Because parody is fun and can expose the disingenuous double-standards in the claims made by certain theist: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...Of-Determinism!
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...225#post253225
It seems more and more that the Christians on this board are displaying prejudice towards homosexuals, transgendered people, etc., believing that this is justified by their own religious ideology. They think that their religious ideology should play a significant role in laws that affect other people. You know, this theory does have its advantages. Whenever the theist displays prejudice to a member of another group (such as a homosexual or a feminist) - well no big deal, why feel guilty? You can be prejudiced, since your religious ideology justfies your prejudice. And it seems that people who follow this sort of fundamentalism are more likely to display close-mindededness and prejudice towards outside groups:
I wonder how the folks who pretend to care about scientific evidence [unless the evidence is inconvenient for their religious ideology] will react to this?
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...225#post253225
It seems more and more that the Christians on this board are displaying prejudice towards homosexuals, transgendered people, etc., believing that this is justified by their own religious ideology. They think that their religious ideology should play a significant role in laws that affect other people. You know, this theory does have its advantages. Whenever the theist displays prejudice to a member of another group (such as a homosexual or a feminist) - well no big deal, why feel guilty? You can be prejudiced, since your religious ideology justfies your prejudice. And it seems that people who follow this sort of fundamentalism are more likely to display close-mindededness and prejudice towards outside groups:
"Religious Fundamentalism and Limited Prosociality as a Function of the Target"
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...0.01551.x/full
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...0.01551.x/full
"Two distinct research traditions have established that (a) religiosity implies prosocial tendencies, though limited to proximal targets, and (b) religious fundamentalism (RF) relates to prejudice, often because of underlying right-wing authoritarianism (RWA). Through two studies, we investigated the idea that RF, due to underlying religiosity, also predicts prosociality that is limited to proximal rather than distal targets. Specifically, we found that RF, unlike RWA and because of religiosity, predicted prosociality towards a nonfeminist but not a feminist target in need (Experiment 1) and willingness to help friends but not unknown people in need in the same hypothetical situations (Experiment 2). Moreover, like RWA, RF implied negative attitudes towards the feminist. This limited, not extended, prosociality of people scoring high on RF was in contrast with their self-perceptions of being universally altruistic. Fundamentalism seems to combine religiosity's qualities (in-group prosociality) with authoritarianism's defects (out-group derogation)."
"Beyond dogmatism: the need for closure as related to religion"
http://www.ulouvain.be/cps/ucl/doc/p....MHRC.NFCS.pdf
http://www.ulouvain.be/cps/ucl/doc/p....MHRC.NFCS.pdf
"The empirical literature, especially in the last decade, suggests that when studies are based on measures of general religiosity, not close- or open-minded religion, but religiosity per sedogmatism (Francis, 2001,for review), authoritarianism (Duck & Hunsberger, 1999; Leak & Randall, 1995), risk avoidance (Miller & Hoffmann, 1995), low spontaneous humor creation (Saroglou, in press; Saroglou & Jaspard, 2001), low openness to experience (Saroglou, 2002b, for review), stereotypical thinking (Watson et al., 1999), non-proscribed prejudice (Batson et al., 1993; Duck & Hunsberger, 1999), in-group favouritism (Burris & Jackson, 1999; Jackson & Hunsberger, 1999), values emphasizing the need for reduction of uncertainty (values of conformity, tradition and security) and low importance attributed to the values emphasizing openness to change (values of self-direction and stimulation) (Schwartz & Huismans, 1995) (184)."
I wonder how the folks who pretend to care about scientific evidence [unless the evidence is inconvenient for their religious ideology] will react to this?
Originally posted by seer
View Post
Comment