Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Atheist doctors more likely to care for the poor than religious ones

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 03:17 PM
Original message
Atheist doctors more likely to care for the poor than religious ones
Edited on Tue Jul-31-07 03:26 PM by NNN0LHI
http://pressesc.com/news/80931072007/atheist-doctors-more-likely-care-poor-religious-ones

Atheist doctors are likely to practice medicine among the underprivileged than religious physicians, even though most religions call on the faithful to serve the poor, according to the results of large cross-sectional survey of US medical practitioners published in Annals of Family Medicine.

Researchers from the University of Chicago and Yale New Haven Hospital report that 31 percent of physicians who were more religious—as measured by "intrinsic religiosity" as well as frequency of attendance at religious services—practiced among the underserved, compared to 35 percent of physicians who described their religion as atheist, agnostic or none.

"This came as both a surprise and a disappointment," study author Farr Curlin, MD, said. "The Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu and Buddhist scriptures all urge physicians to care for the poor, and the great majority of religious physicians describe their practice of medicine as a calling. Yet we found that religious physicians were not more likely to report practice among the underserved than their secular colleagues."

Physicians avoid spending the bulk of their time caring for the poor as it could mean forgoing professional prestige, free time and academic opportunities.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
dkofos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 03:18 PM
Response to Original message
1. That says alot about religion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marshall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 04:38 PM
Response to Reply #1
25. It says alot about doctors, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
valerief Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 11:44 AM
Response to Reply #25
146. It speaks volumes about the humanity of atheist doctors. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Exiled in America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 06:20 PM
Response to Reply #146
181. Yes, a FOUR PERCENT difference says a lot about how much better atheist doctors are...
..than religious ones at looking after the poor. :eyes:

Be proud of that whopping 35% of atheist doctors. Personally, I'm embarrassed by both sides.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
valerief Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-02-07 10:54 AM
Response to Reply #181
218. Yes, it does make a difference. Atheist doctors are more humanitarian. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deja Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 12:07 PM
Response to Reply #1
151. It says more about those doctors not reading the parts of religious texts that claim to say
'help the poor'.

Most religions worth a damn speak of helping the poor. A big example being Jesus, but even the Old testament has its moments too.

The religion isn't the problem. Hypocrite believers are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Horse with no Name Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 03:19 PM
Response to Original message
2. I absolutely LOVE this
Beware those folks who have to keep reminding you of their Christianity. It's only so they don't forget themselves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stirlingsliver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 04:42 PM
Response to Reply #2
27. Not Just Christian Doctors Were Involved.
It appears that "religious" doctors who were not Christian (Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, etc.) were also included in this study.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skater314159 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 06:11 PM
Response to Reply #2
30. Yep.
To quote St. Francis:

Preach the gospel to all the world... use words ONLY when necessary.


I think they need to shut up and heal people. If they are Christian, it should be evident from their actions - not the fish on their bumper.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beam me up scottie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 11:18 PM
Response to Reply #30
78. I make it a point to not do business with people who put fishies in their ads.
Or on their doors.

They're trying to tell me I can trust them because they're special, and it has the exact opposite effect on me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClintonTyree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 05:51 AM
Response to Reply #78
106. You and me, both.
When I see one of those it makes me think that they're trolling for the mindless, that the "symbol" says everything you need to know about that person and there's no need to look any further. Baloney. There's a local woman who includes the jesus fish in all her adds. She's known to be the biggest rip off artist in the area, very unethical. But her jesus fish reels in the faithful and she's more than willing to catch, gut, scale and fry them in the name of the lord. :eyes:

Why are people so gullible? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 08:28 AM
Response to Reply #78
121. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
spoony Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 09:39 AM
Response to Reply #121
129. So bigotry IS a learned behaviour.
Nice to see you're so proud of it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theredpen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #129
143. I wonder if he he'd be announcing it on DU
If his dad had said, "As soon as someone tells me they're a ChristianJew, I check to make sure I still have my wallet."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RandomKoolzip Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 12:36 PM
Response to Reply #143
156. Jews are a persecuted minority.
Christians are not. There goes your hypothesis.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Divine Discontent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 01:24 PM
Response to Reply #156
161. let the Christian attacks begin! I come back to see breaking news and see this on the home page
Above your post someone says, it speaks volumes about the humanity of atheist doctors.

So, I'm led to believe that the report says they're not very compassionate as a whole, is that what they're saying? The report was relatively the same result (within 5 points of one another - 31-35%), and why would anyone expect a non-religious doctor not to help the poor, I expected them to be about the same - which is NOT MUCH, doctors as a majority don't seem to compassionate to me from the dozens I've dealt with directly.

In fact this report speaks volumes alright - about the inhumanity of the doctors all across the board. Talk about pumping one's chest over a bad report - 35% is a number to be proud of? These numbers show they don't give a shit about others, religious or not, as a majority. And the attacks on Christians and ignoring the 31% of doctors who do care for the needy goes to show that your point is sad to read and I'll give you proof. I won't give you a line about how I ignore the businesses with "fishies" in their ads as someone else said (which I think is silly to advertise, but I don't avoid them if I need a service and they're good at what they do), but instead I'll give proof to back up that your comment is ridiculous that Christians aren't a persecuted minority.

Firstly, Christians do not make up the majority of the population of the world, and in fact, few people actually attend services every week in the US even.

A current news example of minority Christians threatened in a majority of different belief -
http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct=us/0-0&fp=46b094c97da5e5af&ei=scmwRo3jNJraowL4k6y_Bg&url=http%3A//www.cbn.com/cbnnews/199479.aspx&cid=0

And over 150,000 Christians are slaughtered every year in countries, primarily, where they are the minority (which is most of the world). Their families are slaughtered only for being different than the majority. This is just as much an atrocity as is people slaughtering and killing people who are like my sexuality (gay) in countries all around the world. And, this type of murder is common all around the world - twisted violent individuals who use any belief they have to slaughter millions every year - whether it be Christian, Muslim, Jew, Farsi, Sunni, Hindu, etc.

I am a very anti right-wing liberal - they have used Jesus as an excuse to push their twisted brand of "compassion" on the world when all they are doing is using a book of instruction as a tool to promote bigotry and intolerance by making themselves judge & jury.

Amazing what gets people excited to show they hate Christians... a report that shows 2 out 3 doctors don't care for the poor. Had it showed 67% of atheists doctors cared for the poor I believe that would be noteworthy. Before I became a Christian I was just as much a giver and lover of people as I am now, so I know there are giving atheists out there, and if you use the doctor poll as a tell-tale example, being a Christian isn't primarily about doing good deeds, it's about a life & death opinion about what you think occurs in the afterlife when we die - and we all are gonna die.

All doctors who claim faith should be as loving as this to people in need - it's just fact - most people are very cold, angry, and all about self ego. Many posts I often read running down Christians remind me of the other end of the spectrum from the fundies.



---
Gay people and our supporters - never stop fighting for gays so this kind of story will be stopped in Iran and in other cases all around the world -

Read my journal, the oldest thread I think, shows my disgust for right wing televangelists if you need to know how the rethugs make me feel about our current dilemma in this country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Divine Discontent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 01:29 PM
Response to Reply #156
162. this tidbit from the report is also noteworthy
Doctors who rated their spirituality as High were around 70% more likely to work for the poor than doctors who do not consider themselves affiliated with a faith. So, this thread title is biased if you really want to be accurate. The most loving people I know who are Christian/Jewish/Muslim seem to go out of their WAY to be caring for all (following their code of love for others).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theredpen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 04:48 PM
Response to Reply #156
176. So you can't be bigoted unless you target a persecuted minority?
OK, so, if I go to Israel where Jews may be besieged, but are hardly a persecuted minority, I can be anti-Semitic and it's OK?

If I go to an African country, I can be racists against black people?

Is it OK to be sexist on the campus of a women's university?

Are the people heckling a gay pride parade not bigots because, in that context, gays are the majority?

Or maybe context doesn't matter. Maybe someone is a persecuted minority if somewhere in the world, people like them are a persecuted minority. Over the last few years thousands of Christians have been murdered in Iraq for the crime of being Christian. Does that get Christians in the club?

Finally, I think your point that the comment wasn't bigotry would be a little stronger if the moderators hadn't deleted the comment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Az Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 03:21 PM
Response to Original message
3. The problem with getting noticed as an atheist
Is we don't have organized groups representing us. Society doesn't like nonbelief so we tend to do the things we do in private or on our own. Atheists get the interconnected notion of life. We just don't attribute it to anything beyond being human.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WindRavenX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 04:40 PM
Response to Reply #3
26. I don't think most people actual think there ARE atheists
That, and I don't know if you know this, but literally atheists are the least trusted segment of society: conservatives would vote for blacks, women, and even *gays* before an atheist.

Yowza.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scorpiogirl Donating Member (662 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 06:12 PM
Response to Reply #26
31. I think that might be true.
I dated a very-Catholic guy for three years when I was around 20, and his mother (probably in her 50s at the time) went on a religous retreat, came back and said she didn't know there were people who didn't believe in god. She had just learned that over the weekend. I am so not kidding. So much for free-thinking. Yes, I just found out from reading DU actually, that apparently, as an athiest, I don't have any morals.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skater314159 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 06:17 PM
Response to Reply #31
34. But you're wonder woman!
You have the Lasso of Truth!

Ha!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClintonTyree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 06:12 AM
Response to Reply #31
107. Same here.....
it's all right if I'm a nice, quiet atheist and don't speak my mind. However, if I should attempt to combat the ignorance and superstition of religion I'm a bigot, heretic and am SURELY going to hell. :scared:

I've become more of a militant atheist over the years. I will not be a nice quiet little atheist. Religion is determined to shove it's message down peoples' throats, wherever and whenever they can. So am I. ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roxnev Donating Member (194 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #107
163. atheist.
If you are an atheist there is no hell. If you believe in hell you are Religious and must give up your atheist member ship
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClintonTyree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-02-07 06:25 AM
Response to Reply #163
217. Where did I say I believed in hell?
The religious TELL me that's where I'm going. I certainly don't believe it. Just like anything that comes forth from George Bush's mouth. He may TELL me it's the truth but I don't believe a word of it.
Make no mistake about it, I'm an atheist through and through. Damned proud of it as well. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skater314159 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 06:16 PM
Response to Reply #26
32. Huh?
They don't think there ARE atheists?

Are atheists like unicorns and dragons to these people? Is it like they have a cloaking shield? I just don't get thinking there aren't atheists...

What would they do with an African-American, Lesbian, Athiest running for office?
(For some reason, when I read your post I thought of "Martin Bigsby... Black White Supremacist" from Chapelle's show - the scene where he takes off the hood and people's heads explode) :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WindRavenX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 07:30 PM
Response to Reply #32
44. lol, it's true
My fiance's family is Mormon...they think atheists are evil things.

They don't know about my status as an unbeliever :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 11:52 AM
Response to Reply #26
147. Even worse, many atheists don't think they'r atheists
The word has gotten such a bad wrap, I've actually had people tell me "well, I don't believe in god or religion, but I'm NOT an atheist!"

It's kind of like when people who are in favor of equal rights for women won't say they're feminists.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theredpen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 06:21 PM
Response to Reply #3
36. Organizations Representing Athiests
From http://dir.yahoo.com/Society_and_Culture/Religion_and_Spirituality/Faiths_and_Practices/Atheism/Organizations/">Yahoo.
  • American Atheists (2)

  • Freedom From Religion Foundation (2)

  • Atheist Alliance

  • Democratic association of independent, autonomous atheist societies.

  • Atheist Network

  • Secular Coalition for America

  • Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc.

  • Churchwatch.org

  • Atheists for Jesus

  • Atheists of Silicon Valley

  • Gay and Lesbian Atheists and Humanists

  • Atheists United (1)

  • Minnesota Atheists

  • Freethought Association of West Michigan

  • North Texas Church of Freethought

  • Wonderful Atheists of Central Florida

  • Net Atheists, The

  • Church of Stuff, The

This doesn't include organizations that often serve as advocates for atheists such as the ACLU or PFAW, but this is just what's listed on Yahoo.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Az Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 10:03 AM
Response to Reply #36
134. The primary atheist organizations are legal defence groups
American Atheists for example only concerns itself with confronting rights issues that affect atheists. Freedom From Religion Foundation is not exclusively atheist. In fact there is a bit of consternation facing the next FFRF meeting due to Hitchens having been invited to speak. The theist members of the organization are none to found of his confrontational attitudes.

The less well known groups are sometimes social groups for atheists but they are no where near organized enough to be on par with major religious organizations. Add to this the fact that atheists are very resistant to organizations of any sort and it just goes to carry my point. We are not known for our collective behavior as most tend to operate on our own.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 10:22 AM
Response to Reply #36
138. The Brights' Net
http://www.the-brights.net

A bright is a person with a naturalistic worldview, free of supernatural and mystical elements.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skater314159 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 06:42 PM
Response to Reply #3
40. yeh...
and that is a similarity you have with other groups (like Neo-pagans or Indigenous Faith believers). There needs to be more social support for people of "non-majority" faiths and none.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sutz12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 03:26 PM
Response to Original message
4. Doesn't surprise me in the slightest...
If you can deny women access to abortion and reproductive services based on 'religious' belief, you can deny most anything to anybody.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TechBear_Seattle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 03:28 PM
Response to Original message
5. It has long been my observation...
That there are more atheists and agnostics who volunteer for food banks, soup kitchens, etc. than theists. Then again, for the last 15 years, my volunteer experience has all been in Seattle, which has the largest concentration of non-religious folks in the United States.

(See American Religious Identification Survey of 2001, Key Findings, finding 10 "State and Faith." With the eastern 2/3rds of the state very conservative and religious, it stands to reason that the 25% of residents who self-identify as "Non Religious" -- already the highest percentage by state -- are concentrated in the western 1/3rd.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThomCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 03:48 PM
Response to Reply #5
17. My experience agrees with yours.
Relgious people believe they're good because of what they believe. Athiests tend to believe that we're good because of what we do, so we do good.

We don't think it's enough to have some imaginary being pronouce us "saved." What want to know how we've helped, and how. That's what makes us good people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skater314159 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 06:22 PM
Response to Reply #17
37. Hey...
I am a person of faith, and I think what I *do* is very important. It doesn't really matter what I think if I don't use that belief to make the world a better place... and I like to think that is what makes me a good person.

The whole "saved" thing seems to me like someone got a "Get out of Jail Free card" in Monopoly and is trying to apply it to their whole life. A bunch of crap, really.

Anyways...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skater314159 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 06:25 PM
Response to Reply #5
38. Yeh...
Luckily you live in Seattle. In Texas, the problem is that you get a bunch of "believers" who show up, but then complain cause they have to do actual, you know, *work*. Or they complain about the homeless people - when it's a homeless shelter. So you tell all of them to go home and end up doing it yourself.

But I have found that non-Christians (Hindus, Muslims, and Buddhists) will help me out fine... I just tell 'em to keep their faith-choice on the DL. ;P
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tandot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 03:29 PM
Response to Original message
6. THAT is NOT true. Bill Frist diagnosed Terri Schiavo for free.
It is really hard and time consuming to diagnose someone by watching a video. :crazy:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Inkyfuzzbottom Donating Member (293 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 03:31 PM
Response to Original message
7. Atheist doctors more likely to care for the poor than religious ones
No surprise there...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
deepthought42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 03:35 PM
Response to Original message
8. Sad to hear, but not surprising... n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
YankeyMCC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 03:37 PM
Response to Original message
9. Nice to see a nonbeliever get some good press for a change but
the link doesn't appear to be working.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 03:38 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. Link kicked right in for me when I just clicked it n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yardwork Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 03:39 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. Direct link to the article in the Annals of Family Medicine.
This is a peer-reviewed, respected publication. The results are fascinating.

http://www.annfammed.org/cgi/content/abstract/5/4/353
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IChing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #12
19. This is an important point n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
angrycarpenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 03:39 PM
Response to Original message
11. that is the difference between morals and ethics
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hekate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 12:43 AM
Response to Reply #11
86. Yes it is. Took me a long time to figure out what was so different about the way...
...my mom raised us versus the "morals" so many churchie people in the media keep going on about. Mom taught us ethics, and called it ethics, and made sure we knew that it was our personal responsibility to figure out the right way to behave in the world and to do so.

There actually is a difference.

Hekate

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LittleClarkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 03:40 PM
Response to Original message
13. Any agnostic stats?
Or stats on those who don't care one way or another? I've found that there's a difference between someone who identifies as an atheist and one who just hasn't thought about religion much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yardwork Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 03:43 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. Yes. It looks like they mixed agnostics and atheists
From the link above:

Atheist doctors are likely to practice medicine among the underprivileged than religious physicians, even though most religions call on the faithful to serve the poor, according to the results of large cross-sectional survey of US medical practitioners published in Annals of Family Medicine.

