The Resistance

a = rational person
b = non-theist (Atheist/agnostic)
c = person who isn't racist, sexist, or homophobic
Rational people (a) tend to not believe in God (b).

Rational people (a) also tend to not be racist, sexist, or homophobic (c).


Can we conclude that atheists/agnostics tend not to racist, sexist, or homophobic? I think so. Given the people I've met and people I've read about in history, it seems to be a safe assumption that people who don't believe in God are less likely to discriminate against other races, women, and homosexuals.

Are there atheists that are racist, sexist, or homophobic (r, s, or h from here on out)? Of course. Are there believers that aren't r, s, and h? Again, of course, that's why I used the word "tend" in the beginning. But the point is if you compare the percentage of atheists who are r, s, or h and the percentage of theists who are r, s, or h I'm certain we'd find that atheists are far less likely to be r, s, or h.

Since tolerance toward other people ranks high when considering morality, it is safe to conclude that not only does religion NOT promote morality, but rather the reverse.


So rational thinking leads to atheism/agnostic and tolerance, but atheism/agnostic doesn't lead to tolerance, the two just has a high correlation between them.

Let's look at the other side now, if irrational thinking leads to religion and intolerance, does religon lead to intolerance? Depends. Religions that concentrate more on a philosophy like Buddhism probably don't, but religions that concentrate on a God figure like the Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Judaism (sp?), and Islam) do. For believers who practice tolerance it must be hard to accept, but when your holy book which is alledgely the word of God says essentially things like, "Enslave who you conquer," "Thou shalt keep thy bitches in line," and "Beat to death queers," then yes your religion breeds intolerance. There really is no getting around it.

Conclusion: Religion breeds intolerance, and freethinking doesn't.

Don't matter if you didn't like it, but that's just the way it is.

--------------------

THE UNSPOKEN BELIEFS OF ORGANIZED CHRISTIANITY

FAITH IS KNOWLEDGE
HATE IS LOVE
DEATH IS LIFE

dk

dk: Homophobia doesn’t even fit into this grouping. Sexism and racism are ideologies (cause of doctrine), whereas all phobias are neurosis (type of mental illness). Neorisis are distinctly irrational. .

First lets denote the intersection of P1:= Rational people that are (racist or sexist or homophobic). In a modern democratic society like the USA this presents a dilemma.

w1: rational women are ~sexist... by definiton
w2: rational racial minorities are ~racist.. by definition. Perhpas a black might be racist agianst the yellow, red, or brown races, but then the prejudice whould be irrational as opposed to doctrinal.

Since (50%) of the rational people are women, and few rational women are sexist, 50% of the population are ~sexist.
Since (40%) of the rational people are racial minorities, 40% of the population are ~racist.
What w1 and w2 demonstrate is that a person’s rationality may be a factor, but it’s an ancillary factor. For example. Scientific racism was widely supported by Marist, NAZI, Planned Parenthood and Darwinian minded leadership. Just a few years ago the “The Bell Curve” claimed to prove African descendents were intellectually inferior to Caucasians in the USA. What you’ve really shown is that ideology can overwhelm reason, to rationalize sexism, racism under cover of an ideology,
dk: - It seems to me that racism, sexism and homophobia are ill defined terms that lack a coherent definition. Do you think a rational black or women in the US can be a racists or sexist, if so please explain. By the way most blacks in the US are Christians.

[ August 16, 2002: Message edited by: dk ]</p>

The Resistance

1. Racism, sexism, and homophobia are all irrational and they are all evil. Whether it's an ideology or neruosis is irrelavent.

2. You are confusing rationalism and rationalizing. Rationialism is by defintion logical. It does not change for soemone else's beliefs. Rationalizing is trying to distort the evidence to fit your ideology.

3. Women can be, and many are, sexist. Some believe in their own inferiority. Some are sexist against men (e.g. all men are scum) Are they rational? Not on that issue, but possibly they are generally rational in other areas of life.

