Unfortunately, what we as humans get to do is focus on the interpretations of the teachings of Jesus Christ as a Christian.
And their branches are legion.
You also mean as much evidence as atheists have for killing gays or telling someone to give to charity.
Should I be on the wrong, please point me to the right direction.
As to the study the OP cited, it is (depressingly, for a believer) interesting.
However it should be noted that the percentages can be sorted out this way:
-
Torture (more than never, i.e. it’s not out of the question)
Regular churchgoers: 75%
“Irregular” churchgoesrs: 77%
Non-churchgoer: 74% -
Torture (never, i.e. out of the question)
Regular: 25%
Irregular: 23%
Non: 26%
Most people who have discussed this study as a way to criticize churchgoers (truthfully and embarassingly for us) also consider that torture is NEVER justified. So, while we can talk about degrees and levels of enthusiasm, such a horrible blotch on humankind has to be opposed ALWAYS. In that case, the difference is irrelevant (statistically). over and over I hear here that is unjustified no matter what.
The common theme seems to be that it’s easier for them to dehumanize the victims. If they can categorize the other as belonging to the amorphous category of “evil,” then they can convince themselves that anything and everything they do to them is morally justified and divinely appointed.
It’s really the exact same reasoning used by those who decapitate journalists and strap bombs onto teenage girls. Religion allows people to rationalize anything at all.
There’s also a tribalistic element – in-group vs out-group. Organized religion facilitates a very simplistic and divisive social identity. Not that everyone who is part of an organized religion is a simple minded, us vs them, social tribalist, but people who are naturally that way tend to be be church goers. They also tend to fancy themselves as “patriots,” which they define as hostility to anyone who doesn’t share their nationality.
ETA, in my opinion, it isn’t that religion makes people this way, I think that people who already are that way tend to be religious.
Well, if they’re truly evil, they’ll end up in hell, where they’ll be tortured for all eternity. When that’s what the future holds, What’s the harm in starting a little early? 
You can (and should) be able to decide that some things are good or bad on their own merits, without needing to rely on your God to do your thinking for you. For instance, killing gays means harming other people without a legitimate reason, therefore it is bad. Giving things to charity helps other people, therefore it is good.
I’ll answer and end the hijack: I don’t think there is any evidence at all for things being good on their own. good ans Evil are not inherent characterisitcs of matter, they are only (scientifically speaking) thoughts and ideas. They are not falsifiable and therefore not scientific.
(I can continue this but that’ll be I hijack and I’ve just recieved a “STOP IT” from a mod on another thread, I can pursue it in another thread.)
Um, atheists don’t NEED evidence that they are telling someone to give to charity; they are right there. And while homophobic atheists exist, they have one fewer reason and excuse for it.
Your analogy doesn’t work, because atheists aren’t claiming to get directions from invisible men.
So, is good a scientific concept, tangible and all? Is it a feeling?
This may help us understand the Pew study.
I don’t see why. No one, including me is claiming that atheism makes you “good”, or even smart. It just gives you one less reason to be bad and stupid.
The rather obvious conclusion to be drawn from the study is that Christian religiosity and a willingness to torture tend to overlap; which frankly shouldn’t surprise anyone given the history of Christianity. The followers of a barbaric, irrational belief system can be expected to act barbarically and irrationally, and Christianity is barbaric and irrational.
I don’t see why. No one, including me is claiming that science makes you “good”. It just gives you better information to act on.
The rather obvious conclusion to be drawn from the study is that Christian religiosity and a willingness to torture tend to overlap; which frankly shouldn’t surprise anyone given the history of Christianity. The followers of a barbaric, irrational belief system can be expected to act barbarically and irrationally, and Christianity is barbaric and irrational.
Me neither.
I’ll rephrase: What does “good” mean? ( in a sense that is more objective than “I like it” or “society likes it”. I fully understand that ahteists can out-good believers, that isn’t the issue. The issue is “how do you know torturing is bad?”. Before you say “it harms people” you’d have to show why harming is bad, in itself and objectively.
Also, what “better” informtion does science give regarding “good”.
You mean like most democracies?
And totalitarian states? Even, totalitarian and self-proclaimed atheist states.?
Shouldn’t we also be asking why independent voters are more likely to favor torture often/sometimes than those who go to church a few times a year? Or why people who go to church are less likely to favor torture than Republicans? I’m certain the answers to those questions reveal some deep meaning about life in America.
Probably because most frequent churchgoers really believe in the doctrine of Hell, which makes transitory Earthly torture seem insignificant by comparison.
Percentage of white mainline Protestants that believe that torture should rarely or never be used = 53% (sample 150)
Percentage of unaffiliated who believe that torture should rarely or never be used = 55% (sample 94)
There doesn’t seem to be that much difference in mainline Protestant thinking and unaffiliated thinking on this part. There is more certainty against torture altogether by the unaffiliated, but “unaffiliated” doesn’t exclude Christians who are unaffiliated with a church.