Researchers from the University of Chicago and Yale New Haven Hospital report that 31 percent of physicians who were more religious—as measured by "intrinsic religiosity" as well as frequency of attendance at religious services—practiced among the underserved, compared to 35 percent of physicians who described their religion as atheist, agnostic or none.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LittleClarkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #15
21. I would have preferred if they would have separated them out
I would have liked to have seen a breakdown from religious to vague belief in an after life to the big shrug to agnostic to atheist.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sammythecat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 06:38 PM
Response to Reply #13
39. I have no stats to offer,
Edited on Tue Jul-31-07 06:39 PM by sammythecat
but I think if they had a category for doctors who could be described as "one who just hasn't thought about religion much", that group would be least likely to work for altruistic causes.

I think it would be safe to say all doctors are very intelligent, but not all doctors are very thoughtful. Anyone who is old enough to have a M.D. or D.O. after their name and hasn't yet thought "much" about religion, is, likely someone who hasn't thought much about the human condition either. I wouldn't look for much help among this kind of agnostic, the kind that "just hasn't thought about religion much". The remaining agnostics, however, I would expect to have pretty much the same percentage of altruism as the atheists and religious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Vinyl Ripper Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 08:19 PM
Response to Reply #39
48. You might be surprised...
"I think it would be safe to say all doctors are very intelligent, but not all doctors are very thoughtful."

I've had considerable discussion on this point with my step father in law, a retired MD.

He says the majority of MD's get through school more on memorization than on understanding the courses.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sammythecat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 09:17 PM
Response to Reply #48
56. I don't doubt his word. He would know.
Edited on Tue Jul-31-07 09:18 PM by sammythecat
I shouldn't have used the word "intelligent" without defining what I meant. Everybody has a different definition of that word.

Here's what I mean: Dick Cheney is intelligent, but he's an asshole. I doubt he ever spent any serious time contemplating something like the Sermon on the Mount. I know he didn't. He's an asshole. Assholes don't think about such things. They have "other priorities".

He probably could have become a doctor if he wanted to badly enough, and he definitely would have been one of the agnostic guys that never thought much about religion. And I certainly can't see him doing work for strangers out of altruism.

Had to edit because I forgot to welcome you to DU. Glad you're here. :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Vinyl Ripper Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 09:43 PM
Response to Reply #56
59. Muchos gracias..
My point is that even someone of mediocre intelligence can make it through medical training without really understanding a considerable amount of the material presented.

What gets them through is rote memorization and the ability to regurgitate that memorized information on demand.

Sorta like the memorization that is used to prepare kids for the No Child Left Behind tests.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blondie58 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 07:48 AM
Response to Reply #59
116. yeah, like if you've ever been to a Catholic service
and the congregation is repeating all of these Latin words. It always makes me wonder how many of them actually know what they're chanting or are they just repeating the gobblygook?

That ability to memorize has nothing to do with intelligence and everything to do with being an obedient little student. The ability to formulate free thoughts are not valued anymore.

And a welcome from me to DU, also!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davekriss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 08:25 AM
Response to Reply #116
120. I'm not sure, but in the U.S. ...
...I think services in Catholic churches stopped using Latin in the seventies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tesha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 09:06 AM
Response to Reply #120
124. But now it's back. (FYI) (NT)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davekriss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 09:53 AM
Response to Reply #124
131. Cool
When I was a young kid, I used to really like the Latin service. It was so mysterious and soothing. Now I'm an anarcho-syndicalist-neo-Buddhist-charismatic-Christian. Different kind of service. I took a survey not too long ago that says the religious sect that is most compatible to my values and beliefs is Liberal Quakerism. Alas, there's no such churches nearby.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NOLALady Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 08:31 AM
Response to Reply #116
122. When I went to Catholic school
we were taught the meaning of the gobbleygook Latin. Of Course, that was a very long time ago.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1monster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 10:08 AM
Response to Reply #116
135. When I was a child, I attended Latin Masses. We had a little book called a Missal which
Edited on Wed Aug-01-07 10:09 AM by 1monster
had the latin on the left-hand page and the English tranlastion on the right-hand page.

At age ten, I knew quite a bit of latin.

At age fifty-one, I've forgotten almost all of it.

There is something to be said for having religious ceremonies in latin. It certainly helped me in understanding vocabulary word root origins.

But all I remember now is: Veni, vidi, visa: I came, I saw, I went shopping. :evilgrin:

(BTW: not an atheist (a = not, theo = god, ist = practice of), but I refuse to define god or the creator as a human type being or as something that our puny little minds can comprehend.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tesha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 11:19 AM
Response to Reply #135
141. Catholics with missiles, err, missals...
Edited on Wed Aug-01-07 11:23 AM by Tesha
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen.

http://www.truecatholic.org/masstrad.htm



Tesha
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1monster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #141
154. Cool! Thank you. My parents fought the wars of the refofmation all over again when I was eleven,
(and thus turned me off of organized religion completely). It was many years later when I agreed to go to a Catholic Mass with a friend.

I was totally lost and didn't much care for it.

I did like the Latin Masses of my childhood. They were mysterious, with the scent of burning candle wax, the choir and congregation singing the old familiar hymns, and on special High Mass occasions, Gregorian Chants.

I was a child and can't say how deeply I felt about being Christian... I simply didn't know any other way then. But pre parental reformation memories of church were comforting. Ante parental reformation memories were agonizing and still have their effect today.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AnotherGreenWorld Donating Member (958 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 11:45 PM
Response to Reply #48
80. I've been to a lot of MDs--specialists no less--and I agree
One I went to was a professor, and he knew basically nothing about the disease or the drugs used to treat it. He blamed side effects of the drugs on my disease, even though this was obviously not the case. (This, however, is one of the more benign things he did.) I finally brought him a print out from Mayo Clinic saying that the side effects I was expericing were very common--so common that basically anyone using such drugs would get them.

And even the rare doctors that are somewhat knowledgable usually are careless and only became doctors for the money and prestige. Doctors are disgusting.

If the terrorist doctors in London were more farsighted they would've remained run-of-the-mill MDs who could have quite easily killed and ruined lives left and right--more than they could accomplish with car bombs. Not only could they have gotten away with it, but they would've received praise, awards, and be considered great humanitarians for it, provided that they sufficiently disgusied their misdeeds as "accidents."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
avrdream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 05:14 AM
Response to Reply #80
105. DU doctor here.
Thanks for the insults.

For the record, to stay on topic, I have become more and more agnostic in my 15 years as a physician and I make way less than the average doc, probably because I chose to work with the more interesting underprivileged group of patients.

I left organized religion many years ago because I was tired of the hypocrisy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AnotherGreenWorld Donating Member (958 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 11:19 AM
Response to Reply #105
142. Not all doctors are so terrible
Edited on Wed Aug-01-07 11:20 AM by AnotherGreenWorld
And I suspect outside the US--at least in parts of the world where greed doesn't pervade the entire culture--more doctors choose their profession because they want to help people. But in the US such doctors are very rare. I've never seen one. But I've heard stories.

A few years ago I began having symptoms of a very serious disease. I had no idea what it was. I wish I had googled my symptoms. Instead, I went to a doctor. "Oh, it's nothing," he said, "and if it doesn't go away in a week, come back." (I said I couldn't, because I would be out of town. He said, well don't worry anyway then; it's nothing serious.) Well, I had been having the symptoms for five months, as he knew; and in a week they were supposed to magically disappear.

So a couple weeks later, dying, I end up in the ER--and a hospital stay for a week and a half. From there I meet a group of doctors even more incomptent than Dr. McMagic. One of Martial's epigrams comes to mind:

I felt a little ill and called Dr. Symmachus.
Well, you came, Symmachus, but you brought 100 medical students with you.
One hundred ice-cold hands poked and jabbed me.
I didn't have a fever, Symmachus, when I called you -–but now I do.

They didn't give me a fever. But, among other things, things that I will have to live with for the rest of my life, they did almost kill me, giving me a prescription to take 2200mg of a certain drug each day. Luckily I knew the prescription couldn't be right.

It took two weeks for the doctor (a professor and a supposed expert) to even write the "correct" prescription, though, because he was on vacation. Worse, the "correct" prescription, 1200, which, although not a lethal dose, was also far too high. Any competent doctor knowledgable about that specific drug should've known what it would do.

And I could go on. And in the US things like this are typical. Something as minor--and as simple--as writing a prescription leads to millions of people either being killed or having their lives ruined, wishing for the former. With the number of accredited medical schools rising, standards for medical schools have decreased. Still, even when doctors from mediocre schools were taking their exams they undoubtedly made damn sure to write the response they thought to be the correct one. But when it comes to their job such care is often absent. The most common medical error in the US is writing the wrong prescription.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Vinyl Ripper Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 11:53 AM
Response to Reply #105
148. I didn't say *all* doctors are that way..
But doctors, just like any group, have their excellent members and their less than mediocre members.

It's called the bell curve and it fits nearly everything to do with human beings, from intelligence, to height, to athletic ability, etc, etc..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProfessorGAC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 07:43 AM
Response to Reply #13
114. A Question
You said "one who just hasn't thought about religion much." Would you also include those who simply don't care at all? I've thought about it and think it's all apropos of nothing. If i'm wrong about a deity, don't care. If i'm right, still don't care.

I identify myself as an "irrelvantist". What's your take?
GAC
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LittleClarkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 07:10 PM
Response to Reply #114
197. Hrm. Sort of an apathetic agnostic
Dunno if there's a God, and frankly don't care. The big shrug with an "eh" thrown in.

There are so many variations on what people are. It's hard to throw them in categories I think.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Control-Z Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 03:40 PM
Response to Original message
14. Why am I not surprised?
'Physicians avoid spending the bulk of their time caring for the poor as it could mean forgoing professional prestige, free time and academic opportunities.'

Me me me me me me me, ad infinitum.

Another tidy little summation that really says it all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
progressoid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 03:48 PM
Response to Original message
16. "This came as both a surprise and a disappointment" - - Not to me.
Edited on Tue Jul-31-07 03:58 PM by progressoid
Well...a little sadened but not surprised.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 03:50 PM
Response to Original message
18. That's because us Atheists don't beleive in an afterlife.
Since we don't believe in an afterlife we are less likely to ignore suffering. There are many theists who will say "don't worry if you are suffering now, you will eventually be in Paradise" :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TechBear_Seattle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #18
20. Why bother giving a man a fish, much less teaching him to fish...
When there are plenty of fish in Heaven? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 04:31 PM
Response to Reply #20
23. Exactly
A belief in an afterlife is a good way to excuse away social ills. America's "up-by-your-bootstraps" rhetoric used to bash the poor is a directly descended from Calvinist theology. Calvinists believe that worldly success is a sign of being one of the souls pre-destined to go to heaven and that poverty was a sign of damnation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gatorboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 04:38 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. I'm not listening to anything a Norse god has to say.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skater314159 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 06:44 PM
Response to Reply #24
41. Not even Thor?
Thor had a reallly cool hammer! That should count for *something*! :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gatorboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 10:56 PM
Response to Reply #41
72. Yeah but he was as dumb as..A hammer!
Just ask Loki! :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skater314159 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 06:49 PM
Response to Reply #23
42. Calvinists and their TULIP piss me off.
I just had to get that out.

Living in Texas, I feel the urge to shout it out on occasions after dealing with the general public. Especially when they hate on me for my "War is NOT Pro-Life" bumpersticker... like God/ess wants Bush and his F****ng war....damned tulipers... :mumbles and stomps off:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyskye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 04:05 PM
Response to Original message
22. sad and predictable
Why actually do good deeds, when having faith is so much easier?


:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PassingFair Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 04:47 PM
Response to Original message
28. GOOD PRESS!!!??!
Where's that free atheist doctor when you need him/her?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theredpen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 06:05 PM
Response to Original message
29. The suvey doesn't actually say what the headline claims.
From the http://www.annfammed.org/cgi/content/abstract/5/4/353">abstract of the study, emphasis mine.
RESULTS The response rate was 63%. Twenty-six percent of US physicians reported that their patient populations are considered underserved. Physicians who were more likely to report practice among the underserved included those who were highly spiritual (multivariate odds ratio = 1.7; 95% confidence interval , 1.1–2.7], those who strongly agreed that their religious beliefs influenced their practice of medicine (OR = 1.6; 95% CI, 1.1–2.5), and those who strongly agreed that the family in which they were raised emphasized service to the poor (OR = 1.7; 95% CI, 1.0–2.7).

The only prominent group of altruistic doctors that could include "atheists" is "those who strongly agreed that the family in which they were raised emphasized service to the poor," and the study doesn't break that group down by religious affiliation. In fact, the study doesn't even say that it asked religious affiliation.

So where did the author of the article get "atheists" from? Probably from this last line of the abstract (again, emphasis mine).

Physicians who were more religious in general, as measured by intrinsic religiosity or frequency of attendance at religious services, were much more likely to conceive of the practice of medicine as a calling but not more likely to report practice among the underserved.

Someone who prays at home alone (as recommended in the Book of Matthew) or attends services infrequently despite being very religious (many Catholics) would score low on "attendance of religious services" despite not being an atheist. There is also the rather dubious measure of "intrinsic religiosity." What the hell is that? The article explains:

Researchers asked physicians if they agreed or disagreed with two statements: "I try hard to carry my religious beliefs over into all my other dealings in life," and "My whole approach to life is based on my religion." They were also asked how often they attended religious services.

These questions would tend to highlight evangelicals and, of course, fundamentalists. All major world religions can distinguish between practicing religion and practicing medicine. Only a small slice of evangelical fundamentalists who believe in crap like "faith healing" would be likely to blur this distinction.

Furthermore, most faith groups are not evangelical and don't feel a need to "try hard to carry my religious beliefs over into all my other dealings in life." There is really only a minority of people who actually ask themselves "What Would Jesus Do?" when they're picking ice cream flavors.

This study would likely rate many Hindus, Buddhists, and non-evangelical Christians as having a low "intrinsic religiosity". That does not mean they're "atheists."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
More Than A Feeling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 06:17 PM
Response to Reply #29
33. If you go to the full study, you find that the abstract is missing a key point.
Edited on Tue Jul-31-07 06:22 PM by Heaven and Earth
With respect to religious characteristics, physicians who were more likely to practice in underserved communities included those with high spirituality, those who strongly agreed that their religious beliefs influenced their practice of medicine, those with no religious affiliation, and those who grew up in families that strongly emphasized service to the poor. Physicians who were more religious in general (as measured by intrinsic religiosity or frequency of attendance at religious services) were not more likely to report care for the underserved, nor were those who viewed the practice of medicine as a calling.(emphasis added)

http://www.annfammed.org/cgi/content/full/5/4/353?ijkey=0920a2417c35a96bd90e02e9e746abbf8da17a09#SEC3

That's where they got the line about atheists, agnostics, and the non-religious.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theredpen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 08:14 PM
Response to Reply #33
47. The detailed results show that atheists are 70% less likely to be charitable
The study does not say that "no religious affiliation" equates with "atheist." It says in a footnote that this includes atheist and agnostic. So how do we find out who the real atheists are? Let's look at the http://www.annfammed.org/cgi/content/full/5/4/353/T1">detailed breakdown.

Atheists certainly have "no religious affiliation" (the "religion:none" group). Another thing about atheists is that they never go to church. 117 respondents claimed "religion:none" yet only 114 never go to church. If all of the "religion:none" respondents were atheists, then you'd have at least three atheists who still occasionally attend church. This weird mismatch highlights the fact that church attendance is not a good measure of religious fervor, not that there are some really confused atheists.

Although the study makes it hard to distinguish who the atheists are, it makes it easy to determine who is religiously motivated. A good measure to use to make this distinction would be self-described "spirituality." Can we agree that more a person considered him or herself "spiritual" the less likely he or she is to be an atheist? I hope so, because it's the best indicator of belief/non-belief in this data.

Now, let's consider the http://www.annfammed.org/cgi/content/full/5/4/353/T2">correlation between spirituality and altruism among doctors, according to the scientific study that is being heralded in the OP.
Spirituality
Low (283) 21 1.0 (referent)
Moderate (516) 26 .02 1.4 (0.9–2.0)
High (287) 32 1.7 (1.1–2.7)

Doctors who rated their spirituality as "high" were 70% more likely to work for the underserved than doctors who do not consider themselves "spiritual" (and there for might be atheist or agnostic). There is not expressed correlation between "religion:none" and atheism. The headline is inaccurate.

