the very concept of a single pair of individuals supplying the necessary genetic information to procreate such a diverse species as humankind is today is nothing but a fairy tale told by ignorant men that knew nothing about genetics.

So you can call it a "threshold" but if you have taken any time to educate yourself about genetics you would understand that pigs don't fly and if I gave you a book that said pigs were flying you wouldn't accept such a ridiculous claim.

So I disagree, thresholds we may have but education and information reign supreme when giving credit to something we read.

...'s picture
"If you paid attention in

"If you paid attention in biology class you would understand that the very concept of a single pair of individuals supplying the necessary genetic information to procreate such a diverse species as humankind is today is nothing but a fairy tale told by ignorant men that knew nothing about genetics."

Lol so you don't think two adults, with 46 chromosomes, 20,000+ genes, have enough genetic information to create the handful of major ethnic groups. But you do think a single-celled organism has enough information to not only evolve the entire human race, but every species of plant, animal, and fungus, of not only this era, but of every era with animals now extinct.........

Cool lol.
Square that circle for me.

Algebe's picture
The descent of 7 billion

The descent of 7 billion diverse humans from Adam and Eve is supposed to have taken a few thousand years, while the descent of all species from the single-celled organism took several billion years.

...'s picture
Ok, well let's think about

Ok, well let's think about this. You can tell the difference between a Colombian, Mexican, Cuban, and Argentinian. They all have a clear distinctness to them. They're all on their way to becoming their own "ethnic group." Yet currently they all descended from Spain in the last 500 years. Very well then, you're European, I'm sure you too can tell the difference between a Spaniard, a Frenchman, and an Italian. Yet they all descended from the Roman Empire in the last 2,000 years or so (I'm not a historian or anthropologist so don't attack me on accuracy).

Very well, notice that the European world after the time of Rome became the cradle of Earth. That means North Americans, South Americans, Australians, South African, the list goes on. The majority of the world's ethnicities derived from Rome in the last 2,000 years. Asia has their own similar history, as I'm sure does Africa. So tell what ethnic diversity is there in the world that took millions of years, if most of them can be traced back to the last two millennia?

Nyarlathotep's picture
John 6IX Breezy - The

John 6IX Breezy - The majority of the world's ethnicities derived from Rome in the last 2,000 years.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is what religion does to your brain.

...'s picture
...or perhaps this is what

...or perhaps this is what World History does to your brain lol. Notice how the majority of the world became populated in the last 500 years, and the empires that lead that colonization arose around 2,000 years ago.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymI5Uv5cGU4

Nyarlathotep's picture
We'll lets just consider

We'll lets just consider Europe for a moment:
8 ethnic groups, 4 of them (at best) are romantic. So your statement is almost true IF we only consider Europe. If we go outside of Europe, that is when the real laughing starts.

...'s picture
Well it says those 8 groups

Well it says those 8 groups are categorized by language. It also says there "are 87 distinct peoples of Europe." So its clearly a definition issue: "There is no precise or universally accepted definition of the terms 'ethnic group' or 'nationality'."

But that's perfectly fine, a precise definition isn't needed. Whatever Kataclismic meant by "diversity" its clear its meant to describe the differences of the entire current population of the earth. In the table I attached it shows how recently the world population exploded. Within the last 2,000 years. In fact according to this chart its within the last 500 years.

So my point is, all the diversity we see today, descended from a fraction of the current world population, in just the last 2,000 years. Better yet, we hit our first billion people in 1805, that number has multiplied 7 times in the last 200 years. So we all descended from 14% of the world population in the last 200 years. You're the mathematician, so you can check my numbers.

Attachments

Attach Image/Video?: 

Yes
Nyarlathotep's picture
John 6IX Breezy - In the

John 6IX Breezy - In the table I attached it shows how recently the world population exploded.

Red herring. You made a statement about ethnicities, not population levels.

John 6IX Breezy - Better yet, we hit our first billion people in 1805, that number has multiplied 7 times in the last 200 years.

Red herring. You made a statement about ethnicities, not population levels.

John 6IX Breezy - So we all descended from 14% of the world population in the last 200 years.

Red herring. You made a statement about ethnicities, not population levels.

This is what religion does to your brain.

...'s picture
What? How? I left it up to

What? How? I left it up to you to define what constitutes an ethnicity. Because no matter what definition you chose, that number is based on population.

I put diversity at the individualistic level, rather than a group level. You and I differ genetically, but we may not differ ethnically. That's a harder position to defend. You should be glad I put myself in harder position. Because you can easily defend the 8 ethnic groups of Europe deriving from 2 adults. But to defend that 738.85 million genetically different people from Europe (excluding twins), descended from Adam and Eve? Now that's challenge.

Nyarlathotep's picture
John 6IX Breezy - Because no

John 6IX Breezy - Because no matter what definition you chose, that number is based on population.

No. You told us:

John 6IX Breezy - The majority of the world's ethnicities derived from Rome

Ethnicity is a set. Lets consider a world with these 3 sets with these members:
A - 98 purple woogles
B - 1 red boogle
C - 1 yellow boogle
Now what you have said is inline with saying the majority of sets contain woogles. That is incorrect, the majority of the sets contain boogles (2/3rds)!

/e You see the number of members of each set (the population) has no effect on the answer (so long as the sets are not empty).

That is why everything you say about population levels and growth is a red herring (at least in reference to your claim about Rome).

John 6IX Breezy - You're the mathematician, so you can check my numbers.

Heh, how did that work out for you?

...'s picture
Ok, I can work with this. So

Ok, I can work with this. So the first thing I want to point out is that your statement that out of those 8 European ethnicities, less than 4 are Romantic, isn't entirely correct. From the list you linked, Germans, Spaniards, Italians, British, and French were related to the Roman Empire. I didn't think Russia would be part of it, but it looks like its thought to have descended from the "Third Rome" and the Easter Roman Empire.

The only ones on that list that I couldn't find ties to Rome were the Poles and Ukranians. So that's 3/4ths of Europeans having descended from the Roman Empire. That's the majority.

But it doesn't really matter that its majority. Because now the question is, how many ethnic groups from the rest of the world, derived from those European gropus, which derived from Rome.

I don't know how to find that information. But I will say this, just as a hypothesis. Of all 5 inhabited continents (Europe excluded) 3 of them were completely colonized by Europe: North America, South America, Australia. Not to mention all the European colonization that happened in Africa, whatever percentage that is. Plus the few Asian countries, like the Phillipines which were also colonized by Europeans.

Here's the catch. Out of those 6 ethnic groups from Europe that are related to Rome. 3 are responsible for the colonization of basically the entire world: the British, Spaniards, and French.

So now lets look at the big picture. Out of all 6 inhabited continents of the world, 4 (Including Europe) have descended from the Roman Empire. That's 2/3. That's your Boogles. That's majority. We can expect the precise number of ethnic sets that exist in each of these continents to reflect that percentage.

Attachments

Attach Image/Video?: 

Yes
Nyarlathotep's picture
John 6IX Breezy - So the

John 6IX Breezy - So the first thing I want to point out is that your statement that out of those 8 European ethnicities, less than 4 are Romantic, isn't entirely correct. From the list you linked, Germans, Spaniards, Italians, British, and French were related to the Roman Empire.

I didn't say less than 4 were romantic, I said 4 were romantic.

Also:

Ethnic groups in Europe - Of the total population of Europe of some 730 million (as of 2005), over 80% or some 600 million fall within three large branches of Indo-European languages, viz., Slavic, Italic (Romance) and Germanic.

Russians, Ukrainians, and Poles are slavic, of course. Germans are germanic, of course. British, Italians, and Spanish are romantic. French are a mix of romantic and germanic; I gave you the benefit of the doubt here and lumped them in as romantic (sorry if there are any French people out there who are offended by this). By my figuring 3+1 = 4, not 6.

John 6IX Breezy - I don't know how to find that information.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_contemporary_ethnic_groups
I did my best to count them (although I might be off by one or two), I found 22 out of 147 were listed as romantic. That is about 15%. /e which is actually much higher than I expected, I would have guessed 5%.

...'s picture
Well I guess it all depends

Well I guess it all depends on how you cut the pie then, and what you define Rome to be. The entire Kingdom of Germany was once the Holy Roman Empire.

As far as your list on the link goes. I'm not sure how to understand it. There isn't a single mention of Hispanics, or Latin Americans. You would think Hispanics are one of the largest ethnicities around.

Nyarlathotep's picture
John 6IX Breezy - Well I

John 6IX Breezy - Well I guess it all depends on how you cut the pie then, and what you define Rome to be. The entire Kingdom of Germany was once the Holy Roman Empire.

That's funny. When I read your first post about Rome I told my wife what you said. After a good laugh she said I bet this person will later try to claim germanic people are Roman because of the "Holy Roman Empire". Too funny!

I'll leave you with the famous quote from Voltaire :"this agglomeration which was called and which still calls itself the Holy Roman Empire was in no way holy, nor Roman, nor an empire."

...'s picture
Fine the HRE is a bit of a

Fine the HRE is a bit of a stretch. I retract it.

Nyarlathotep's picture
John 6IX Breezy - Hispanics,

John 6IX Breezy - Hispanics, or Latin Americans. You would think Hispanics are one of the largest ethnicities around.

I don't understand it either; but for what it is worth: they are listed (under Spaniards, which I found surprising, but hey what do I know?). Also the article on Spaniards lists them as Spaniards, so at least it is consistent. Sorry I'm not an anthropologist, that is the best I can do.

/e It might be technical terminology; like how "work" in physics has a very precise definition, that has very little to do with the usage of the word in our daily lives.

Greensnake's picture
John 61X Breezy:

John 61X Breezy:

What are you trying to prove? You seem to have wandered all over the place.

...'s picture
I comment, people attack, so

I comment, people attack, so I defend. I don't choose my attacks. So I wander wherever the attacks wander.

Nyarlathotep's picture
He is trying to argue that

He is trying to argue that the differences we see among modern people could have developed in 6000 years from a single couple. That failing he moved goal posts to say that the current population size could have been reached in 6000 years from a single couple. /e So it is a kind of bait and switch. Make outrageous statement, then quietly switch it for a trivial one.

...'s picture
Nope try again. This thread

Nope try again. This thread was about why some people don't escape religion. I proposed the idea of a threshold that gauges when someone changes their mind. Kataclismic attacked my comment where I said that for me, no matter how you look at things, evolution or creation, we all come from the same ancestors. He said it wasn't possible that two people have enough information to produce all the diversity we see today. I said that's dumb because you believe a single cell can produce all this diversity, but not two people. Then people came to his rescue, argued that cells need billion of billion of billions of years, and so do people. I then argued that most of the world became populated very recently, and all the ethnicities and nationalities we see today derived from Europe in the last 500 years, and Europe from Rome in the last 2,000 years. So its clear diversity can occur rather quickly.

Nyar said there are only 8 ethnicities in Europe (based on linguistics). I said ethnicity is a vague term, so lets switch to population. He said that's a red herring and I'm changing the subject. I said no because ethnicities no matter how you define it is categorized by the genetic differences in a population. Nyar complained some more. Then his wife told him that I'm right, and ethnicities are hard to define. So now he's upset cause I refuse to stick with ethnicities. Cause he wants me to be wrong. And knows I won't be if he gives in.

Then you asked what's going on lol.

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.