4. Darwinism and racism have never been put together except to distort darwinism through deception.

dk

1. Resistance: Racism, sexism, and homophobia are all irrational and they are all evil. Whether it's an ideology or neurosis is irrelevant.
dk: I’ll take that as a doctrinal statement.
2. Resistance: You are confusing rationalism and rationalizing. Rationialism is by defintion logical. It does not change for soemone else's beliefs. Rationalizing is trying to distort the evidence to fit your ideology.
dk: A rationalization is self justification for unacceptable behavior. Words that end in “ism” are a distinctive cause, theory or doctrine. Rationalism, Feminism, and Chauvinism are a source of doctrine, cause or theory. Words followed by “ist” describe a person that advocates a specific doctrine, cause or theory. A neurosis describes a mental illness. Using the term homophobic to describe a political viewpoint is “argumentum ad hominem” i.e. calling anyone mentally ill simply on the basis of a political view. .
3. Resistance Women can be, and many are, sexist. Some believe in their own inferiority. Some are sexist against men (e.g. all men are scum) Are they rational? Not on that issue, but possibly they are generally rational in other areas of life.
dk: Rational women aren’t sexist because they’re stereotyped by society as inferior. If a rational man believes women are inferior then he’s a sexist. A woman that believes she’s inferior is a victim.
4. Resistance Darwinism and racism have never been put together except to distort darwinism through deception.
dk: I’ll take that as a doctrinal statement.

mibby529

I guess it would be more whether or not a religion endorses those kinds of things. For example, there are some Biblical quotes that endorse slavery and homophobia.

You can still be intolerant and be a non-theist. Usually that involves relying on psuedoscience such as craniometry.

raistlinjones

If you're asking about the pure logic of the situation, there's not really anything you can say. Here's your argument:

1) a -&gt; b
2) a -&gt; c
---------
3) b -&gt; c

So, let's take the same form, and assign a as "human", b as "mammal", and c as "has two legs". And substituting:

1) If something is a human, then it is a mammal.
2) If something is a human, then it has two legs.
------------------------------------------------
3) If something is a mammal, it has two legs.

The first two are true. The conclusion is false (whales, for instance, do not have two legs). Therefore, this counts as a counterexample, and so the logic here is flawed.

Vesica

Based on???

Does rational=intelligent? Smart? Savvy? Well Educated? Of a certain social class?

Is rational in your definition the opposite of irrational? Is your 'rational' as opposed to unimportant, false, invalid, stupid, foolish, or dimwitted??

Your intial supposition seems to me to be a loaded statement full of assumption and value judgement...Maybe if it is rephrased the rest of your argument will become more clear/easier to repsond to!

Ut

<strong>Homophobia doesn?t even fit into this grouping. Sexism and racism are ideologies (cause of doctrine), whereas all phobias are neurosis (type of mental illness). Neorisis are distinctly irrational.</strong>

If you find this to be a stumbling block, here is a new term for you: "heterosexism". This term, frequently used by the gay community, establishes the difference between discrimination against gays (heterosexism) and irrational fear of gays (homophobia).

Autonemesis

-Phobia is the antonym of -philia. It doesn't necessarily connote mental illness, just strong aversion. Oil is called hydrophobic, that doesn't mean it fears water.

But heterosexism is a more descriptive and less inflammatory term, I agree. "Phobia" carries a lot of baggage from a long history of careless and casual use.

doubtingt

Here's my theory.

The assumptions and beliefs that are
used to bolster and defend intolerance are
unsupportable via evidence and reason and
thus are irrational. Thus, people with a principled commitment to evidence and reason
will tend to reject ideologies of intolerence.

Since reliance on evidence and reason also lead to
a rejection of irrational theism, there
will tend to be a positive correlation between
acceptance of theism and acceptance of intolerant
ideology.

For independent and complex reasons, the major
monotheisms of the world explicitly promote
intolerance of women, other races, and homosexuals. Thus, acceptance of these forms
of theism will lead directly to acceptance of
intolerance ideology.

In sum, theism and intolerance have both a correlational and direct causal relationship.