Apparently, seeing what you want to believe is not a fault limited to believers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LittleClarkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 08:41 PM
Response to Reply #47
49. So it's not so cut and dried?
I suspected that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theredpen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 09:28 PM
Response to Reply #49
57. Of course. Is *anything* ever that cut'n'dried? (Except the impeachment case against Gonzo) n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
More Than A Feeling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 08:58 PM
Response to Reply #47
53. No, I do not agree that spirituality and atheism are inversely correlated. That hasn't been shown.
Edited on Tue Jul-31-07 09:03 PM by Heaven and Earth
You don't get to blithely assert a connection, especially when there is a specific indicator for religiosity apart from "spirituality." Your assertion that spirituality "is the best indicator of belief/non-belief" is your opinion, which is baseless in this context.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theredpen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 10:07 PM
Response to Reply #53
60. Fine, have it your way. I'm still right.
OK, so you know a bunch of atheists who self-identify as spiritual. Gee, I only have one make-believe friend (God). I'm jealous that you have so many more.
You don't get to blithely assert a connection, especially when there is a specific indicator for religiosity apart from "spirituality."
Well, I've already given what I think are valid anthropological reasons why the "religiosity" indicator — which they invented for this survey — is flawed, but have it your way. Let's look at the religiosity http://www.annfammed.org/cgi/content/full/5/4/353/T2">correlation.
Intrinsic religiosity
Low (394) 27 1.0 (referent)
Moderate (281) 22 0.8
High (388) 29 1.1

Assuming that "intrinsic religiosity" is a suitable analog for what we colloquially call "religiousness," then according to this data, very religious doctors are 10% more likely to help the poor than slightly- or non-religious doctors. Atheists still lose on that one, just not as badly.

Again, I think "intrinsic religiosity" is a bogus measurement, and I also believe that this data supports my conclusion. If this is a meaningful measurement that indicates some extant correlation between religiousness and altruism, then why the hell are moderately religious people 20% less likely that those of "low intrinsic religiosity" to act charitably, yet the trend in highly religious people is the opposite?

Could it be that this wholly unprecedented measurement doesn't track what it was intended to track?
Your assertion that spirituality "is the best indicator of belief/non-belief" is your opinion, which is baseless in this context.
Oh, a straw man argument. Gasp. What a shock.

What I said was the "spirituality" was "the best indicator of belief/non-belief in this data." You disagree and think it's religiosity? Fine, but it is still the case that the headline is wrong. There are no other measurements in this data on which we can base a conclusion about the attitudes of atheists versus non-atheists, so give it up, the headline is wrong.

Religious affiliation is not a good indicator, because:
  1. Not all people registering "none" are atheists;
  2. and, not all people registering with a denomination are believers. For example, many people self-identify as Jews for cultural reasons, but do not practice Judaism. This is also true for many Catholics and some people from Protestant backgrounds as well.
Finally, there is so much hand-waving in the data analysis portion of this report that I could actually feel a breeze. They don't even know how good their sample is:
In addition, although we did not find much evidence for bias in response to the overall study, it is theoretically possible that those who care for the underserved were less likely to respond to the study because of their heavy workload. If so, and if those physicians’ religious characteristics differed from those of respondents, such biases could confound our findings. The study furthermore is not able to distinguish those who deliberately choose to practice among the underserved from those who merely end up there for other reasons, nor does it capture many other ways in which physicians may care for the poor.
So, in summary:
  1. The don't even know if they got data on the target population;
  2. and, there is no reason to believe that this data represents deliberate career choices, or just highlights some other factor.
This is a really flawed study, and even if it wasn't, it doesn't say what the OP says it does.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
More Than A Feeling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 10:21 PM
Response to Reply #60
62. Actually, the OP gets it right.
Edited on Tue Jul-31-07 10:50 PM by Heaven and Earth
Although measures of general religiosity were not associated with practice among the underserved, physicians who were more religious by any measure were substantially more likely to report that their families emphasized service to the poor and that for them the practice of medicine was a calling (Table 4Go). Combining religious characteristics and measures of motivation had little effect on practice among the underserved. For example, among the subset of physicians from all specialties who reported a religious affiliation, had high intrinsic religiosity, attended religious services twice a month or more, and grew up in families that emphasized serving those with fewer resources (n = 264), 90% agreed that their religious beliefs influenced their practice of medicine, and 86% viewed their practice of medicine as a calling. The proportion who reported practice among the underserved (31%) did not differ significantly from that found among those with no religious affiliation, however (35%, P = .48).(emphasis added)

The most religious doctors registered a lower percentage of service than the those not affiliated with any religion. We aren't talking about "cultural" religious, with 90% agreement that their religious beliefs influenced their practice of medicine. Deal with it.

Again, I think "intrinsic religiosity" is a bogus measurement, and I also believe that this data supports my conclusion. If this is a meaningful measurement that indicates some extant correlation between religiousness and altruism, then why the hell are moderately religious people 20% less likely that those of "low intrinsic religiosity" to act charitably, yet the trend in highly religious people is the opposite?


That's just it. It DOESN'T show a correlation between religiousness and altruism. And that's your basic problem with it. It undermines your deeply ingrained assumptions regarding who is and isn't altruistic. So you face the choice of either re-examining your assumptions, or attacking their measurements. Which do you think is easier?

What I said was the "spirituality" was "the best indicator of belief/non-belief in this data." You disagree and think it's religiosity? Fine, but it is still the case that the headline is wrong. There are no other measurements in this data on which we can base a conclusion about the attitudes of atheists versus non-atheists, so give it up, the headline is wrong.


I quoted the part of the study which refutes your assertion above.

Religious affiliation is not a good indicator, because:

1. Not all people registering "none" are atheists;
2. and, not all people registering with a denomination are believers. For example, many people self-identify as Jews for cultural reasons, but do not practice Judaism. This is also true for many Catholics and some people from Protestant backgrounds as well.


Again, it wasn't just religious affiliation they used in the comparison cited above, it was also intrinsic religiosity, church attendence, and familial attitudes growing up.

Finally, there is so much hand-waving in the data analysis portion of this report that I could actually feel a breeze. They don't even know how good their sample is:
In addition, although we did not find much evidence for bias in response to the overall study, it is theoretically possible that those who care for the underserved were less likely to respond to the study because of their heavy workload. If so, and if those physicians’ religious characteristics differed from those of respondents, such biases could confound our findings. The study furthermore is not able to distinguish those who deliberately choose to practice among the underserved from those who merely end up there for other reasons, nor does it capture many other ways in which physicians may care for the poor.


Good studies identify their own potential weaknesses. That's not "hand-waving," that's professionalism
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theredpen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 11:52 PM
Response to Reply #62
82. What part of "did not differ significantly" did you miss?
however (35%, P = .48).(emphasis added)
First, let's remind ourselves that this 35% sample is not the "non-religious" nor is it "atheists," but merely people who have no self-identified religious association (this includes, but is not limited to, atheists).

That P value indicates that there is there is 48% chance that this 35% statistic does not indicate a correlation with doctors serving the underserved. That's not so high that the statistic is meaningless, but it indicates that it is likely being affected by another, hidden factor. I'd hazard guess that this factor is whether or not the respondent was a "liberal" — left-wing people tend to believe that the poor should be served more than right-wing people do — but this wasn't tested for.

The P value for the 31% statistic is not given because — given the large number of factors in the sample — it is likely very small (> .001). I would like to see that comparison done with church attendance removed from the "religious" group. The P value for that is 0.90, which indicates that distribution of church attendance among the sample is nearly completely random. It should have been factored out.

What this means is that the 31% number is expected to be repeatable if the survey were to be repeated, whereas the 35% statistic would be expected to vary pretty significantly. This is why the analysis says:
The proportion who reported practice among the underserved (31%) did not differ significantly from that found among those with no religious affiliation, however (35%, P = .48)

I added emphasis to your emphasis.

The data supports the conclusion that people who were raised to care about the poor (that would be us filthy liberals) are more likely to care about the poor than people who weren't. It also shows that self-identifying with a named religious group, or a sense that being a doctor is something one "should" do ("it is a calling"), mean less than personal convictions.

This survey says nothing about atheists.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occulus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 10:37 PM
Response to Reply #60
65. You come across as deeply desperate to "prove" the OP "wrong" n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theredpen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 10:59 PM
Response to Reply #65
74. Does that mean I'm wrong?
Is pointing out an obvious ad hominem "deeply desperate"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 11:49 PM
Response to Reply #65
81. Deleted sub-thread
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
pschoeb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 01:07 AM
Response to Reply #60
89. Actually many atheists identify as spiritual, he's not making up his friends
Edited on Wed Aug-01-07 01:10 AM by pschoeb
For example many atheists are members of the Unitarian Universalists, Reform Judaism, Buddhists just to name a few, and they would consider themselves spiritual, in fact they might even be pegged as religious, since they attend services at these organizations. I have often met atheists outside these groups as well, who call themselves spiritual, though when I ask, it seems to be they define spiritual as anything to do with feelings and emotions or human interdependence, which would definitely not be the way I would define it, but on this survey we would have no way of knowing, and I was somewhat surprised by how many people define spiritual this way. This makes sense as society uses the term spirit in a way that is not god oriented, for example team spirit, playing with spirit, are phrases that are talking about emotions and motivation, and group interaction, not the supernatural.

Here's just one example
http://spiritualhumanist.blogspot.com/

So it would be difficult to tell what is up with this study, unless they had specifically shown the results on atheism and agnosticism, which they didn't, though it seems they could have. Also in the religiosity criteria, those with low religiosity, would include other besides atheists and agnostics, so it is pretty meaningless category to try to determine anything about atheists. For example 394 respondents had low religiosity, but only 110 had atheist, agnostic or none as a religious affiliation, and even many atheist Jews and Unitarians would probably end up ranking high in religiosity, which is a criteria the researchers made up themselves based on other questions, such as service attendance, I know many atheist Jews who are very active in their Reform Temples.

Also you missed a critical part, were they evaluated these criteria by religious affiliation, they looked at those who had a religious affiliation(.7) and excluded all that didn't meet other criteria that had ranked higher in correlation by themselves, that is high religiosity(1.1), and families who strongly emphasized serving the poor(1.7) yet:

"Combining religious characteristics and measures of motivation had little effect on practice among the underserved. For example, among the subset of physicians from all specialties who reported a religious affiliation, had high intrinsic religiosity, attended religious services twice a month or more, and grew up in families that emphasized serving those with fewer resources (n = 264), 90% agreed that their religious beliefs influenced their practice of medicine, and 86% viewed their practice of medicine as a calling. The proportion who reported practice among the underserved (31%) did not differ significantly from that found among those with no religious affiliation, however (35%, P = .48)."

Since taking religious affiliation and removing most of those who would have ranked low by their various answers to other questions, we would have assumed that these would then easily beat those without any religious affiliation but they did not, in fact those with no religious affiliation alone as a criteria still beat them by a small amount. This actually means, by the way that many who classified themselves as atheist, agnostic and none, must have to a decent percentage, classifying themselves as spiritual, which is not surprising if you know how many atheists, agnostics and areligious define the word spiritual.

If we look at actual religious denomination, the results were
Catholic .7 Jewish .3 Protestant .7 Other Religion 1.0 None 1.0

The none category included people who reported as atheists, agnostics and none. We can see that Judeo-Christian affiliation did pretty poorly. Even if we take the better results from "other religion", we would still end up with religious affiliation at about .7 and No religious affiliation at 1.0, It's only by adding exclusionary criteria to those with religious affiliations that we can even get them close to the non-religious.

You are right that the article is mis-titled, a better title would have been "Judeo-Christian religious affiliation not linked to helping the poor in Mediicine".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pschoeb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 02:27 AM
Response to Reply #89
92. More info from Previous study which used same data set collected in 2005
Edited on Wed Aug-01-07 02:28 AM by pschoeb
For anyone interested here's a link to the original survey study done in 2005, this data is used in this new study, so from this we know that out of the 117 who listed as atheists, agnostics, or none, 22 were atheists 16 were agnostic and 79 were none. Also intrinsic religiosity was defined based on answering the question "I try hard to carry my religious beliefs over into all my other dealings in life.". Also there was a question that actually asked if they believed in god, 76% said they did, so that means that besides the 10.6% that listed themselves as atheist, agnostic or none, we have a possibly 15% more who list a religious affiliation but don't believe in god. Also 20% of those who listed themselves as atheist, agnostic or none also answered yes to some degree on the intrinsic religiosity question. It seems we could have an answer to the atheist/agnostic question from this data, by going by the answer of no on the a belief in god question, unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a full data set available.

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1525-1497.2005.0119.x
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theredpen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 02:41 AM
Response to Reply #89
93. Categories in the survey.
For example many atheists are members of the Unitarian Universalists, Reform Judaism, Buddhists just to name a few, and they would consider themselves spiritual, in fact they might even be pegged as religious, since they attend services at these organizations.
Absolutely, except that none of these people would have been in the "religion: none" category. They would have been in "religion: other" or "religion: Jewish".

It's certainly possibly for an atheist to self-describe as spiritual despite no tie with any religious tradition, but "spiritual" is a dualist concept and Heaven & Earth specifically rejects dualist models of human experience. So, while I agree with your points here, I was talking about the brand of atheism that H&E promotes — well, usually promotes because now all of a sudden, "spiritual" is what all the cool atheists are doing.
You are right that the article is mis-titled, a better title would have been "Judeo-Christian religious affiliation not linked to helping the poor in Mediicine".
I agree, and so do the authors of the study.
Notwithstanding these limitations, this study does point to possible implications for medical educators, policy makers, and researchers. Rabinowitz and colleagues have suggested that medical school admissions officials could increase the supply of physicians who care for the underserved by giving preference to candidates who possess characteristics known to predict a disposition toward such work. Admissions policies that favor certain religious or spiritual characteristics are not likely to be adopted for many reasons, but if they were, our findings would suggest that admissions officials should ignore both the general religiousness of candidates and their sense of calling to medicine, and should give preference to applicants who consider themselves very spiritual, who either have no religion or strongly agree that the religion they have influences their practice of medicine, or who agree that their families of origin emphasized service to the poor.

Basically, they are saying that if we want to graduate more doctors who would be inclined to serve the poor, they should look for some attributes that atheists might have ("spiritual", "no religion", "family of original emphasized service to the poor") and also one that atheists wouldn't have ("religion they have influences their practice of medicine").

The recommend against using the general religiousness of candidates because that doesn't correlate to higher rates of service to the poor — which is what you said.

But doesn't it seem intuitive that people who claim to be religious, but don't claim to be "highly spiritual" wouldn't be particularly deep individuals? This is sort of the flip side to noting that people who don't claim to be religious, but are "highly spiritual" would be oriented toward "higher" goals such as social justice, whether or not they were atheists.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pschoeb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 03:49 AM
Response to Reply #93
97. It atcually has nothing to do with dualist models of human experience
Edited on Wed Aug-01-07 04:04 AM by pschoeb
Many atheists who reject that emotion or feelings or interdependence are supernatural or classical dualism, still use the word spiritual to describe these things, which as I said isn't surprising because we as a culture use the word spirit to describe lots of things with no true supernatural connotation. So no, many people, even some theists don't actually define spiritual as belief in the supernatural nor subscribe to a dualist philosophy, it's an unfortunate problem, but one I've run into whenever I have debates with people of all stripes, so many of them define spiritual in ways that didn't really correspond to each other well, which usually means our argument was running at loggerheads, until we figured this out.

The problem your still avoiding is that given all the extra criteria the researchers selected for they still couldn't beat a raw unselected non-religious affiliated group. Also if you look at more from the data set from 2005, which I posted below my first post, you'll see that only 4% responded that they were religious but not spiritual, so I doubt that had much of an effect on the results. Also it seems they classified Unitarians as Protestants, not as other religion, though some atheists who are Unitarians might fill out atheist and not Unitarian.

I agree with you on what criteria should be looked at, but I disagree that "religion has strongly influenced their practice of medicine" would not apply to some atheists, as many atheist Unitarians would probably respond yes to this, as would atheist Buddhists and some atheist humanists, and any who consider their well thought out philosophy as a religion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theredpen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 07:26 AM
Response to Reply #97
110. Getting back to my original point...
OK, there are a zillion definitions of spiritual (a problem noted by the survey, actually). There are also differing flavors of atheism; Bishop Shelby Spong's non-theistic version of Christianity has been labeled "atheist" by some when "non-theistic" is more accurate. Non-theistic may or may not be sufficiently free of "religion" to qualify as atheist to some people; usually Secular Humanism passes the "atheist religion" test, but I've know some people are agree with every point of the Humanist manifesto and refuse to accept that any of their belief qualify as a "religion" because they are atheist.

The upshot of this is that "religious" has a zillion definitions, too.

Apparently "Protestant," which denotes a branch of religious Christianity, can also be atheist now because some Unitarians consider themselves protestant. That's OK, because some people identify as Jewish or Catholic or other culturally but don't believe any of the supernatural claims associated with those traditions.

This is not to say that none of this web of confusing and misleading labeling couldn't be sorted out, but this study doesn't do that.
I agree with you on what criteria should be looked at, but I disagree that "religion has strongly influenced their practice of medicine" would not apply to some atheists, as many atheist Unitarians would probably respond yes to this, as would atheist Buddhists and some atheist humanists, and any who consider their well thought out philosophy as a religion.
You're right, of course. The net result of all this ambiguity is that this study tells you only about correlations between how people self-identify and what kind of people they'll serve, and those correlations are pretty weak.