These sampling numbers seem very small considering that we have a population of over three hundred million people, but I am not an expert on polling and statistics. We may have more mainline Protestant denominations than there are people in the sample.
Fundamentalists are not the majority of Christians. It is easy to make that assumption since they have a lot of news coverage and they are very active since many don’t like the progress that has been made by non-fundamentalists in the last forty years. It wasn’t just non-believers that worked to get state-sponsored prayer out of schools. (And Bible readings and sermons and religious harrassment.)
There are a lot of Christians on the Straight Dope. You receive very few responses that are written with the venom of your own posts. Do you think there is the possibility that some Christians are practicing the teachings of Jesus (or other religious teachers) by remaining silent rather than unloading on you?
I don’t believe it can be truly be defined “objectively”, nor do I really care. If you could show that torture was “objectively good”, that would be an argument against “objective good”, not for torture.
Harm is bad, because people don’t want to be harmed. Almost no one is in favor of torture being applied to THEM.
The actual consequences of people’s actions, and so on. Religion teaches people to focus on imaginary consequences to imaginary things, like sending souls to hell or offending God; so the believers tend to have bad judgement because they are making their judgements according to a fantasy world. If I chose my course of action according to the telepathically transmitted messages of royalist agents from the year 3950, in the belief that by proving myself they’d take me back with them and restore my lost memory of being heir to the throne of the Empire of Terra, I’d have awful judgement too.
And if they are ? What makes you think that SDMB Christians are anything like the typical Christian ? A typical Christian isn’t likely to hang out at a board that doesn’t silence unbelievers or let them shout down the heathens.
I was raised in a Christian family. My father had been a Methodist and my mother had been a Southern Baptist. They decided to join the Cumberland Presbyterian Church and that’s where I was brought up. For literally years I didn’t miss Sunday school or church services. As a teenager, I went to the youth group meetings and church services on Sunday nights.
In the summer I went to Wednesday night prayer meetings, Bible school, summer camps, National CP camps, and a United Christian Youth Movement Camp. For the first two years of college, I went to a church affiliated college. I knew Christians from all over the world and from several ethnic groups.
Eventually, I attended the Episcopal Church for twenty years, Unity for a year or so, and back to the Cumberland Presbyterian Church for a couple of years. I don’t feel tied to one branch. I would feel comfortable many places.
Der Trihs, there is no typical Christian. Maybe if you once realized that some of the people who would not silence you are also Christians, you would think better of them. But you seem to have a blind spot.
Even if you go just by the numbers, religious fundamentalists make up a portion that is smaller than even the membership of just the Roman Catholic Church. And that hasn’t included the figues from mainline Protestant churches such as Methodist and Presbyterian. I’m uncertain how members would self-label, so I have included Baptists (not all are fundamentalists), Pentecostal/Charismatic, Churches of Christ, Jehovah’s Witnesses and Assemblies of God. By these charts, they make up a little over 20% of the Christian population in the United States.
Believe me, I am not blind to the faults of the rest of us either.
It is clear that they believe that Jesus would approve of torture.
Just joking, although it is amazing how many church-goers do everything Jesus would have condemned. As for the reason, I think it is in the nature of religious people to accept the claims of authority. Although there are plenty of authorities, especially a number of interrogators who have written on the subject, who say that torture is counter-productive. “Ok, if you stop water-boarding me, I will tell you about the plot to blow up the stock exchange.”
-
I see. You say you want objective things and objective beliefs except when they clash with your ideas, then objective becomes wrong. So your opponent must be objective always and you don’t. It is “La Ley del Embudo” all the way.
I particularly loved your “I don’t care”, because it shows your true colors, just wanting to show off. -
I agree that people don’t want to be harmed.
Is it your contention that people’s feelings determine the truth or “rightfulness” of an action? -
So imaginary = bad and, I imagine, tangible = good. But you have just said that if things you didn’t like were shown to be good you’d just change your definition of good.
It must be all the coke my mum snorted during pregnancy, but you seem to be arguing that you are the nexus of good and bad and that your decisons are true, period.
Take a hint from the very inteligent and reasonable atheists on the boards. You can have meaningful, interesting discussion with them even if you are a sincere beleiver. They are sure we beleiver are dead wrong, yet they never feel the need to insult or be arrogant. With them, it’s never simply trying for the bon mot or the irony, it’s adult dialogue.
By the way, no comment on my statistical analysis? Or is that truth also inconvenient and you chose to ignore it?
I really don’t think that difference is irrelevant, statistically or otherwise. Yes, such things should always be opposed. For that very reason we should seek to understand what factors may influence a person’s justification of torture - that one group are often unpleasant and another group are slightly less often unpleasant means that difference is highly relevant.