Atheism - who knew?

The Vatican has just held a scientific conference on atheism with the University of Kent who has published its research findings on:

“The global Understanding Unbelief program to advance the scientific understanding of atheism and nonreligion will today (May 28) present results from its research at the Vatican in Rome”

quote:

---

Key findings from the research include:

Unbelievers exhibit significant diversity both within, and between, different countries

In all six countries, majorities of unbelievers identify as having 'no religion'

Relatively few select 'atheist' or 'agnostic' as their preferred (non)religious or secular identity

Popular assumptions about 'convinced, dogmatic atheists' do not stand up to scrutiny

Unbelief in God doesn't necessarily entail unbelief in other supernatural phenomena and the majority of unbelievers in all countries surveyed expressed belief in one or more supernatural phenomena

A common supposition - that of the purposeless unbeliever, lacking anything to ascribe ultimate meaning to the universe - does not bear scrutiny

Most unbelievers endorse objective moral values, human dignity and attendant rights, and the 'deep value' of nature, at similar rates to the general populations in their countries

Unbelievers and general populations show high agreement concerning the values most important for 'finding meaning in the world and your own life'. 'Family' and 'freedom' ranked highly for all.

---

https://www.eurekalert.org/...ases/2019-05/uok-vhm052319.php

Well, like I said, who knew?

As I heard Dr Lois Lee speak about this I couldn't work out why I was getting increasingly angry about it. Particularly as her research was debunking falsehoods about atheism. Then I realised it was because I was being spoken about like an alien. Consider this statement

“A common supposition - that of the purposeless unbeliever, lacking anything to ascribe ultimate meaning to the universe - does not bear scrutiny”

This despite the fact that the study found that 50% of the populations they studied were unbelievers so how do they get to their “popular assumption” if 50% are actually atheists and can't be making that assumption? In fact, just that statement speaks of an internal bias.

The unspoken assumption behind this is that atheists aren't human. Though, having said all that, their findings do disprove this obvious nonsense. I think perhaps we would have noticed if half of our population were psychopaths.

Thread copied here from the Atheism - who knew? thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

The unspoken assumption behind this is that atheists aren't human. Though, having said all that, their findings do disprove this obvious nonsense. I think perhaps we would have noticed if half of our population were psychopaths.

In England, yes. But in the good ol' US of A we already know more than half our population are psychopaths. Christian psychopaths. It's part of our culture.

Here atheists are not treated as aliens, non-human. We are treated as heretics. Traitors to their god. Lost souls controlled by demons walking in their sacred midst.

BTW. Did you really expect anything different from the Vatican?

AZPaul3 writes: But in the good ol' US of A, we already know more than half our population are psychopaths. Christian psychopaths.

Do they have any evidence that psychopaths by definition are largely Christian? If so, I need to rethink my mental aberrations. I surely don't want to be labeled as mentally deranged.

Of course, the standard party line is that we are a "peculiar people" and that the Godly in Christ will suffer persecution.

AZPaul3 writes: We (atheists) are treated as heretics. Traitors to their god. Lost souls controlled by demons walking in their sacred midst.

And yet if the evidence shows that psychopaths by definition are largely Christian, it is we who are the heretics to reality itself.

AZP writes: BTW. Did you really expect anything different from the Vatican?

I expect nothing but bollox and self serving paedophilic lies from the Vatican but I do expect more from the University of Kent.

But, as I say, the actual findings were fair - though blindingly obvious.

The unspoken assumption behind this is that atheists aren't human. Though, having said all that, their findings do disprove this obvious nonsense.

Most religious folks are conditioned to distrust anyone who is not part of their flock. Atheists often get more of the brunt of the dislike, but it permeates to any faith that is not conducive to the status quo of that particular religious branch. Most Catholics distrust Protestants. Most Protestants distrust Mormons. Most Christians distrust Muslims and vice versa. All religions have to paint anyone outside of their faith circle as being 'the other' in order to reinforce the notion of staying with their particular brand of religion.

Back to the Kent study, it somewhat reminds me of that Pew research poll conducted a few years ago that tested religious knowledge. And to the surprise of many, atheists scored the highest. Which debunked the notion that atheists weren't well informed about religion. It actually proved they were the most well informed.

Phat writes: I need to rethink my mental aberrations.

Believing the voices in your head would be called a mental aberration in any other context, wouldn't it?

I also elicit feedback from those close to me who know me the best---because they have perspective on my "normal" behavior. And so far I have passed their test...in fact they think I am becoming wiser and deeper.

Plus...as for you, the fact that you question whether faith and belief have any business in science shows which altar you have groveled at the whole time. Faith and I can agree... Boy will you guys be surprised one day soon!

Phat writes: Plus...as for you, the fact that you question whether faith and belief have any business in science shows which altar you have groveled at the whole time.

That's exactly the problem. You only accept the opinions of sycophants who agree with you. And you mock those of us who might possibly be more objective.

Faith and I can agree... Boy will you guys be surprised one day soon!

I love surprises! At least I won't have to listen Christian BS after you guys get your surprise.

LOL ...It will be surprising one way or another!

ringo writes: You only accept the opinions of sycophants who agree with you. And you mock those of us who might possibly be more objective.

No, I don't. I listen to your arguments, don't I? And have done so for many years. Most Christians wouldn't bother.

Phat writes: No, I don't.

Yes, you do:

quote:

---

Plus...as for you, the fact that you question whether faith and belief have any business in science shows which altar you have groveled at the whole time.

---

You don't think "grovelling at the altar" is mockery?

Phat writes: I listen to your arguments, don't I?

I wonder if you do. You keep coming back with the same old same old nonsensical claims like, "People choose Hell."

Phat writes: Most Christians wouldn't bother.

And shame on them. Is that any way to stand up for Jesus?

quote:

---

Most religious folks are conditioned to distrust anyone who is not part of their flock. Atheists often get more of the brunt of the dislike, but it permeates to any faith that is not conducive to the status quo of that particular religious branch. Most Catholics distrust Protestants. Most Protestants distrust Mormons. Most Christians distrust Muslims and vice versa.

---

I don't think this is true at all. Most Catholics don't distrust Protestants. Most Catholics don't see any meaningful distinction between Catholics and Protestants. It's just something you inherit, like a surname.

Obviously I'm talking from the perspective of someone who has always lived in very secular countries, but I don't think trying to view things from the perspective of a doctrinaire zealot helps to understand how most Catholics, Protestants etc think.

ringo, addressing me writes: You keep coming back with the same old same old nonsensical claims like, "People choose Hell."

And you know that this is nonsensical because...? Granted it is a belief but it makes sense within the belief paradigm. You insist that all of scripture and belief must conform to your paradigm and be discussed under those terms, which is why we never get anywhere. And if you explain to me why "I am wrong" I submit that you indeed are groveling at that altar. You act as if though we invented God rather than the other way around.