I mean, if you want to take your points to their extreme conclusion, then every respondent in this survey could be an atheist, in which case, it still proves nothing about atheists. This title of the OP was wrong about the conclusions of this study.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 11:15 PM
Response to Reply #53
76. Deleted sub-thread
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Exiled in America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 06:22 PM
Response to Reply #47
182. OMG OMG OMG ATHEISTS MUST SUCK!!!!!
I mean, that's what everyone was saying about religious doctors because they clocked in at 31% instead of 35% at serving the poor.

So 70% less charitable? WOW Atheists must clearly be inferior assholes compared to religious people then, right???????? :eyes:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
knitter4democracy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 06:17 PM
Response to Original message
35. That squares with what I've seen.
Odd, huh. Great way to destroy stereotypes, the truth.

Hubby's first practice was with some supposedly strong Christians, and they refused to take Medicaid, so he couldn't bring some of his favorite patients from the residency clinic. Then they did their best to screw him, and he left. They ended up having to pay the hospital (that had paid his first two years' salary as a way to get him here--underserved area, really), too, which was sweet justice.

Then again, Hubby's a Christian and sees people without insurance and works out cheaper prescriptions and does what he can to help people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pitohui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 07:28 PM
Response to Original message
43. wow what was their first clue? EOM
,
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sarcasmo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 07:32 PM
Response to Original message
45. Kick and Nom.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kestrel91316 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 07:50 PM
Response to Original message
46. Now why am I not the least bit surprised?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Robeson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 08:44 PM
Response to Original message
50. Not surprising. I would expect as much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 08:44 PM
Response to Original message
51. 31% vs 35% is not a really huge difference n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 10:37 PM
Response to Reply #51
66. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
TZ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 05:03 AM
Response to Reply #66
103. You've completely missed the point
I have seen people here on DU (and elsewhere) claim that without religion atheists have no motivation to do good or charitable works, because they are not "motivated" by the fear of God. What this statistical "dead heat" means is that the idea that ONLY religious people will do charitable works is a MYTH. It proves there is NO superiority by the religous folks in that area.
You also cannot compare this study to the "Bell Curve". That tried to use the often inaccurate and hard to quantify statistic of IQ to make a point. Its a little less complicated here..simply asking/finding out if there is charitable or pro bono work done.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bill McBlueState Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 10:57 PM
Response to Reply #51
73. surely the margin of error is noted in the study.
Four percent is an important difference if the sample size is large enough.

Just because four percent "feels" small doesn't mean it is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 11:30 PM
Response to Reply #73
79. Statistical error is one thing, and social significance is another
In quite a few medical studies, authors point out that a valid statistical difference may or may not have much actual medical significance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bill McBlueState Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 08:03 AM
Response to Reply #79
118. that's a good point
Still, as BlooInBloo notes elsewhere in the thread, even a "tie" is surprising. In the absence of such a study, many religious believers would assume that religious doctors are many times more charitable than nonreligious doctors. This study shows that at the most the two groups are equally charitable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pschoeb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 03:00 AM
Response to Reply #51
96. Actaully it is more significant than that
Edited on Wed Aug-01-07 03:01 AM by pschoeb
The people with a religious affiliation only get up to that 31%, by only including those who answered strongly agree to "I try hard to carry my religious beliefs over into all my other dealings in life.", attended service at least twice a month, and responded strongly agree to the question "Family emphasized service to poor". They had to meet all these criteria to get up to 31%, otherwise all those listing a religious affiliation rated at about 26%. Whereas those without any religious affiliation who classified themselves as atheists, agnostic or none had 35% to start, without any weeding out of respondents based on other criteria. Since the answer strongly agree to the question "Family emphasized service to poor" was one of the strongest indicators of the persons chances of actually serving the underserved, it goes without saying at minimum this criteria should have been used on those without religious affiliation(as this is not a religious question) to compare the two, but it was not. It would seem likely if this was done the percentage would be even higher than 35% for people with no religious affiliation.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LittleClarkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 03:53 AM
Response to Reply #96
98. I still wish they hadn't lumped atheist, agnostic and none together
They are not the same.

And really, this is not religious vs non-religious only. The other factor is rich. Rich unbelievers vs rich religious folks.

Would you say that rich religious folks would also tend to be Republican?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pschoeb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 04:29 AM
Response to Reply #98
102. I think one could actually analyze for atheist/agnostic from the data
Edited on Wed Aug-01-07 04:45 AM by pschoeb
Not based on the atheist, agnostic results, but on another question that was in this survey, asking about belief in god, which only 76% said they believed in, yet only 3.5% said they were atheist/agnostic, though this would not be totally clear as some pantheists and deists can be wishy washy on answering such a question. Unfortunately the whole set of data does not seem to be published anywhere. I'm thinking of e-mailing one of the doctors who did the survey, to see if there is anyway to get the actual raw data of the survey, as there seems to be lot of interesting data in the survey.

I think that the criteria that might give us the most negative results, but was not a question asked in this survey, would be those who strongly agree with "I became a doctor mostly because my parents were doctors", that in combination with a weak answer to "Family emphasized helping the poor" would probably strongly select for doctors who help the underserved the least.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Exiled in America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 06:23 PM
Response to Reply #51
183. Yup. And its pretty sad that you're the first one to say so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WCGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 08:54 PM
Response to Original message
52. Maybe the religious ones are attending services while the
Atheist are busy doing gods work...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LittleClarkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 09:00 PM
Original message
Well, the extra four percent anyway
Eh, not exactly a landslide.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theredpen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 09:00 PM
Response to Original message
54. Where's the rampant anti-Semitism?
Although I've shown in http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1480974&mesg_id=1483268">post #74 that this study actually shows that atheist doctors are less likely to care for the poor than religious ones, it hasn't stemmed the tide — nor elicited any retractions — of posts like http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1480974&mesg_id=1481405">this one.
sad and predictable

Why actually do good deeds, when having faith is so much easier?
Clearly, there is a stereotype that people with "spiritual values" are hypocrites. This stereotype is unfair, yet even in the face of a study that refutes the stereotype, so-called "liberals" continue to flog it.

So, I wondered... are there any stereotypes that are supported by http://www.annfammed.org/cgi/content/full/5/4/353/T2">this data? Well, there's a stereotype that Jews are greedy and don't care about anyone by themselves. Below is the data that is (inaccurately) being used to support the hypothesis that atheists are more likely to work for the poor.
Religious affiliation
None (110) 35 1.0 (referent)
Catholic (236) 26 0.7
Jewish (173) 16 0.3
Other religion (135) 28 1.0
Protestant (418) 28 0.7

According the the Bayesian odds ratio, self-identified Catholics and Protestants are 30% less likely to do charity work than those with "religion: none". Through the magic of multivariate statistics, "religion: other" is just as likely. But the self-identified Jews? Only one third as likely.

So as long as we're heaping scorn on broad groups of people based on unfounded stereotypes, why don't we take this data and getting into some good old fashioned anti-Semitism? :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
More Than A Feeling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 09:06 PM
Response to Reply #54
55. You showed no such thing.
You made a baseless and self-serving assumption, and expected everyone else to just quietly go along with it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 09:40 PM
Response to Reply #54
58. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Occulus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 10:38 PM
Response to Reply #54
67. Again- you come across as deeply desperate to prove the OP wrong n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maru Kitteh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 02:13 PM
Response to Reply #67
167. And again you return a lazy ad hominem attack.
here's your cookie.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ilsa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 10:17 PM
Response to Original message
61. I know some religious doctors that are really hard on poor women.
They are hard on poor women who are pregnant, but don't want them to have birth control. I guess they want them to stop having sex, even if they are married. One of them wouldn't prescribe pain relief (epidural) during labor if the mother was poor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occulus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 10:39 PM
Response to Reply #61
68. Typical n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occulus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 10:25 PM
Response to Original message
63. Well, THERE'S a shock.
NOT!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 10:36 PM
Response to Original message
64. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
LittleClarkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 10:43 PM
Response to Reply #64
69. A 4 percent difference is hardly earthshattering
really.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 10:45 PM
Response to Reply #69
71. Good comeback.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Exiled in America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 06:24 PM
Response to Reply #71
184. Truth is often not very flashy..... just TRUE.
31% vs. 35% ....wow stop the fucking presses.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bill McBlueState Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 10:59 PM
Response to Reply #69
75. what's the study's margin of error?
What's the margin of error? That alone, not anyone's gut feeling, tells us whether four percent is significant.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LittleClarkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 11:16 PM
Response to Reply #75
77. I don't see it in the abstract and I'm not sure how to find out
I'll keep looking
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ima_sinnic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 04:07 AM
Response to Reply #77
100. see this link, & see post 107: no significant difference betw the 2 groups
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Exiled in America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 06:24 PM
Response to Reply #100
186. lol, I am jack's total lack of surprise.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theredpen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 12:00 AM
Response to Reply #75
83. I suggest reading the full text.
I think Heaven and Earth and I are going to be tossing snippets of this thing at each other all nite — or until he admits he's wrong, whichever comes first.

I suggest that you (and anyone else interested) read through the http://www.annfammed.org/cgi/content/full/5/4/353">full text and decide for yourself what it says. It's not a very long report.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 09:57 AM
Response to Reply #64
132. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #132
150. *I'm* J. Edgar Hoover!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Progressive_In_NC Donating Member (448 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 10:43 PM
Response to Original message
70. 1,820 practicing physicians from all specialties of whom 1,144 (63%) responded
I beg the question, are we talking 35% of 144 and 31% of 1,000, or are the numbers mixed closer to even? The lower the number of respondants, the easier it is to get a higher percentage. I'd like to see a larger sample and see if it holds true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beam me up scottie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 12:16 AM
Response to Original message
84.  K&R'ing this. You can thank spoony.
Edited on Wed Aug-01-07 12:16 AM by beam me up scottie
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 12:38 AM
Response to Reply #84
85. *You're* J. Edgar Hoover!
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beam me up scottie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 12:44 AM
Response to Reply #85
88. D'oh! What gave it away?
Too funny! :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spoony Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 10:03 AM
Response to Reply #84
133. Lol, it's cute that I've driven you into such a froth
that you had to invoke me outside of a reply to me, but if you don't want to deal with me the answer is simple: don't post obnoxious anti-religious pablum in GD.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beam me up scottie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 02:49 PM
Response to Reply #133
169. Whoa! "anti-religious pablum"? Somebody call the Wambulance!
spoony done fell off his pedestal and got a concussion! You really should use the booster seat next time.

Neither I nor anyone else posted "obnoxious anti-religious pablum". This is a legitimate study and I could care less if it burst your bubble.

What bothers people like you is that the facts don't support the myth that christians are morally superior to non-christians.

Welcome to the real world. :hi:


It is one of the Christian delusions that Christianity brought charity into the world. It did no such thing.

~ H.L. Mencken


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spoony Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 07:47 PM
Response to Reply #169
198. That's one hell of a straw pile, going to burning man are you?
Kindly point to where I called Christians "superior" in any context. Then contrast the nonexistence of that sentiment with the repeated, constant, ejaculatory insistence that believers are inferior. This thread, other threads. You and I both know it's the accepted bigotry here. I do however look forward to your posts calling a "wambulance" for the next gay, black, Muslim, etc. person here who feels offended by something.

And otherwise, this study has little to do with the misleading OP and its cheerleaders, who would quote a napkin found in a dumpster if it in any way supported their (your) prejudices.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beam me up scottie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 08:26 PM
Response to Reply #198
202. Your overreaction to the data cited in the study speaks volumes about your insecurities.
If you think that christians are persecuted here, kindly pm the mods or alert on individual posts. I do not discriminate and I'm not going to indulge your fantasies.

Your hypocrisy is staggering, by the way, you accuse me of prejudice while whining about your own alleged mistreatment on DU.

Christian privilege is legion in this country, pretending you're the victim of discrimination marginalizes minorities who are targeted by your brethren:







So get over it.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 12:43 AM
Response to Original message
87. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
orleans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 02:22 AM
Response to Original message
90. interesting...figures....but not much of a difference between 31 and 35 n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 02:25 AM
Response to Reply #90
91. It's a huge difference from the *expectations* of the religious folks....
Edited on Wed Aug-01-07 02:27 AM by BlooInBloo
.... who believe that morality itself is not possible w/o religion. They would've expected to have a double-digit *lead* on such things.

Au contraire.


EDIT: It goes without saying that the results *are* in line what non-religious people would've predicted - if anything, we're surprised that religious people are as giving as they are, at that socio-economic level.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LittleClarkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 02:43 AM
Response to Reply #91
94. At that socio-economic level?
What socio-economic level is that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 02:46 AM
Response to Reply #94
95. Of doctors. Poor religious people, by contrast, are *very* giving, charity-wise.
Edited on Wed Aug-01-07 02:47 AM by BlooInBloo
EDIT: To put it more clearly, perhaps: One doesn't expect much in the way of good works from affluent religious folks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Exiled in America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 06:29 PM
Response to Reply #91
188. This is not a measure of how "giving" either atheist or religious doctors are.
It's a measure of how many of them express their "giving" through their work.

Many doctors may not have a lot of control over that. But at the same time any of either these atheists or religious doctors may volunteer countless hours of their personal time in working with the poor, either in a medical capacity or in some other way.

This "study" really doesn't tell us much of anything. But it certainly is funny how much the frothing anti-religion fundamentalists here were ready to pounce all over the study without even applying a critical eye.

....or reading all of it I'll wager, since later on it talks about how 70% of atheists are less charitable as part of the same study.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ima_sinnic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 04:05 AM
Response to Original message
99. misleading title: the difference is insignificant, no real difference betw them
Edited on Wed Aug-01-07 04:09 AM by ima_sinnic
Even without a statistical analysis, the difference between 31% of one population and 35% of another seems on the surface insignificant--but the authors report that, statistically, there was really no difference between the two groups:

Although measures of general religiosity were not associated with practice among the underserved, physicians who were more religious by any measure were substantially more likely to report that their families emphasized service to the poor and that for them the practice of medicine was a calling (Table 4Go). Combining religious characteristics and measures of motivation had little effect on practice among the underserved. For example, among the subset of physicians from all specialties who reported a religious affiliation, had high intrinsic religiosity, attended religious services twice a month or more, and grew up in families that emphasized serving those with fewer resources (n = 264), 90% agreed that their religious beliefs influenced their practice of medicine, and 86% viewed their practice of medicine as a calling. The proportion who reported practice among the underserved (31%) did not differ significantly from that found among those with no religious affiliation, however (35%, P = .48).

http://www.annfammed.org/cgi/content/full/5/4/353


a P-value of .48 is "very" insignificant (it is debatable whether there are "degrees" of significance)

on edit: to further explain significance: it is highly probable that the results are due to randomness. There is nothing that indicates the variable of "religiosity" is influencing "service to the poor"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 04:09 AM
Response to Reply #99
101. False. Even they're being statistically *equal* means that the god squad loses....
... as they claim moral superiority.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theredpen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 07:35 AM
Response to Reply #101
111. Even conceding that the god-squad loses moral superiority...
...doesn't entail that the non-god-squad gains moral superiority. This study failed to collect or present the data necessary to make any conclusions about what the atheist population does because the atheists are not successfully identified within the sample.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solly Mack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 05:14 AM
Response to Original message
104. I'm not surprised by this
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cgrindley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 06:19 AM
Response to Original message
108. My philosophy
Atheists know for the fact that it is that we only have one turn on earth. When we die, our consciousness, our lives, our memories, are extinguished forever, obliterated. Therefore, we have to make the best of things. We have to help people when and where we can, we have to try to make the planet a better rather than a worse place for all the other beings that inhabit it with us. Religions with their silly fairy tales distract people from the real issues and fill people's minds with a lot of horrific nonsense. Three cheers for atheism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalFighter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 06:39 AM
Response to Original message
109. Did they also consider their policital affiliation?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theredpen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 07:41 AM
Response to Reply #109
113. Yeah, forget atheist/theist, I think there's a liberal/conservative split they're missing
I think that they should redo this looking at a liberal/conservative split.

The strongest indicator of willingness to serve the poor was being raised in a family where this was considered an important or valuable thing to do. That sounds like a liberal family, and I don't think there would be much disagreement from conservatives about that either.

I would bet that a liberal doctor would be more inclined to work for the poor whether he or she was and atheist, a Christian, a Jew or a Scientologist for that matter.

I think this is the hidden factor that makes their P values a little wonky.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rex_Goodheart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 07:39 AM
Response to Original message
112. Nice article, but
we need to stop calling ourselves "atheists". What that does is define us in terms of religionists. I don't think we should be tacitly conceding religionism as a default situation; it's religionists who have adopted an extra philosophy, not us. So, just as they call themselves Christians, Muslims, Hindus we should use labels that describe what we are rather than what we're not.

We are Humanists.

Peace.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theredpen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 07:45 AM
Response to Reply #112
115. Freethinker
You have a really good point about terminology, but not all atheists embrace Humanism.

Perhaps the broader term "Freethinker" would be a good fit for people who are atheist, but not Humanist?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rex_Goodheart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 07:52 AM
Response to Reply #115
117. Point granted
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beastieboy Donating Member (288 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 08:55 AM
Response to Reply #115
123. I think if you are an atheist, you are de facto humanist.
I think there is a natural tendency to have a deeper compassion for your fellow man when you are an atheist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theredpen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 09:10 AM
Response to Reply #123
125. Notable Atheists
Pol Pot: 0.5-1 million murdered
Stalin: 10-20 million murdered
Mao: over 60 million murdered

The Nazi Party had a state version of Christianity, but it was essentially a secular ideology.

I'm not trying to insult any atheists with guilt by association, but the statement, "I think there is a natural tendency to have a deeper compassion for your fellow man when you are an atheist," has some really glaring counter-examples.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RoBear Donating Member (781 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 09:32 AM
Response to Reply #125
127. The salient point I think
is whether the killngs are related to or apart from religious convictions. I would submit that the examples you cite are related no non-religious reasons.

The Inquisition, the crusades, the religious violence in the middle east, the prosecution of an invasion by our "god-chosen" president--should I go on?--ARE propelled, even commanded by, religion.

Not for me, thanks. I've seen too much hate generated by religious convictions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 09:36 AM
Response to Reply #125
128. Crap.
If you get to claim that Hitler wasn't a Christian, we get to claim that your examples were not atheists.

Actually, all four examples are not examples of religious v. atheist, but of statist v. humanist. There is no evidence that Hitler ever murdered anyone, by his own hands, Stalin personally murdered a half-dozen or so - I don't know about Pol Pot or Mao. All of them murdered millions through the impersonal workings of the state. It has nothing to do with personal religiosity, or lack thereof. Everything to do with disdain for the humanity of others, and the subordination of the person to the state.

To this discussion, it's apples to lug wrenches.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theredpen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 10:29 AM
Response to Reply #128
139. Stalin wasn't an atheist then?
Do you people ever actually read anything or do you just see "atheist" and "Hitler" in the same post and hit reply. My post had nothing to do with atheism, just some selected atheists.

The claim was that "atheists" are inherently more compassionate. Stalin was an atheist -- pass the test? No. Live with it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
riverdale Donating Member (881 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 10:34 AM
Response to Reply #125
140. This is from atheists.org
In her March 11, 2004 column titled "W.W.J.K.: Who Would Jesus Kill?" writer Ann Coulter discusses the new Mel Gibson film and the issue of anti-Semitism. She then claims, without attribution or documentation:

"Indeed, Hitler denounced Christianity as an 'invention of the Jew' and vowed that the 'organized lie (of Christianity) must be smashed' so that the state would 'remain the absolute master.' Interestingly, this was the approach of all the great mass murderers of the last century -- all of whom were atheists (sic): Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot."

* While some political despots may have been Atheists, others were not. And whatever their crimes, Stalin and Mao justified their actions not in the name of Atheism but as part of a larger political agenda.

* Adolph Hitler was a Roman Catholic having been baptized into the faith, but he was also a staunch admirer of Martin Luther. A number of statements concerning religion, and Christianity, seem contradictory. In his book "Mein Kampf," Hitler wrote "I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Almighty Creator. By fighting the Jews, I am doing the Lord's work." He repeated these words in a 1938 address to the Nazi Reichstag, and in 1941 informed General Gerhart Engel, "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so."

more here: http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/08/hitler-atheist.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 11:43 AM
Response to Reply #125
145. Religion has killed jillions more people than non-religion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theredpen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #145
152. This isn't even remotely true
For the record: I don't think that anything Stalin et al did, or any other activity of a purely secular nature, reflects badly on atheism. I am responding to the claim that people with religious motivations have "killed jillions more people" than people who did not have religious motives. Please do not flame me because you think I am claiming that all atheists are mass murderers or that atheism promotes mass murder. Religion has had plenty of monsters; for example Vlad the Impaler is a freakin' saint in the Romanian Orthodox Church.

I listed several explicitly atheist figures who are collectively responsible for the deaths of 80-100 million innocent people.

There is no way you can top that, even if I toss you the Holocaust, which was ethnic cleansing and was not a religious act.

I don't even have to put wars and genocides were weren't religious in nature, but not explicitly atheist, into my tally either. I'd get the U.S. Civil War, WWI, WWII, Korea, and Vietnam. You can put those in your tally. It's a gimme. Call 'em "holy wars" — I'll let you have 'em.

You're still short tens of millions of human lives.

Does it really matter who killed these people?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kenfrequed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #152
155. A numbers game?
What about whole societies and cultures that were wiped out?

What about the conquistadors? "The requirement"? Maybe we should talk about percentages of a population? Surely if the Taino and Arawak still existed they might have something to say about it?

For the record:
Stalins numbers of murders and 'as-good-as-murders,' while horrifying enough, were salted with (surprisingly) the numbers of ill equiped soldiers he sent off to fight the fascists. Granted he was still a mass murderer but we should look at numbers very carefully and ensure we aren't using cold war propeganda. Historically speaking the numbers that Stalin killed are up to a lot of debate, though obviously the fact that he was a murderer is not up to debate.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theredpen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 12:44 PM
Response to Reply #155
158. Hey, I didn't start it
What about whole societies and cultures that were wiped out?
Probably the #1 destroyer of entire cultures and societies is the American genocide against the native Americans. Are you suggesting that was religiously motivated?
What about the conquistadors?
Are you also trying to suggest that Spain's conquest of land in the new world was religiously motivated?

Columbus didn't discover America looking for the Holy Grail, he discovered it looked for trade routes.
Historically speaking the numbers that Stalin killed are up to a lot of debate, though obviously the fact that he was a murderer is not up to debate.
Totally. The whole reason this sub-thread got started was that someone suggested that atheists (which would include Stalin) are inherently more compassionate people than... non-atheists I guess.

It would also be reasonable to point out that the vast majority of Stalin's crimes against his people were not motivated by atheism, but were just his way of doing business. That still doesn't make him any less of an atheist or any more of a nice guy.

I am not saying that Stalin in any way typifies atheists.

Man, you give one counter example and you're peppered with irrelevant side issues for the rest of eternity.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 01:09 PM
Response to Reply #158
160. You think that claiming a logical correlation between atheists and
mass murderers might have something to do with it?

Maybe for the same reason you theists get upset when reminded that Hitler and Torquemada were co-religionists?

Nobody likes being painted with the same bloody brush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theredpen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 03:15 PM
Response to Reply #160
170. Nobody likes straw men either.
You think that claiming a logical correlation between atheists and mass murderers might have something to do with it?
Please go back and find the part of any of my posts where I make this claim.

While your at it, please also ignored the disclaimer — in bright red letters — where I explicitly state that I am not making this claim. I apologize if you have some form of colorblindness that made the bright red text difficult to read.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kenfrequed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 03:28 PM
Response to Reply #170
171. I think
What was actually troubling was that you would whip out a canard about mass murder into a debate over the validity of a study which dealt with the voluntary service of doctors and whether the apparant religiousness of the medical providers in question affected that service.

Your protestations of innocense and the dealing out of red cards for logical fallacy to those that happen to disagree with you seem a bit less legitimate when you yell Nazi or Stalin in these crowded discussion rooms.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theredpen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 04:39 PM
Response to Reply #171
174. OK, so you don't have a point.
Quote the part of the post where I make the claim or stop haranguing me. I was responding to a sidebar claim that atheists were inherently more compassionate than non-atheists.

Is Stalin an atheist? (Yes or No)
Is he inherently more compassionate? (Yes or No)

Stalin is a glaring counter example. A counter example of an atheist who's kind of a jerk just doesn't have the impact.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kenfrequed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 06:24 PM
Response to Reply #174
185. So
You respond to a broad generalizations about Atheists being more humane with what? A list of who's who of despots? Of course 'its just a sidebar' and 'I have no point.' You chose to argue by exception against a generalization. You might have merely said gently that the person was, in fact, generalizing a bit. But you went for the big impact. Logic irrelevant.

I must say that I found it curious that you did not respond to my longer point on this line but I suppose I didn't have a point on that line either.

I could pull exceptionally nasty genocidal people out of a hat too as individuals and hold them up symbolically but then I would be arguing by exception as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theredpen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 07:08 PM
Response to Reply #185
195. Don't lecture me on logic when you can't follow a simple argument
You chose to argue by exception against a generalization.
No, I was not "arguing by exception." I did not make any conclusions about a group based on exceptional examples from within that group. I went out of my way to say that. You can't seem to find the place where I supposedly said otherwise. It's not like the posts are hard to find, kenfrequed.

A categorical generalization collapses if it fails to apply to any members of the category.
I must say that I found it curious that you did not respond to my longer point on this line but I suppose I didn't have a point on that line either.
I'd say it's a safe bet that you didn't.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 03:31 PM
Response to Reply #170
172. Posting a disclaimer that disagrees with everything you said in the
post does NOT get you off the hook.

You said what you said.

You can retract it if you wish, but please don't try to claim that you didn't say it.

I despise marigolds.

(disclaimer: I think marigolds are rather pretty)

That makes a whole lot of sense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theredpen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 04:39 PM
Response to Reply #172
175. Quote the contradiction
Quote the part of the post where I make the claim or stop haranguing me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skater314159 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 05:29 PM
Response to Reply #155
177. Do NOT mischaracterise
the Большая чистка! If you want to learn the truth, please go to the following English language sites:

http://www.gendercide.org/case_stalin.html
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm
or even http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge

The horror of the Great Purge was that it betrayed the beauty of the Revolution by killing the people it had promised freedom and equality to. It was more than just the bloody battles of ill equipped troops killed in the War... it was killing people who simply disagreed with the Soviet and the NKVD, or did not give allegence to it.

Any time people are killed by an ideology - be it political, social, economic, or relgious - it is a tragedy. Killing people is wrong... whether it is by the hands of an individual or through the buracratic actions of a State.

It doesn't matter if you have faith or none, do not use the dead to make a point in a message board, it is an insult to their memory and their descendants. I think that is something we should all agree on - no matter what ideology, philosophy or faith we adhere.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kenfrequed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 06:17 PM
Response to Reply #177
178. You misunderstand
I only claimed that the numbers of war dead are often added to Stalins total number of those he murdered. I fully acknowledge that he murdered many millions of people whether by the famines his people helped engineer to destroy and displace populations, or by sending so many to the gulags, or by the NKVD coming to take people away to kill, or by the much earlier purges. Stalin brutally killed, tortured, and imprisoned millions and millions of people. He attempted to destroy regional cultural identities and intentionally starved entire segments of the Soviet union.

All of these things are obviously true. But we must also acknowledge that there have been political interests in some countries to inflate these numbers any way they can. The spin from the people in these situations has been to make socialism out to be the absolute equivalent of Nazism at all times and in all situations. Though these days it seems more a method to obviously make Atheism and 'Godless'ness appear to be absoltely murderous.

I understand that you are worried about somehow Stalin being made to appear less inhumane but it is obvious that is not my intent. Just as obvious as it is that a true body count with regard to Stalin is impossible.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spoony Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 07:53 PM
Response to Reply #145
200. Jillions, yes of course.
I presume you have the one-line answers to back that up? Lol, noooo of course not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kenfrequed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 12:09 PM
Response to Reply #125
153. Well now
This is flamebait if I have ever seen it.

As to Pol Pot, Stalin, and Mao it might be forgivable to refer to them as being irreligious or atheistic in orientation. Of course it is worth noting that Stalin originally sought out the priesthood.

I rarely see this argument forwarded on progressive websites or in books by progressives.

As to the Nazi party you have run right off the damned rails with that arguement. The Nazi's always claimed to be Christian. It was in the platform, the speaches, and they even reflected bits of it their policy. This 'Nazi's as secularists' or 'Nazi's as Pagans' has been a PR move for decades. The Roman Catholic church has been particularly pushy about this arguement. Probably because of the blind eye the church had towards german anti-semitism of the time.

One can find both Protestant and Catholic writings of the time that support the Nazi's as one can find historical writings of both Catholics and Protestants that supported anti-semitism and led up to the holocaust.

What one cannot find in as much abundance are Pagan or Atheistic tracts of antisemitism or support of Nazi policy. I suppose they might have been lost, or possibly one could take the study of a scientific discipline such as genetics (even the warped and unscientific nazi version) to be an indicator of atheistic thought.

Of course then you would have to posthumously excommunicate the grandfather of genetics Mendel the Monk and cast him into the pits.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kwassa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #153
173. oh, the old "Hitler was a Christian" crap, huh? a cause for some atheists.
It only exists as a talking point to bash Christians, when there is no such historical proof.

"As to the Nazi party you have run right off the damned rails with that arguement. The Nazi's always claimed to be Christian."

This is unhistorical, to say the least. Saying it a hundred times won't make it any more true. You need to consider the source that is saying it, and for what reason.






Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LittleClarkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 06:19 PM
Response to Reply #173
180. I could say I was a fish
doesn't mean I will suddenly grow gills

It's not what you say you are, it's what you do to prove it. And the Nazi's weren't even remotely Christ-like. Neither are some Christians, mind you, but that's another matter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kenfrequed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 06:42 PM
Response to Reply #180
193. I see
Similar argument. "They aren't really really Christians..."

Similar response. Whether or not they were "good" Christians or not is pretty damned irrelevant. They Claimed to be Christians. They used old writings of Martin Luther and the Roman Catholic Church to support their anti-semitism. They even had the tacit approval many of the Christians of the time. A sizable percentage of the German population supported the Nazis. Were they all Pagans, Atheists, Socialists, or Moslems?

No. And actually the political language of the Nazi's is very similar to the religious right of today with an emphasis on how decadent, perverted, and godless the Weimar republic was.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LittleClarkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 07:08 PM
Response to Reply #193
196. What is exactly your point? They claimed to be Christians. And?
So that means that they typified Christianity? Or what?

I stand by my post. Christian = Christ-like. Are you saying that you think Jesus Christ, historical figure or actual son of God, preached Nazism? It doesn't much matter how many other Christians you can line up to agree with you, even if one of them was Martin Luther.

It is said that the church is not a museum for saints, but a hospital for sinners. Most of us are far from perfect. Work in progress and all that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beam me up scottie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 08:53 PM
Response to Reply #196
206. No one here is claiming bad christians typify or represent christianity.
(at least I hope not-that is grossly unfair)

But it is just as illogical to claim that saints do so either.

You are what I consider a good christian. But I don't think of you like that.

You, LittleClarkie are a good liberal and a great human being. Your religious beliefs have nothing to do with what I think of you.

Just like I hope you don't associate or judge me by my lack of them.

When I think of bad christians like Falwell, Phelps or any of the other member of the rogue's gallery, I think of them as rotten human beings who used their religion to justify their actions. I still think of them as christians, I guess, but more like the Martin Luther variety.

Liberal christians like you and my friends and family are more like the Martin Luther King variety. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LittleClarkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 10:27 PM
Response to Reply #206
212. Oops. I jumped at the reference before I'd read all the previous posts
No, it doesn't seem like that's what's being implied. But I used to have to deal with folks who were of the opinion the Christianity sucked and used the fact that the Nazis were professed Christians as one of their proofs.

But I think the point being made here is that there are crappy people everywhere, theist and atheist alike.

Thanks, btw. No, I don't think of you in that capacity either. I think of you as a good person I'm able to have a civil conversation with even if we wildly disagree. That is a valuable thing, and not often found.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beam me up scottie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 10:40 PM
Response to Reply #212
214. Oh I agree, there are people who cross the line on DU when it comes to critiquing christianity..
But I try not to be one of them.

We seem to have a new shit stirrer here, and I am trying my best to ignore them because I hate those all night marathons you and I always get caught up in!

Well, okay, I lied, :D sometimes they're fun, but nobody wins when they're about religion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theredpen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 08:45 PM
Response to Reply #193
205. Have you heard of "Arguing by Exception"?
Similar response. Whether or not they were "good" Christians or not is pretty damned irrelevant. They Claimed to be Christians.
Are you saying that the actions and opinions of an extremist faction 50 years ago reflect one Christianity as a whole?

You may want to read up on a logical fallacy called "argument by exception."

Also please note that I quoted you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beam me up scottie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 09:03 PM
Response to Reply #205
207. You might want to look up the No True Scotsman fallacy, dude.
None of you typify christianity. But you don't get to posthumously exclude the bad guys because you're afraid they make you look bad.

If you claim Martin Luther King Jr. you must also claim Martin Luther.

Just like if we want to claim Carl Sagan, we must also claim Pol Pot.

Them's the breaks. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LittleClarkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 10:22 PM
Response to Reply #207
211. Geez, this takes me back to alt.atheism
Edited on Wed Aug-01-07 10:23 PM by LittleClarkie
I learn about fallacies from them there atheists. I was their token theist (well, one of two).

Usenet sucked though, even so. Too trollish.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beam me up scottie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 10:41 PM
Response to Reply #211
215. Yes, there is a lot of history there.
This is why I like DU, the trolls usually out themselves and the mods put them out of their misery soon enough.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kenfrequed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 09:33 PM
Response to Reply #205
210. Absurd
Edited on Wed Aug-01-07 09:33 PM by kenfrequed
You quoted me? More like quote sifting. I expect that kind of behavior from undergrads writing a paper after a drinking binge, but this?

Seriously though. I think you are using some seriously tortured logic (and not-logic) to arrive at the point that you don't even seek to make anyhow?

You tossed out 3 probable atheists and tossed the Nazi's on for good measure. I refuted the Nazi's as being atheists. There is ample historical evidence that the overwhelming majority of them were Christians. Whether they were 'true christians' or not isn't really something I am concerned with.

Argument by exception is something you don't seem to grasp. By pointing out what is obviously historically verifiable, that the Nazi's probably believed themselves to be good Christians, is not argument by exception. Stating that Pol Pot or Hitler is representative of a particular ethos or religion would be arguing by exception.

The counter to someone stating 'factually' that "atheists are better people than x religion" is that it is a broad generalization. Not to drop the Nazi-bomb on the argument.

But of course an apologist like yourself must tie yourself in moral knots and believe three things at once all to clean up the errors of the church at the time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theredpen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-02-07 11:09 AM
Response to Reply #210
219. What makes you think I haven't been drinking?
Edited on Thu Aug-02-07 11:32 AM by theredpen
This has become tiresome.
Stating that Pol Pot or Hitler is representative of a particular ethos or religion would be arguing by exception.
Yes, and I didn't do that anywhre. Show me where I did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kenfrequed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 06:31 PM
Response to Reply #173
191. Unhistorical???
It was in Mein Kampf. It was in the book Hitler wrote. It doesn't matter whether he is compatible the current vein of what you percieve to be Christianity. He claimed to be Chrisitan. The Nazi party recognized the religion. That is also not in dispute. You can read their speeches, you can read their writings, you can look what they cite when they got into their anti-semetic tirades.

I would not deny that Stalin was an atheist, and that Russian Socialism was trying to be as atheistic as it could manage (though even they allowed for the existence of Russian Orthodox religion).

But I forget with Christians you can merely wash your hands of the whole affair by claiming someone wasn't 'really Christian.'

Denying something that is historically supported by evidence a thousand times won't change the fact that it is true. Well unless I suppose you burn all the books and materials that support that claim as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spoony Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 07:57 PM
Response to Reply #191
201. You're embarrassing yourself, badly.
Please, please stop it. He was neither an atheist nor a Christian. http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/mischedj/ca_hitler.html


"National Socialism and religion cannot exist together"

"Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity."

"Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure."

"There is something very unhealthy about Christianity." (p 339)

"Our epoch in the next 200 years will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold <its demise>."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beam me up scottie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 08:44 PM
Response to Reply #201
204. You're embarrassing yourself, actually.Citing disinfo from catholic websites doesn't help your case.
Sorry, Hitler never renounced his christianity, nor was he excommunicated.

His entire philosophy was based on the religious assumptions of Christian theism.
His words show he retained his belief in the christian god.

Let's set the bar:
Webster's:

1. A person professing belief in Jesus as the Christ, or in the religion based on the teachings of Jesus.
www.religioustolerance.org/media_rel3.htm



Nobody knows what was in Hitler's heart and mind, as well as the minds of other professed christians, and since there is no evidence that he was lying when he asserted faith in God and Christ, the only evidence we have is recorded history.

None of Hitler's table talk conversations were recorded or captured by audio, film, or broadcast on radio and there are two different versions.

One of them, the one you, the apologists and historical revisionists quote, was edited by Bormann who was anti-catholic.

Nowhere does Hitler denounce Jesus or his Christianity

A damaging blow to any apologist argument against Hitler's Christianity comes from the fact that nowhere in any known source does Hitler denounce his Christianity or Jesus.

If one is to use the Table-Talk as evidence against Hitler's Christianity, then where does it appear? Nowhere in Trevor-Roper's introduction does he argue that Hitler was not a Christian.

Nowhere in the conversations of Table-Talk, does Hitler denounce his Christianity or Jesus.

On the contrary, Hitler's (or Bormann's editing) aims to show that the Church form of religion produces lies, and that the original Christian religion was an incarnation of Bolshevism, from a falsification from St. Paul. But whenever he mentions Christ, Hitler has nothing but admiration:

Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism the destroyer. Nevertheless, the Galilean, who later was called Christ, intended something quite different. He must be regarded as a popular leader who too up His position against Jewry. Galilee was a colony where the Romans had probably installed Gallic legionaries, and it's certain that Jesus was not a Jew. The Jews, by the way, regarded Him as the son of a whore-- of a whore and a Roman soldier.
The decisive falsification of Jesus's doctrine was the work of St. Paul. He gave himself to this work with subtlety and for purposes of personal exploitation. For the Galiean's object was to liberate His country from Jewish oppression. He set Himself against Jewish capitalism, and that's why the Jews liquidated Him.
-Hitler

Christ was an Aryan, and St. Paul used his doctrine to mobilise the criminal underworld and thus organise a proto-Bolsevism.
-Hitler



As tortured as Hitler's logic is, He never condemns Jesus. On the contrary, he sees Jesus as an Aryan, a liberator against Jewish oppression! If Hitler did not see himself as a Christian, then why doesn't he condemn Jesus? Why doesn't he accuse Christ as being a Jew? Why does he see Christ as a liberator?

Biographer John Toland explains Hitler's reason for exterminating the Jews:

Still a member in good standing of the Church of Rome despite detestation of its hierarchy, 'I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so,' he carried within him its teaching that the Jew was the killer of God. The extermination, therefore, could be done without a twinge of conscience since he was merely acting as the avenging hand of God-- so long as it was done impersonally, without cruelty.

Moreover, there are no known documents, speeches, or proclamations by Hitler where he even comes close to denouncing his belief in Christianity, or Jesus.

The Protestant and Catholic Churches in Hitler's time never accused Hitler of apostasy. Hitler's Christianity in Germany was never questioned until years after WWII and then only by Western Christians who are embarrassed to have him as a member of their faith-system.

The reasoning by the apologists in regards to the Table-Talk seems to be that because Hitler spoke against organized religion, then he must therefore be anti-Christian. But even if we take this simplistic approach and assume the Table-Talk as the actual thoughts and beliefs of Hitler, it fails for the simple reason that dismissing a religion of one's own faith does not exclude or excuse one from a personal belief as a Christian. A Christian is simply a person who believes in God and Jesus in some form or manner. Christianity, the body of believing people, simply does not require organized religion at all.

There are many examples of prominent Christians who denounced religions who opposed their own personal beliefs. Indeed, the Protestant reformer, Martin Luther who was once a Catholic monk, denounced the Catholic hierarchy as the work of the anti-Christ and establised by the Devil . Yet I have yet to see a Lutheran accuse Luther as being a non-Christian. The history of Christianity is filled with examples of people of differing Christian faiths denouncing each other. I have personally conversed with many Christians who have denounced all forms of religious organizations, yet they have a strong belief in God and Jesus Christ.

Indeed, even the Table-Talk has Hitler saying:

Luther had the merit of rising against the Pope and the organisation of the Church. It was the first of the great revolutions. And thanks to his translation of the Bible, Luther replaced our dialects by the great German language! -Table-Talk

If simply speaking against a Christian religion were enough to oust one from Christianity, then some of the most influential Christians would have to reside with Hitler.

The papacy is truly the real power and tyranny of the Antichrist.... As beautiful as it was to keep a state of virginity, in the early days of Christianity, so abominable has it now become, when it is used as a means of eliciting Christ's help and grace. -Martin Luther (Luther's Confession, March 1528)

We maintain that the government of the Church was converted into a species of foul and insufferable tyranny. -John Calvin (The Necessity of Reforming the Church, 1544)

If we used the same logic of the apologists against Hitler, then we should remove Luther, Calvin, and many other prominent so-called-Christians from membership of Christianity.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/HitlerSources.htm



Unused quotes

In an attempt to rewrite history, those who desire to eliminate Hitler from membership of Christianity, always find an excuse to dismiss Hitler's actual words. Instead they rely on indirect quotes from a questionable source such as Bormann's edited version of the table talk. But if we were to use this form of dubious scholarship, shouldn't we also quote Hitler from other indirect sources? If so, then, again, their plan fails and reveals the slanting of their bias. For if we took these apocryphal sources as evidence, then Hitler's Christianity become even more evident.

Those who knew Hitler remarked about his Christian views.

Here we have a Christian minister to his fellow Christians:

If anyone can lay claim to God's help, then it is Hitler, for without God's benevolent fatherly hand, without his blessing, the nation would not be where it stands today. It is an unbelievable miracle that God has bestowed on our people.

-Minister Rust, in a speech to a mass meeting of German Chrisitans on June 29, 1933



The established Methodist church paper, the Friedensglocke, vouched for the authenticity of a story about Hitler where he invited a group of deaconesses from the Bethel Institutions into his home at Obersalzberg:

The deaconesses entered the chamber and were astonished to see the pictures of Frederick the Great, Luther, and Bismarck on the wall. Then Hitler said:

Those are the three greatest men that God has given the German people. From Fredrick the Great I have learned bravery, and from Bismarck statecraft. The greatest of the three is Dr. Martin Luther, for he made it possible to bring unity among the German tribes by giving them a common language through his translation of the Bible into German....



One sister could not refrain from saying: Herr Reichkanzler, from where do you get the courage to undertake the great changes in the whole Reich?

Thereupon Hitler took out of his pocket the New Testament of Dr. Martin Luther, which one could see had been used very much, and said earnestly: "From God's word."

Even the Cardinal Faulhaber of Munich who visited Hitler at his mountain retreat in Obersalzburg confessed:


Without a doubt the chancellor lives in faith in God. He recognizes Christianity as the foundation of Western culture...

And this comes from reputable Christian sources of the day including a Cardinal! How odd that there are Christians today who think they can divine the mind of an anti-Christian Hitler they never met, removed by a generation, and dismiss all his direct quotes about Jesus, while denying their own brethren of the Church who actually talked with Hitler. If prominent Christians in the 1930s could be so easily deceived, could not be the same be applied to today's Christians? And if deception describes the temper of the faithful, then what does that say for Christianity as a whole and the thinking process that it entails?

And on Hitler's allegiance to his "true" Christian spirit:

I do not remember even a single occasion when Hitler gave any instructions that ran counter to the true Christian spirit and to humaness.

-Wagener, in Hitler-- Memoirs of a Confinant, p.147

To Wagener, Hitler supposedly confessed his attitude toward his view of true Christianity as a form of socialism as opposed to those he thought did not understand Christianity. Note, Hitler's view here of socialism was not like that of communism (Hitler detested communism) but rather one of a National nature (very similar to Right Wing Christians in America who want to nationalize Christianity) :

Socialism is a question of attitude toward life, of the ethical outlook on life of all who live together in a common ethnic or national space. Socialism is a Weltanschauung!

But in actual fact there is nothing new about this Weltanschauung. Whenever I read the New Testament Gospels and the revelations of various of the prophets and imagine myself back in the era of the Roman and late Hellenistic, as well as the Oriental world, I am astonished at all that has been made of the teachings of these divinely inspired men, especially Jesus Christ, which are so clear and unique, heightened to religiosity. They were the ones who created this new worldview which we now call socialism, they established it, they taught it and they lived it! But the communities that called themselves Christian churches did not understand it! Or if they did, they denied Christ and betrayed him! For they transformed the holy idea of Christian socialism into its opposite! They killed it, just as, at the time, the Jews nailed Jesus to the cross; they buried it, just as the body of Christ was buried. But they allowed Christ to be resurrected, instigating the belief that his teachings too, were reborn!

It is in this that the monstrous crime of these enemies of Christian socialism lies! What the basest hypocrisy they carry before them the cross-- the instrument of that murder which, in their thoughts, they commit over and over-- as a new divine sign of Christian awareness, and allow mankind to kneel to it. They even pretend to be preaching the teachings of Christ. But their lives and deeds are a constant blow against these teachings and their Creator and a defamation of God!

We are the first to exhume these teachings! Through us alone, and not until now, do these teachings celebrate their resurrection! Mary and Magdalene stood at the empty tomb. For they were seeking the dead man! But we intend to raise the treasures of the living Christ!

Herein lies the essential element of our mission: we must bring back to the German Volk the recognition of those teachings! For what did the falsification of the original concept of Christian love, of the community of fate before God and of socialism lead to? By their fruits ye shall know them! The suppression of freedom of opinion, the persecution of the true Christians, the vile mass murders of the Inquisition and the burning of witches, the armed campaigns against the people of free and true Christian faith, the destruction of towns and villages, the hauling away of their cattle and their goods, the destruction of their flourishing economies, and the condemnation of their leaders before tribunals, which, in their unrelenting hypocrisy, can only be described as balaphemous. That is the true face of those sanctimonious churches that have placed themselves between God and man, motivated by selfishness, personal greed for recognition and gain, and the ambition to maintain their high-handed willfulness against Christ's deep understanding of the necessity of a socialist community of men and nations. We must turn all the sentiments of the Volk, all its thinking, acting, even its beliefs, away from the anti-Christian, smug individualism of the past, from the egotism and stupid Phariseeism of personal arrogance, and we must educate the youth in particular in the spirit of those of Christ's words that we must interpret anew: love one another; be considerate of your fellow man; remember that each one of you is not alone a creature of God, but that you are all brothers! This youth will, wit loathing and contempt, abandon those hypocrites who have Christ on their lips but the devil in their hearts, who give alms in order to remain undisturbed as they themselves throw their money around, who invoke the Fatherland as they fill their own purses by the toil of others, who preach peace and incite to war.... and on it goes.

- Hitler in Memoirs of a Confinant, p.139-140

In the second interview from Hitler's secret conversations, Hitler reveals:

We do not judge merely by artistic or military standards or even by purely scientific ones. We judge by the spiritual energy which a people is capable of putting forth, which will enable it in ten years to recapture what is has lost in a thousand years of warfare. I intend to set up a thousand-year Reich and anyone who supports me in this battle is a fellow-fighter for a unique spiritual-- I would say divine-- creation.... Rudolf Hess, my assistant of many years standing, would tell you: If we have such a leader, God is with us.

-Hitler, in Secret Conversations With Hitler, p. 68

On the Concordat between Germany and the Vatican, Hitler remarked:

We do not forget the influence of the churches. There will definitely be no Vatican crusade against us. We know Monsignor Pacelli since he was the Vatican's diplomatic representative in Germany for twelve years; as Secretary of State and adviser to Pope XI it is greatly in his interest that the German Catholics should at last have a statute .

-Hitler, in Secret Conversations With Hitler, p. 79

Rarely do you see apologists against Hitler's Christianity quoting from these memoirs and secret conversations, yet they want us to buy only out-of-context quotes from the Table-Talk. There are many more religious quotes from these other sources, too numerous to cite here. I only give these examples to show that Hitler's Christian thoughts are expressed even more vividly in these extraneous sources. If I had relied only on these sources, the clarion cry of foul would rise from the ire of Christian apologists, yet their only rebuttal comes from the even more dubious copy of the Table Talk edited by Bormann

http://www.nobeliefs.com/HitlerSources.htm


So much for Table Talk.

Let's move on to recorded history.

Myth 1: Hitler was not a Christian


The entire section on Hitler's Christianity provides ample evidence for his brand of Christianity. The evidence itself destroys any opinions or beliefs about Hitler's alleged apostasy.

The evidence shows that:

Hitler was born and baptized into Catholicism

His Jewish antisemitism came from his Christian background.

His early personal notes shows his interest in religion and Biblical views.

He believed that the Bible represented the history of mankind.

His Nazi party platform (their version of a constitution) included a section on Positive Christianity, and he never removed it.

He confessed his Christianity.

He tried to establish a united Reich German Church.

Hitler allowed the destruction of Jewish synagogues and temples, but not Christian churches.

He encouraged Nazis to worship in Christian churches.

He spoke of his Christian beliefs in his speeches and proclamations.

His contemporaries, friends, Protestant ministers and Catholics priests, including the Vatican, thought of Hitler as a Christian.

The Catholic Church never excommunicated Hitler. He died a Catholic.

To ignore the evidence of Hitler's Christianity demonstrates how power of belief can obscure the facts.

****************************

The Christianity of Hitler revealed in his speeches and proclamations

Compiled by Jim Walker

Originated: 27 Feb. 1997

Through subterfuge and concealment, many of today's Church leaders and faithful Christians have camouflaged the Christianity of Adolf Hitler and have attempted to mark him an atheist, a pagan cult worshipper, or a false Christian. However, from the earliest formation of the Nazi party and throughout the period of conquest and growth, Hitler expressed his Christian support to the German citizenry and soldiers. In the 1920s, Hitler's German Workers' Party (pre Nazi term) adopted a "Programme" with twenty-five points (the Nazi version of a constitution). In point twenty-four, their intent clearly demonstrates, from the very beginning, their stand in favor of a "positive" Christianity:

24. We demand liberty for all religious denominations in the State, so far as they are not a danger to it and do not militate against the morality and moral sense of the German race. The Party, as such, stands for positive Christianity, but does not bind itself in the matter of creed to any particular confession....




Hitler's speeches and proclamations, even more clearly, reveal his faith and feelings toward a Christianized Germany. Nazism presents an embarrassment to Christianity and demonstrates the danger of faith. The following words from Hitler show his disdain for atheism, and pagan cults, and reveals the strength of his Christian feelings:


My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before in the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.... When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom to-day this poor people is plundered and exploited.
-Adolf Hitler, in his speech on 12 April 1922

Note, "brood of vipers" appears in Matt 3: 7 & 12:34. John 2:15 depicts Jesus driving out the money changers (adders) from the temple. The word "adders" also appears in Psalms 140:3


It will at any rate be my supreme task to see to it that in the newly awakened NSDAP, the adherents of both Confessions can live peacefully together side by side in order that they may take their stand in the common fight against the power which is the mortal foe of any true Christianity.
-Adolf Hitler, in an article headed "A New Beginning," 26 Feb. 1925


Except the Lord built the house they labour in vain.... The truth of that text was proved if one looks at the house of which the foundations were laid in 1918 and which since then has been in building.... The world will not help, the people must help itself. Its own strength is the source of life. That strength the Almighty has given us to use; that in it and through it we may wage the battle of our life.... The others in the past years have not had the blessing of the Almighty-- of Him Who in the last resort, whatever man may do, holds in His hands the final decision. Lord God, let us never hesitate or play the coward, let us never forget the duty which we have taken upon us.... We are all proud that through God's powerful aid we have become once more true Germans.
-Adolf Hitler, in a speech in March 1933





The Government, being resolved to undertake the political and moral purification of our public life, are creating and securing the conditions necessary for a really profound revival of religious life.... The National Government regard the two Christian Confessions as the weightiest factors for the maintenance of our nationality. They will respect the agreements concluded between them and the federal States. Their rights are not to be infringed.... It will be the Government's care to maintain honest co-operation between Church and State; the struggle against materialistic views and for a real national community is just as much in the interest of the German nation as in that of the welfare of our Christian faith. The Government of the Reich, who regard Christianity as the unshakable foundation of the morals and moral code of the nation, attach the greatest value to friendly relations with the Holy See and are endeavouring to develop them.
-Adolf Hitler, in his speech to the Reichstag on 23 March 1933




We want honestly to earn the resurrection of our people through our industry, our perseverance, our will. We ask not of the Almighty 'Lord, make us free'!-- we want to be active, to work, to agree together as brothers, to strive in rivalry with one another to bring about the hour when we can come before Him and when we may ask of Him: 'Lord, Thou seest that we have transformed ourselves, the German people is not longer the people of dishonour, of shame, of war within itself, of faintheartedness and little faith: no, Lord, the German people has become strong again in spirit, strong in will, strong in endurance, strong to bear all sacrifices.' 'Lord, we will not let Thee go: bless now our fight for our freedom; the fight we wage for our German people and Fatherland.'
-Adolf Hitler, giving prayer in a speech on May Day 1933



This is for us a ground for satisfaction, since we desire that the fight in the religious camps should come to an end... all political action in the parties will be forbidden to priests for all time, happy because we know what is wanted by millions who long to see in the priest only the comforter of their souls and not the representative of their political convictions.
-Adolf Hitler, in a speech to the men of the SA. at Dormund, 9 July 1933 on the day after the signing of the Concordat.


National Socialism has always affirmed that it is determined to take the Christian Churches under the protection of the State.... The decisive factor which can justify the existence alike of Church and State is the maintenance of men's spiritual and bodily health, for it that health were destroyed it would mean the end of the State and also the end of the Church.... It is my sincere hope that thereby for Germany, too, through free agreement there has been produced a final clarification of spheres in the functions of the State and of one Church.
-Adolf Hitler, on a wireless on 22 July, the evening before the Evangelical Church Election

The fact that the Vatican is concluding a treaty with the new Germany means the acknowledgement of the National Socialist state by the Catholic Church. This treaty shows the whole world clearly and unequivocally that the assertion that National Socialism is hostile to religion is a lie.
-Adolf Hitler, 22 July 1933, writing to the Nazi Party (quoted from John Cornwell's "Hitler's Pope"


We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.
-Adolf Hitler, in a speech in Berlin on 24 Oct. 1933




I believe that Providence would never have allowed us to see the victory of the Movement if it had the intention after all to destroy us at the end.
-Adolf Hitler, in a speech to old members of the Party at Munich on 8 Nov. 1933


The German Church and the People are practically the same body. Therefore there could be no issue between Church and State. The Church, as such, has nothing to do with political affairs. On the other hand, the State has nothing to do with the faith or inner organization of the Church. The election of November 12th would be an expression of church constituency, but not as a Church.
-Adolf Hitler, answering C. F. Macfarland about Church & State (in his book, The New Church and the New Germany)


While we destroyed the Centre Party, we have not only brought thousands of priests back into the Church, but to millions of respectable people we have restored their faith in their religion and in their priests. The union of the Evangelical Church in a single Church for the whole Reich, the Concordat with the Catholic Church, these are but milestones on the road which leads to the establishment of a useful relation and a useful co operation between the Reich and the two Confessions.
-Adolf Hitler, in his New Year Message on 1 Jan. 1934


Imbued with the desire to secure for the German people the great religious, moral, and cultural values rooted in the two Christian Confessions, we have abolished the political organizations but strengthened the religious institutions.
-Adolf Hitler, speaking in the Reichstag on 30 Jan. 1934


It would have been more to the point, more honest and more Christian, in past decades not to support those who intentionally destroyed healthy life than to rebel against those who have no other wish than to avoid disease. Moreover, a policy of laissez faire in this sphere is not only cruelty to the individual guiltless victims but also to the nation as a whole.... If the Churches were to declare themselves ready to take over the treatment and care of those suffering from hereditary diseases, we should be quite ready to refrain from sterilizing them.
-Adolf Hitler, in his speech on 30 Jan. 1934


We have experienced a miracle, something unique, something the like of which there has hardly been in the history of the world. God first allowed our people to be victorious for four and a half years, then He abased us, laid upon us a period of shamelessness, but now after a struggle of fourteen years he has permitted us to bring that period to a close. It is a miracle which has been wrought upon the German people.... It shows us that the Almighty has not deserted our people, that He received it into favour at the moment when it rediscovered itself. And that our people shall never again lose itself, that must be our vow so long as we shall live and so long as the Lord gives us the strength to carry on the fight.
-Adolf Hitler, in a speech to the "Old Guard" of the Party at Munich on 19 March, 1934


The National Socialist State professes its allegiance to positive Christianity. It will be its honest endeavour to protect both the great Christian Confessions in their rights, to secure them from interference with their doctrines (Lehren ), and in their duties to constitute a harmony with the views and the exigencies of the State of to-day.
-Adolf Hitler, on 26 June 1934, to Catholic bishops to assure them that he would take action against the new pagan propaganda


No, it is not we that have deserted Christianity, it is those who came before us who deserted Christianity. We have only carried through a clear division between politics which have to do with terrestrial things, and religion, which must concern itself with the celestial sphere. There has been no interference with the doctrine (Lehre ) of the Confessions or with their religious freedom (Bekenntnisfreiheit ), nor will there be any such interference. On the contrary the State protects religion, though always on the one condition that religion will not be used as a cover for political ends....
National Socialism neither opposes the Church nor is it anti-religious, but on the contrary it stands on the ground of a real Christianity.... For their interests cannot fail to coincide with ours alike in our fight against the symptoms of degeneracy in the world of to-day, in our fight against a Bolshevist culture, against atheistic movement, against criminality, and in our struggle for a consciousness of a community in our national life... These are not anti-Christian, these are Christian principles! And I believe that if we should fail to follow these principles then we should to be able to point to our successes, for the result of our political battle is surely not unblest by God.
-Adolf Hitler, in his speech at Koblenz, to the Germans of the Saar, 26 Aug. 1934


So far as the Evangelical Confessions are concerned we are determined to put an end to existing divisions, which are concerned only with the forms of organization, and to create a single Evangelical Church for the whole Reich....
And we know that were the great German reformer with us to-day he would rejoice to be freed from the necessity of his own time and, like Ulrich von Hutten, his last prayer would be not for the Churches of the separate States: it would be of Germany that he would think and of the Evangelical Church of Germany.
-Adolf Hitler, in his Proclamation at the Parteitag at Nuremberg on 5 Sept. 1934



What we are we have become not against, but with, the will of Providence. And so long as we are true and honourable and of good courage in fight, so long as we believe in our great work and do not capitulate, we shall continue to enjoy in the future the blessing of Providence.
-Adolf Hitler, at Rosenheim in Bavaria, 11 Aug. 1935


Only so you can appeal to your God and pray Him to support and bless your courage, your work, your perseverance, your strength, your resolution, and with all these your claim on life.
-Adolf Hitler, in a speech at Frankfurt on 16 March 1936


In this world him who does not abandon himself the Almighty will not desert. Him who helps himself will the Almighty always also help; He will show him the way by which he can gain his rights, his freedom, and therefore his future.
-Adolf Hitler, in a speech at Hamburg on 20 March 1936


Providence has caused me to be Catholic, and I know therefore how to handle this Church.
-Adolf Hitler, reportedly to have said in Berlin in 1936 on the enmity of the Catholic Church to National Socialism


I believe in Providence and I believe Providence to be just. Therefore I believe that Providence always rewards the strong, the industrious, and the upright.
-Adolf Hitler, in a speech to National Socialist women at the Nuremberg Parteitag of 1936 <11 Sept. 1936>


So long as they concern themselves with their religious problems the State does not concern itself with them. But so soon as they attempt by any means whatsoever-- by letters, Encyclica, or otherwise-- to arrogate to themselves rights which belong to the State alone we shall force them back into their proper spiritual, pastoral activity.
-Adolf Hitler, in a speech delivered in Berlin on the May Day festival, 1937


We National Socialists, too, have deep in our hearts our own faith. We cannot do otherwise. No man can mould the history of peoples or of the world unless he has upon his will and his capacities the blessing of Providence.
-Adolf Hitler, to Nazi leaders on 2 June 1937, as reported by a correspondent of the "Daily Telegraph"


I will never allow anyone to divide this people once more into religious camps, each fighting the other....
You, my Brown Guard, will regard it as a matter of course that this German people should go only by the way which Providence ordained for it when it gave to Germans the common language. So we go forward with the profoundest faith in God into the future. Would that which we have achieved have been possible if Providence had not helped us?
-Adolf Hitler, in a speech at Regensburg on 6 June 1937


If we pursue this way, if we are decent, industrious, and honest, if we so loyally and truly fulfill our duty, then it is my conviction that in the future as in the past the Lord God will always help us. In the long run He never leaves decent folk in the lurch. Often He may test them, He may send trials upon them, but in the long run He always lets His sun shine upon them once more and at the end He gives them His blessing.
-Adolf Hitler, at the Harvest Thanksgiving Festival on the Buckeburg held on 3 Oct. 1937


This Winter Help Work is also in the deepest sense a Christian work. When I see, as I so often do, poorly clad girls collecting with such infinite patience in order to care for those who are suffering from the cold while they themselves are shivering with cold, then I have the feeling that they are all apostles of a Christianity-- and in truth of a Christianity which can say with greater right than any other: This is the Christianity of an honest confession, for behind it stand not words but deeds.
-Adolf Hitler, speaking of the Winter Help Campaign on 5 Oct. 1937


Remain strong in your faith, as you were in former years. In this faith, in its close-knit unity our people to-day goes straight forward on its way and no power on earth will avail to stop it.
-Adolf Hitler, in a speech at Coburg on 15 Oct. 1937


In this hour I would ask of the Lord God only this: that, as in the past, so in the years to come He would give His blessing to our work and our action, to our judgement and our resolution, that He will safeguard us from all false pride and from all cowardly servility, that He may grant us to find the straight path which His Providence has ordained for the German people, and that He may ever give us the courage to do the right, never to falter, never to yield before any violence, before any danger.... I am convinced that men who are created by God should live in accordance with the will of the Almighty.... If Providence had not guided us I could often never have found these dizzy paths.... Thus it is that we National Socialists, too, have in the depths of our hearts our faith. We cannot do otherwise: no man can fashion world-history or the history of peoples unless upon his purpose and his powers there rests the blessings of this Providence.
-Adolf Hitler, in a speech at Wurzburg on 27 June 1937


National Socialism is not a cult-movement-- a movement for worship; it is exclusively a 'volkic' political doctrine based upon racial principles. In its purpose there is no mystic cult, only the care and leadership of a people defined by a common blood-relationship.... We will not allow mystically-minded occult folk with a passion for exploring the secrets of the world beyond to steal into our Movement. Such folk are not National Socialists, but something else-- in any case something which has nothing to do with us. At the head of our programme there stand no secret surmisings but clear-cut perception and straightforward profession of belief. But since we set as the central point of this perception and of this profession of belief the maintenance and hence the security for the future of a being formed by God, we thus serve the maintenance of a divine work and fulfill a divine will-- not in the secret twilight of a new house of worship, but openly before the face of the Lord.... Our worship is exclusively the cultivation of the natural, and for that reason, because natural, therefore God-willed. Our humility is the unconditional submission before the divine laws of existence so far as they are known to us men.
-Adolf Hitler, in Nuremberg on 6 Sept. 1938.




The National Socialist Movement has wrought this miracle. If Almighty God granted success to this work, then the Party was His instrument.
-Adolf Hitler, in his proclamation to the German People on 1 Jan. 1939


Amongst the accusations which are directed against Germany in the so called democracies is the charge that the National Socialist State is hostile to religion. In answer to that charge I should like to make before the German people the following solemn declaration:
1. No one in Germany has in the past been persecuted because of his religious views (Einstellung), nor will anyone in the future be so persecuted.... The Churches are the greatest landed proprietors after the State... Further, the Church in the National Socialist State is in many ways favoured in regard to taxation, and for gifts, legacies, &c., it enjoys immunity from taxation.
It is therefore, to put mildly-- effrontery when especially foreign politicians make bold to speak of hostility to religion in the Third Reich.... I would allow myself only one question: what contributions during the same period have France, England, or the United States made through the State from the public funds?
3. The National Socialist State has not closed a church, nor has it prevented the holding of a religious service, nor has it ever exercised any influence upon the form of a religious service. It has not exercised any pressure upon the doctrine nor on the profession of faith of any of the Confessions. In the National Socialist State anyone is free to seek his blessedness after his own fashion.... There are ten thousands and ten thousands of priests of all the Christian Confessions who perform their ecclesiastical duties just as well as or probably better than the political agitators without ever coming into conflict with the laws of the State.... This State has only once intervened in the internal regulation of the Churches, that is when I myself in 1933 endeavoured to unite the weak and divided Protestant Churches of the different States into one great and powerful Evangelical Church of the Reich. That attempt failed through the opposition of the bishops of some States; it was therefore abandoned. For it is in the last resort not our task to defend or even to strengthen the Evangelical Church through violence against its own representatives.... But on one point it is well that there should be no uncertainty: the German priest as servant of God we shall protect, the priest as political enemy of the German State we shall destroy.
-Adolf Hitler, a speech in the Reichstag on 30 Jan. 1939


If positive Christianity means love of one's neighbour, i.e. the tending of the sick, the clothing of the poor, the feeding of the hungry, the giving of drink to those who are thirsty, then it is we who are the more positive Christians. For in these spheres the community of the people of National Socialist Germany has accomplished a prodigious work.
-Adolf Hitler, in his speech to the "Old Guard" at Munich on 24 Feb. 1939


Sources:

Baynes, Norman H. Ed. "The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939," Vol. 1 of 2, Oxford University Press, 1942

Cornwell, John, "Hitler's Pope: The Secret History of Pius XII," Viking, 1999



From Myth #2:

The only evidence we have, or could ever have, about people who call themselves Christian comes from the very confession of those making the claim. And since Hitler makes his claim to Christianity abundantly and clearly, we can only rely on his claim, regardless of whether he actually believed in Christ or not. False Christianity has as just much validity as any claim to Christianity, even if you could prove dishonesty.

But regardless of how you view a person's claim to their religion, to say Hitler used Christianity only for political forces has absolutely no historical basis to back it up. To simply rely on belief or opinion says absolutely nothing about historical fact.




The No True Scotsman fallacy is not proof.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spoony Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 07:51 PM
Response to Reply #173
199. The only purpose that argument serves is to
expose pseudo-intellectuals and angry bigots who failed history but read somewhere that Hitler was a Catholic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beam me up scottie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 08:33 PM
Response to Reply #199
203. "read somewhere that Hitler was a Catholic." That came from Hitler, actually.
1.) Hitler claimed to believe in the christian god.

2.) Hitler never denounced his christianity.

3.) Hitler was never excommunicated from the catholic church.

4.) Hitler mentioned his religious beliefs many, many times throughout his adult life, both in public and in private.

5.) Not one single christian and/or historical revisionist has been able to prove that Hitler stopped believing in the christian god.


You need to prove that Hitler lied about being a christian.

Please don't bother citing edited notes from Martin Bormann and/or other hearsay found in "Hitler's Table Talk" or opinions from christians who want to distance themselves from Hitler by narrowly redefining christianity in order to posthumously exclude him from the religion.

I understand their desire to do so, but neither christians nor Germans can change the rules to disown one of history's cruelest human beings.

I am using the term "christian" as a noun, not as an adjective, since there is no doubt whatsoever that Hitler did not follow all of the teachings of Jesus Christ, and also because you so adamantly claimed that he was NOT one.

The broad and inclusive definition of "christian" followed by a brief explanation from the wise people at ReligiousTolerance.org :


any individual or group who devoutly, thoughtfully, seriously, and prayerfully regards themselves to be Christian. Included are: the Roman Catholic church; the Eastern Orthodox churches, conservative, mainline, and liberal Christian faith groups; The church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormons); Jehovah's Witnesses and a thousand or so other religious organizations that identify themselves as Christian. Also included are those who consider themselves to be Christian even though they do not identify themselves with any particular religious group.

***

* To conservative Protestants, a Christian is often defined according to their salvation status. Their definition is "true" to them, because it agrees with some of their foundational beliefs: that the Bible is inerrant, that salvation is by grace, and that one must be "born-again" to be saved and avoid eternal punishment in Hell.

* To Roman Catholics, a Christian is often defined according to their baptism status. Their definition is "true" to them, because it agrees with their fundamental beliefs, including their understanding of the Bible, the declarations of many Church Councils, the statements of many popes, and their church's tradition.

* To many in the very early Christian movement, a Christian was defined as a person who was baptized and proclaimed "Jesus is Lord." Their definition was "true" to them because it agreed with their understanding of their religious belief at a time when the Christian Scriptures (New Testament) had not yet been written and assembled.

And so on, with the remaining definitions.

***
So there is not a single version of Christianity; there are literally thousands. Many of these faith groups believe that they alone are following Jesus' teachings; they are the "true" church. The Roman Catholic Church issued a formal statement to that effect in 2000-SEP. Although many ecumenical efforts are active today, the Christian religion remains split into thousands of denominations -- in essence thousands of varieties of Christians.




A quick definition of the No True Scotsman fallacy from SkepticWiki:

No True Scotsman

Definition

No True Scotsman is a type of logical fallacy in which the arguer claims that elements of class X have a property, and, when presented with a counter example Y, asserts that Y therefore does not belong to class X.

The argument is a fallacy since it redefines the class as needed to suit the argument. In doing so, it can make any claim at all vacuously true under the new definition.

Examples

Antagonist: "Because Christians fear God, they will act more ethically."
Protagonist: "But Jim Bakker wasn't acting ethically when he stole millions from his church."
Antagonist: "Yes, well, Jim Bakker seemed to be a Christian, but apparently, deep in his heart he was not."



I am not claiming with absolute certainty that Hitler remained a catholic or even a christian.

I am not claiming that Hitler persecuted jews solely because of his religious beliefs.

I am not claiming that Hitler in any way represents christians or christianity.

What I am claiming is that Hitler could, and very possibly did, retain his belief in the christian god throughout his adulthood.

Since Hitler claimed to be a christian, I am not the person whose words you need refute, he is.

The burden of proof is on you since you made the absolute claim that he was not a christian.


So go for it. Prove he lied.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beam me up scottie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 09:09 PM
Response to Reply #173
209. So you're still claiming to posses psychic powers, kwassa?
Edited on Wed Aug-01-07 09:10 PM by beam me up scottie
The Nazis did include christianity in their ideology and Hitler did cite his christian faith throughout his adulthood.

If you wish to prove he was lying, I'll need proof that you have absolute knowledge of what the man believed and didn't.

Sucks for you, but you're the one accusing us of using the truth to "bash" christians when we're doing no such thing.

If you claim the good guys, you gotta claim the bad ones too. This ain't no country club.





edit sp
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beam me up scottie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 11:15 PM
Response to Reply #173
216. To say the Nazis were christian is unhistorical? Really? Gott Mit Uns, kwassa.





Hitler Oath:
I swear by God,
this holy oath,
to the Führer of the German Reich and people.
http://www.nobeliefs.com/images/HitlerOath.mpg">Watch Movie





SAVING A NAZI CHURCH
Aryans on the Altar; Swastikas on the Church Bells

By David Crossland in Berlin

A Protestant parish in Berlin has grabbed an ethical dilemma by the horns with an appeal for funds to save Germany's last Nazi era church. The building's interior is full of Third Reich symbols. The aim is to turn it into a place of remembrance.

The Third Reich collapsed 61 years ago but you wouldn't know it if you walk into the Martin Luther Memorial Church in Berlin. The stark entrance hall is lit by a black chandelier in the shape of an iron cross. The pulpit has a wooden carving of a muscular Jesus leading a helmeted Wehrmacht soldier and surrounded by an Aryan family. The baptismal font is guarded by a wooden statue of a stormtrooper from Adolf Hitler's paramilitary Sturmabteilung (SA) unit clutching his cap.

Friezes depicting the eagle of the Reich and helmeted soldiers' heads have been carved into a giant stone arch framing the chancel. The organ was used at the 1935 Nuremberg rally of the Nazi party and egend has it that the church was originally meant to be named after Adolf Hitler. Indeed, the only thing that might irk the Führer were he to inspect the building now is the absence of swastikas -- there used to be plenty, but they have been scratched out from the walls because the Nazi symbol is illegal in Germany.

The church bells -- which were also embossed in swastikas -- are likewise missing. They were removed and melted down in 1942 to forge much-needed guns and ammunition.

It is the country's last surviving Nazi era church with an interior still dominated by fascist symbols. Consecrated in 1935 two years after Hitler seized power, its exterior was designed in the Bauhaus style in 1929, before the reign of the Nazis began. Brown-tiled and cavernous, it is foreboding and devoid of grace, yet religious services took place here regularly until just a year ago when the church was deemed unsafe because tiles started falling off the façade.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,405922,00.html


Saying the Nazis weren't christian a hundred times won't make it any more true.

I can't wait to see you refute those photographs and all of the other information posted http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1480974&mesg_id=1491758">here, and http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1480974&mesg_id=1491642">here.

Your opinion about the religious beliefs of Nazis is still as worthless as it ever was without evidence to back it up.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gaspee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 12:38 PM
Response to Reply #125
157. Oh-Puhleeze!
You're going to trot out that tired old meme? How many of the so-called "pius" leaders are responsible for mass death? Many, many, many more than the three you came up with.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theredpen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 12:47 PM
Response to Reply #157
159. OK, name 'em
How many of the so-called "pius" leaders are responsible for mass death? Many, many, many more than the three you came up with.
Oh, you're totally right. Many more leaders, many fewer deaths.

Anyway, that wasn't the point. The point was that being an atheist does not make you inherently a better person than a non-atheist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onager Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-02-07 01:27 PM
Response to Reply #125
220. So who's your favorite--Tucker Carlson or Bill O'Reilly?
They both recently used the old "Hitler/Stalin/Mao was an atheist" canard.

Pol Pot: 0.5-1 million murdered

After Pol Pot (a Buddhist monk in his youth) cleverly adapted the tenets of Thedavara Buddhism to his brand of Communism. Those tenets included an identification of the city as "evil" and the country as "good," which was reflected in the way the Khmer Rouge emptied the cities in Cambodia.

You'll find a lot more detail about Pol Pot's uses of religion in Philip Short's biography Pol Pot: Anatomy of a Nightmare.

Stalin: 10-20 million murdered

Former seminarian who gladly used the Orthodox Church after the Nazis invaded Russia in June 1941. And as always, the Church was glad to let itself be used and have its clergy restored to former positions of unearned power and prestige.

Mao: over 60 million murdered

Probably not, depending on how you count.

But...how is that dishonest Xian propagandists, like yourself, always drag up Mao but manage to miss this little tidbit of Chinese history...?

The Taiping Rebellion (or Rebellion of Great Peace) was a large-scale revolt against the authority and forces of the Qing Government in China, conducted from 1850 to 1864 by an army and civil administration inspired by self-proclaimed mystics named Hong Xiuquan and Yang Xiuqing.

Hong was an unorthodox Christian convert who declared himself the new Messiah and younger brother of Jesus Christ. Yang Xiuqing was a former salesman of firewood in Guangxi, who frequently claimed to be able to act as a mouthpiece of God to direct the people and gain himself a large amount of political power.

...the Taiping Rebellion stands as the second bloodiest conflict in history, greater than World War I and behind only World War II.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiping_Rebellion

The Nazi Party had a state version of Christianity, but it was essentially a secular ideology.

Really? "Essentially secular?"

:rofl:

The NSDAP Party platform: "We demand freedom for all religious confessions in the state, insofar as they do not endanger its existence or conflict with the customs and moral sentiments of the Germanic race. The party as such represents the standpoint of a positive Christianity, without owing itself to a particular confession...."

Adolf Hitler, in a 1933 speech: "We were convinced that the people need and require this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out."

Of course, there are many more examples to show that Nazism was "essentially Xian."

It just took good old traditional Xian concepts like anti-Semitism, racism and homophobia to a whole new level.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pacifist Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 10:14 AM
Response to Reply #123
136. Not necessarily, as a matter of fact...
my community has an active atheist group and an active humanist group. The atheist group once invited one of the humanist leaders to address their monthly meeting. They were incensed (and very vocally so) when she stated she felt atheists were also humanists. They have never invited any of the humanists back as a consequence. This isn't conjecture, it's a statement of fact based on written communication.

Judging by the activities of these two groups, the humanists appear to be far more active in social justice projects while the atheists are more active in political activism. Both seem equally involved in civil liberties concerns.

Come to think of it, I can't think of a social action project the atheist group sponsors or participates in. They're more likely to be seen passing out flyers at the fourth of July parade to educate people about our Constitutional crisis.

Both groups involved themselves in a recent school board flap about outside religious groups providing sex ed in our school system (the ACLU, with the help of these groups succeeded in removing them, yeah!).

The humanist group helps man a soup kitchen, provides teachers for the Shepherd Center and provides children's clothing for a large pediatric mental institution in town.

I'm not saying either group is engaged in better activities (both are needed in our society), but there is certainly a discernible difference in their focus.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dinger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 08:17 AM
Response to Original message
119. Sad, But I Do Know Some Exceptions To That Personally
As a Christian myself, your post is a downer for me. I have friends who are doctors, both Catholic, and they are excellent doctors. They and their families have been volunteering in our community for decades. They are active in the Democratic party, and they are wonderful people. I don't dispute your post, it just made me feel a bit sad.
Simply put, not all Christians are all kool-aid drinking bu$hbots.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pacifist Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 10:18 AM
Response to Reply #119
137. These posts always depress me.
And for some weird reason these discussions seem to come in waves on DU. But that's beside the point.

It always seems to degenerate into blanket positions with glaring exceptions thrown in as some sort of evidence to the contrary. *shrug*

There are good and bad people of all beliefs and non-belief. Religion can inspire to the heights of human kindness or indoctrinate to the depths of inhumanity. Secular ideologies can do the same.

We can trot out examples of both until our fingers grow weary on our keyboards. I doubt the debate will ever be resolved.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Unca Jim Donating Member (405 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 09:31 AM
Response to Original message
126. Dang it, theredpen!
Everyone was having fun equating everyone who believes that there is more to human life than propagating genes to children with imaginary friends!

Quit talking sense and ruining the fun! :hide: Whoops! I may have just sounded desperate.


Anyway, I do think the whole debate highlights that people devoting their lives to service (medical people, educators, first responders, etc.) usually have little time for rigid theology. When you're in the trenches, what you end up caring about is the people who need help, not some philosophical abstract like the afterlife. Further, you have more experience with different people and lifestyles. It's awfully hard to take rigid denigrations a belief system throws out about particular groups of people seriously when you actually know people in those groups. You come to know that people are people and you understand that it matters how we treat each other; the rest of it becomes less important.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
La Lioness Priyanka Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 09:47 AM
Response to Original message
130. probably because we dont believe poverty is a result of karma or a test of man's will etc
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
valerief Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 11:42 AM
Response to Original message
144. Noooooooooo surprise to me. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sakabatou Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 11:59 AM
Response to Original message
149. Saddening and yet it feels true
Just take a look at fstdt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maru Kitteh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 01:37 PM
Response to Original message
164. Conveniently left out your post: "Very spiritual" docs 2X MORE LIKELY to care for poor than Atheists
"Curlin and colleagues also noted that those who identified themselves as very spiritual, whether or not they were religious, were roughly twice as likely to care for the under-served as those who described their spirituality as low."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bill McBlueState Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 02:07 PM
Response to Reply #164
165. your quote doesn't say anything about atheists
Whether one identifies oneself as "very spiritual" is not necessarily an indicator of whether one believes in any gods.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JacquesMolay Donating Member (413 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 02:11 PM
Response to Original message
166. Interesting. Calvinism has mad a big comeback...
... so it's not surprising that atehism would, to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Megahurtz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 02:42 PM
Response to Original message
168. That's Because Most of The Religious
are judgemental, bigoted, and believe that if someone is suffering they deserve it because they did something bad. Also personal experience with these people has taught me that they are extremely selfish and possessive about money. Very much of a turn-off. Yuk.

Whatta way to convert the Non-Believing! Good job! :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Exiled in America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 06:34 PM
Response to Reply #168
192. Such utter bullshit.
I not part of any organized religious shit. But I am so fucking sick to death of the anti-religious crowd spewing endless unsubstantiated, inaccurate, hyper-generalized bullshit.

Personally, I find most atheists I experience on this board to be every fucking bit as bad as religious people....and just about as blindly committed to dogma.

A pox on ALL of you religious and atheist alike.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dorkulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 06:44 PM
Response to Reply #192
194. So everyone sucks. I guess I can't argue with that...
I'm an atheist, and yes, I think literal belief in god or gods is kind of silly. But I certainly don't think anyone's got a lock on what it takes to be decent, moral people. In my experience, it's the religious who seem to think that about themselves, whereas atheist/agnostics think they've got a lock on intellectual superiority. What the OP, misleading or not, seems to say is that at least one of these opinions is incorrect.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Exiled in America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 06:19 PM
Response to Original message
179. 31% vs. 35% - the difference is statistically insignificant. Except for one thing:
That number on both sides should be more like 75% for both groups.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dorkulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 06:29 PM
Response to Reply #179
187. Even if the numbers were identical...
it would be a victory against the widespread misconception among the religious that atheists are morally inferior, bad people. Churchgoers often remark that without God, there'd be nothing to cause people to do good or prevent them from doing evil. This stat is significant because it shows that idea to be false. Without the lure of heaven or the threat of hell, it seems people are just as kind to each other anyway--in fact, just a bit more so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Exiled in America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 06:30 PM
Response to Reply #187
189. No. This is not a measure of how "morally inferior" either atheists or religious people are.
It's a measure of how many of them express their "giving" through their work.

Many doctors may not have a lot of control over that. But at the same time any of either these atheists or religious doctors may volunteer countless hours of their personal time in working with the poor, either in a medical capacity or in some other way.

This "study" really doesn't tell us much of anything. But it certainly is funny how much the frothing anti-religion fundamentalists here were ready to pounce all over the study without even applying a critical eye.

....or reading all of it I'll wager, since later on it talks about how 70% of atheists are less charitable as part of the same study.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 06:31 PM
Response to Reply #187
190. And the god-squadders know it perfectly well. They just hope we don't, or at least...
... won't popularize the fact.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KingFlorez Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 09:08 PM
Response to Original message
208. That isn't even that big of a gap
A 4 percentage point difference doesn't really mean a thing. The only thing the numbers show is that most doctors don't want to help the poor, religion doesn't have anything to do with it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
and-justice-for-all Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 10:31 PM
Response to Original message
213. I agree with OP...nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 02:41 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC