The Batshit Insane QAnon Conspiracy Theory

[Kyrie Eleison 9312]

Am I the only one who thinks Liz is almost a dead ringer for Allison Brie?
[/url] Also, because I'm now thinking about Allison Brie:
 
Spoiler

 
 

that song turned me into a lesbian...

[wildcat09 29213]

10 hours ago, Bullneck said:

Vic seems like he might be from New Jersey.

Seems like a good strategy to me.  Why don't you think so?

This sums it up.

[aggie08 21414]

Yeah, it's truly awful messaging, regardless of his intended target. 

[Bama Chick 28596]

But that’s not the message.

The message is “The GOP has to choose - college educated or Q folks. And they’ve chosen Q.”

Hence the strategy to make the GOP the QOP.

That sound bite from Maloney was an elevator pitch summarizing their ad strategy in a snarky way - not a slogan.

People are really misinterpreting a throw away bit of snark.

The new ads that the DCCC are running targeting Republicans in swing districts don’t say shit about “the college educated”. They focus on “[Your Representative] stood with Q, not you.”

[956 Worldwide 34411]

On 2/3/2021 at 4:24 PM, Lobo said:

Preying on people looking for answers, that have led broken lives?  That's called organized religion and drugs.  Society has been there, done that, and got the t-shirt.   

I will disagree with you here hoss, I’d wager that a continuing slide in active religious practice is driving more people to conspiracy theories and not religion driving them to conspiracies. 

It is not going to be a popular truth around here, but nevertheless— active participation in organized religion in the U tied States strongly tied with all sorts of positive social outcomes from marital stability, overall contentment, fiscal responsibility, friendships, to social stability. It’s also been strongly associated with a lower level of belief in the paranormal, alien visitations, psychics, and other fringe beliefs. Note— this is for actual practice in organized religion, not people who simply claim an affiliation. 

Sure, you can make the argument that it’s just a more socially acceptable or shared delusion but the sociology is pretty clear that statistically, the “organized religion” one is more clearly linked to better outcomes. 
 

I am not going to argue causation, and I think that churches in the US have mostly themselves to blame for the collapse in confidence and attendance. But it is absolutely not clear that sliding levels of religious observation is leading to improved social stability, mental health, social cohesion, etc.....and the potential negative side is far more pronounced among people who are already living at the margins. 

[MidTexHorn 822]

5 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

I will disagree with you here hoss, I’d wager that a continuing slide in active religious practice is driving more people to conspiracy theories and not religion driving them to conspiracies. 

It is not going to be a popular truth around here, but nevertheless— active participation in organized religion in the U tied States strongly tied with all sorts of positive social outcomes from marital stability, overall contentment, fiscal responsibility, friendships, to social stability. It’s also been strongly associated with a lower level of belief in the paranormal, alien visitations, psychics, and other fringe beliefs. Note— this is for actual practice in organized religion, not people who simply claim an affiliation. 

Sure, you can make the argument that it’s just a more socially acceptable or shared delusion but the sociology is pretty clear that statistically, the “organized religion” one is more clearly linked to better outcomes. 
 

I am not going to argue causation, and I think that churches in the US have mostly themselves to blame for the collapse in confidence and attendance. But it is absolutely not clear that sliding levels of religious observation is leading to improved social stability, mental health, social cohesion, etc.....and the potential negative side is far more pronounced among people who are already living at the margins. 

Except that every QAnon or semi-QAnon nut I know is also quite evangelically religious and a fairly regular church goer. The biggest conspiracy theorists I know are the most religious. Religion, at least the US version of it, is very much fueling this bullshit or at a minimum it’s a leading indicator of who’s gonna be dumb enough to go down the Q rabbit trail. 

Edited February 6, 2021 by MidTexHorn

[Guest Lobo]

Yeah, 956 worldwide...I was just beginning to like and agree with you most of the time.  But you fucking lost me here. Probably another thread for another time. 

[Captainant 27403]

I agree with your overall statement that Qanon and the modern church share the same constituency, but the church has not exactly been a bastion of goodness and improvement for society. Specifically if you're not a WASP

[Pato del Muerto 52336]

7 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

I will disagree with you here hoss, I’d wager that a continuing slide in active religious practice is driving more people to conspiracy theories and not religion driving them to conspiracies. 

It is not going to be a popular truth around here, but nevertheless— active participation in organized religion in the U tied States strongly tied with all sorts of positive social outcomes from marital stability, overall contentment, fiscal responsibility, friendships, to social stability. It’s also been strongly associated with a lower level of belief in the paranormal, alien visitations, psychics, and other fringe beliefs. Note— this is for actual practice in organized religion, not people who simply claim an affiliation. 

Sure, you can make the argument that it’s just a more socially acceptable or shared delusion but the sociology is pretty clear that statistically, the “organized religion” one is more clearly linked to better outcomes. 
 

I am not going to argue causation, and I think that churches in the US have mostly themselves to blame for the collapse in confidence and attendance. But it is absolutely not clear that sliding levels of religious observation is leading to improved social stability, mental health, social cohesion, etc.....and the potential negative side is far more pronounced among people who are already living at the margins. 

So if you are religious and believe in men rising from the dead, prophets speaking to god and telling the future, transubstantiation, and the like, that makes you less likely to believe in crazy shit?

I will counter in two ways. One being that perhaps people only have room for total faith in one set of extraordinary things, and for many people religion fills that spot. When it doesn’t, something else will. 
but secondly, how do you explain the idea that so many Q people identify as hard core christians?

[wildcat09 29213]

26 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

But that’s not the message.

The message is “The GOP has to choose - college educated or Q folks. And they’ve chosen Q.”

Hence the strategy to make the GOP the QOP.

That sound bite from Maloney was an elevator pitch summarizing their ad strategy in a snarky way - not a slogan.

People are really misinterpreting a throw away bit of snark.

The new ads that the DCCC are running targeting Republicans in swing districts don’t say shit about “the college educated”. They focus on “[Your Representative] stood with Q, not you.”
 

I get the strategy to tie the GOP to Q and I think it's a good one, but the particular messaging of it that I'm harping on is truly awful. It says that the GOP is the party for the non-college educated and reeks of "we went to college so we're too smart for Q" elitism. It's also, and this is very important, completely wrong about who gets into Q shit.

[956 Worldwide 34411]

20 minutes ago, MidTexHorn said:

Except that every QAnon or semi-QAnon nut I know is also quite evangelically religious and a fairly regular church goer. The biggest conspiracy theorists I know are the most religious. Religion, at least the US version of it, is very much fueling this bullshit or at a minimum it’s a leading indicator of who’s gonna be dumb enough to go down the Q rabbit trail. 

It’s a pretty new thing. I’d be fascinated to see actual numbers on it, maybe it’s an exception.

Overall, though, the argument that people who go to church regularly are dumber/more messed up/getting preyed on absolutely has no basis in data. The opposite. 

[956 Worldwide 34411]

22 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

So if you are religious and believe in men rising from the dead, prophets speaking to god and telling the future, transubstantiation, and the like, that makes you less likely to believe in crazy shit?

I will counter in two ways. One being that perhaps people only have room for total faith in one set of extraordinary things, and for many people religion fills that spot. When it doesn’t, something else will. 
but secondly, how do you explain the idea that so many Q people identify as hard core christians?

Look, don’t take my own word for it. It’s a fascinating thing and you can see that I said “church attendance” and not religiousness. 
 

https://www.jstor.org/stable/1387845?seq=1

https://www.baylorisr.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/stark_conventional-1.pdf

Edited February 6, 2021 by 956 Worldwide

[Mrs Whiggins 13049]

3 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I get the strategy to tie the GOP to Q and I think it's a good one, but the particular messaging of it that I'm harping on is truly awful. It says that the GOP is the party for the non-college educated and reeks of "we went to college so we're too smart for Q" elitism. It's also, and this is very important, completely wrong about who gets into Q shit.

The GOP is running with the working class party framing as well as the Democrats promised you X and how's that working out for you salespitch, so not to both sides this, but it's going to be tricky and could really blow back in the Democratic planners' faces. The GOP has been talented at deflecting their own elitism so that no one probes too deeply into Hawley's Ivy League private school background or any of the others. When you say 'elite,' rank and file people aren't seeing him or Ted or Ivanka or any of the others. Trying to buy Rand Paul as a fan of the working class is the strangest of times, but it is what it is.

 

As far as the religion aspect, it is the evangelical sway that seems to overtake this country every century.

Read a snippet below for a description of a much studied localized area from the early 19th century. I bring this up because historians have attributed this to some major social innovations that occurred due to this; reform platforms such as abolition, women's rights and so on sprang out of some of these movements.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burned-over_district 

But this latest 'awakening' has a repressive aspect to it's agenda instead of a progressive one, IMO. Hence the comparisons on this board to ISIS and other extremist viewpoints. A backlash to the change that is looming (white minority, etc).

 

[Hank Chinaski 6310]

Richard Dawkins has long argued that we should not respect people's religious beliefs because it gives them credence; it basically says "OK, if you believe that, great, your belief is just as valid as that which we can actually observe in the natural world."

Well, this was kind of his point. This is how you get to a place in which people believe that their totally absurd, baseless ideas about reality are just as valid as actual reality. The crossover into politics and power is as old as time itself. 

World views have to be rooted in something; when groups of people cannot agree on basic facts - even those that are observed, known, etc. - then there is no reasoning, there is no logic; only chaos and barbarism. 

Edited February 6, 2021 by Hank Chinaski

[SydneyCarton 47836]

9 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

It’s a pretty new thing. I’d be fascinated to see actual numbers on it, maybe it’s an exception.

Overall, though, the argument that people who go to church regularly are dumber/more messed up/getting preyed on absolutely has no basis in data. The opposite. 

Well, why don’t you show us the data on that? I’m sure we’d be fascinated to see actual numbers on that. 
 

the problem here is that we should separate religious followers from evangelical followers. There’s a difference. And the problem is I can spend 5 minutes on YouTube and find dozens of evangelical preachers actually preaching Q shit from their pulpit on Sundays. And I can’t support this with facts and numbers, but I’d bet 10 years off the back end of my life there’s a lot less of that shit from priests who went to an actual seminary school. All you need to do to preach in Southern Baptist land is show up and start talking.

Edited February 7, 2021 by SydneyCarton

[Sawbonz 27392]

1 hour ago, Bama Chick said:

The message is “The GOP has to choose - college educated or Q folks. And they’ve chosen Q.

This is a terrible message for so many obvious reasons. First it is a false dilemma. Second there are many college educated Q fanatics, many with post graduate degrees, and many people without college degrees who think Q fanatics are lunatics. It’s about as tone deaf, divisive, and exclusory as one could imagine

[ndawg 1242]

5 minutes ago, Hank Chinaski said:

Richard Dawkins has long argued that we should not respect people's religious beliefs because it gives them credence; it basically says "OK, if you believe that, great, your belief is just as valid as that which we can actually observe in the natural world."

Well, this was kind of his point. This is how you get to a place in which people believe that their totally absurd, baseless ideas about reality are just as valid as actual reality. The crossover into politics and power is as old as time itself. 

World views have to be rooted in something; when groups of people cannot agree on basic facts - even those that are observed, known, etc. - then there is no reasoning, there is no logic; only chaos and barbarism. 

I think the problem is more nuanced. When religiosity was the norm, religions had to adapt to accommodate everyone, including both the fanatics and sensible folk. Every now and then, the fanatics would take control (i.e. Oliver Cromwell), but the sensible folk wouldn't tolerate it for long. Now that sensible folk are largely abandoning religion, we aren't providing a counterbalance to the fanatics.

Religion is looking more and more batshit because of an exodus of sensible folk. We see Kenneth Copeland types on TV, but Thomas Aquinas or Kierkegaard types are nowhere to be found.

So the solution I see is to respect religious beliefs that stay contained within the realm of metaphysics, and remain disrespectful of the batshit. Otherwise the batshit will inherit the earth.

[Hank Chinaski 6310]

2 minutes ago, ndawg said:

I think the problem is more nuanced. When religiosity was the norm, religions had to adapt to accommodate everyone, including both the fanatics and sensible folk. Every now and then, the fanatics would take control (i.e. Oliver Cromwell), but the sensible folk wouldn't tolerate it for long. Now that sensible folk are largely abandoning religion, we aren't providing a counterbalance to the fanatics.

Religion is looking more and more batshit because of an exodus of sensible folk. We see Kenneth Copeland types on TV, but Thomas Aquinas or Kierkegaard types are nowhere to be found.

So the solution I see is to respect religious beliefs that stay contained within the realm of metaphysics, and remain disrespectful of the batshit. Otherwise the batshit will inherit the earth.

Good point, and I totally agree. Dawkins argued an extreme position aimed at the fanatics for the sake of making his point. 

[Beau Vine 53978]

16 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

the problem here is that we should separate religious followers from evangelical followers. There’s a difference.

Bingo.  There's a huge difference.  

[956 Worldwide 34411]

14 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

Well, why don’t you show us the data on that? I’m sure we’d be fascinated to see actual numbers on that. 
 

the problem here is that we should separate religious followers from evangelical followers. There’s a difference. And the problem is I can spend 5 minutes on YouTube and find dozens of evangelical preachers actually preaching Q shit from their pulpit on Sundays. And I can’t support this with facts and numbers, but I’d bet 10 years off the back end of my life there’s a lot less of that shit from priests when went to an actual seminary school. All you need to do to preach in Southern Baptist land is show up and start talking.

Sure, here you go. And I’ve been careful not to ascribe causation....but there is lots of research out there. Here’s some from NBER.

Quote

A number of researchers have found striking correlations between religion and various measures of well being. For example, religious participation is correlated with lower levels of deviant behavior and better health. And, attending religious services weekly, rather than not at all, has the same effect on individuals' reported happiness as moving from the bottom to the top quartile of the income distribution.

Quote

Doubling the rate of religious attendance raises household income by 9.1 percent, decreases welfare participation by 16 percent from baseline rates, decreases the odds of being divorced by 4 percent , and increases the odds of being married by 4.4 percent.

Is this still true in the case of Q? I don’t know...but what I can say is that past evidence does not at all show that being active at a church means you’re more likely to believe crazy things or be otherwise broken by any empirical measure.

https://www.nber.org/digest/oct05/religion-good-you

[Hank Chinaski 6310]

6 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

And I’ve been careful not to ascribe causation....

Yes, and I know you didn't write it...but the way this sentence is written...

Doubling the rate of religious attendance raises household income by 9.1 percent

...certainly implies causation. "Raises" is not the word that should be used here; "is associated with..." would be appropriate. 

[956 Worldwide 34411]

That’s cool, I can see that it could have been worded more carefully. Just pointing out that the narrative of “churches are full of ignorant hillbillies that are getting bilked while they unplug from their shitty trailer park lives” doesn’t seem to match up with measured results in the wild. And that there’s a strong preference for anecdotal evidence that reinforces that narrative as opposed to statistical studies and peer reviewed papers that challenge it. 
 

Anyway, this seems related, and the words could probably be put in a lot of Christian, Muslim, whatever peoples’ mouths:

 

Edited February 6, 2021 by 956 Worldwide

[SydneyCarton 47836]

8 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Sure, here you go. And I’ve been careful not to ascribe causation....but there is lots of research out there. Here’s some from NBER.

Is this still true in the case of Q? I don’t know...but what I can say is that past evidence does not at all show that being active at a church means you’re more likely to believe crazy things or be otherwise broken by any empirical measure.

https://www.nber.org/digest/oct05/religion-good-you

I mean, the quoted article portions Youve shared strike me as fucked up, personally. For starters my eyebrows raise whenever I see any use of “deviant behavior.” Sounds judgy AF to me. And all I’m really seeing is basically that churches shame people into staying divorced and as a community support things like marriage and being married, etc. I don’t see a single thing in there actually measuring things like HAPPINESS. Or even trying to quantify it. But there’s plenty of studies on it and being akin to I dunno, brainwashing or a cult. Because people love cognitive dissonance. and honestly a deep faith makes people feel better...about everything. all I’m seeing there is that religion helps people love what YOU consider to be a better lifestyle. 
 

I also do not believe it’s a coincidence that many, many experts have described QAnon as the beginning of a new religion. Here’s a scattering of different articles:

 

https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/15/us/qanon-religion-churches/index.html
 

https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2020/05/qanon-q-pro-trump-conspiracy/611722/
 

https://religionnews.com/2020/08/17/qanon-the-alternative-religion-thats-coming-to-your-church/
 

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/tapestry/qanon-and-busking-for-hope-1.5783675/qanon-conspiracy-theory-has-taken-a-religious-tone-says-sociologist-1.5784100

Edited February 7, 2021 by SydneyCarton

[washparkhorn 9934]

3 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

But that’s not the message.

The message is “The GOP has to choose - college educated or Q folks. And they’ve chosen Q.”

Hence the strategy to make the GOP the QOP.

That sound bite from Maloney was an elevator pitch summarizing their ad strategy in a snarky way - not a slogan.

People are really misinterpreting a throw away bit of snark.

The new ads that the DCCC are running targeting Republicans in swing districts don’t say shit about “the college educated”. They focus on “[Your Representative] stood with Q, not you.”
 

I really like the nutshell summary:

"He stood with Q - not you."

[washparkhorn 9934]

2 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

Second there are many college educated Q fanatics, many with postgraduate degrees,

No doubt.

But in a divide and conquer strategy, cleaving off the better-educated from the social disease known as Q may be the best path forward to defeating the virus. They add pseudo-academic rigor to the delusion, which prolongs the hoax.

But that path is not without peril, as suggested by you and other clear-thinking opponents of the strategy. 

 

[washparkhorn 9934]

2 hours ago, SydneyCarton said:

the problem here is that we should separate religious followers from evangelical followers. There’s a difference. 

 

2 hours ago, Beau Vine said:

Bingo.  There's a huge difference.  

Agree 100%. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater has led to fewer savory choices when answering life's big questions. 

2 hours ago, ndawg said:

I think the problem is more nuanced. When religiosity was the norm, religions had to adapt to accommodate everyone, including both the fanatics and sensible folk. Every now and then, the fanatics would take control (i.e. Oliver Cromwell), but the sensible folk wouldn't tolerate it for long. Now that sensible folk are largely abandoning religion, we aren't providing a counterbalance to the fanatics.

Religion is looking more and more batshit because of an exodus of sensible folk. We see Kenneth Copeland types on TV, but Thomas Aquinas or Kierkegaard types are nowhere to be found.

So the solution I see is to respect religious beliefs that stay contained within the realm of metaphysics, and remain disrespectful of the batshit. Otherwise the batshit will inherit the earth.

Excellent point.

Where discussions once turned on age-old questions (e.g., why does God allows innocents to perish at the hands of evil), we have Q believers pursuing whether there is a secret submarine base under Epstein's island for transportation of children. 

We have well worn paths when answering faith questions. The cupboard is bare when addressing the Q social disease/cult. 

[956 Worldwide 34411]

6 hours ago, Beau Vine said:

Bingo.  There's a huge difference.  

“Evangelical” as it’s used popularly in the U.S. has almost lost its meaning. I’m reminded of Orwell writing about fascism, at this point when people say “Evangelical” it’s usually shorthand for “Conservative, probably white, politically active Christians who aren’t Catholic or Mormon.” Or it’s just used as a substitute for “fundamentalist.”
 

It can be useful as a marker of certain theological beliefs, but even there I tend to agree with the theologians who say it needs to be put to bed because of a lack of consensus on what it means even among people who claim to be Evangelicals.

 

 

 

 

[Mole 4319]

Speaking as someone who is evangelicalish theologically, evangelicals and their political madness have caused the greatest damage to the stated evangelical cause of spreading the Gospel. They’ve done more harm to the Gospel message than every abortion doctor, married gay couple, anti-prayer lawsuit, and whatever other social issue they claim to care about combined (if these issues hurt the cause at all).

From my limited observations, Q beliefs have become deeply imbedded into evangelical churches. I doubt that you’ll find too much pure, uncut Q, but the less insane claims (still a low bar) seem to be easily and widely accepted. A lot of this stuff has become mainstream. I have no hard data; this is just what I’ve witnessed.

Edited February 6, 2021 by Mole

[TwiceHorn 31240]

On the religion/spirituality issue (acknowledging that the two are not the same, but religion is how spirituality is often expressed).

One thing that religion can deliver, apart from any specific beliefs of a sect, is a belief in a higher power.

What that means for the individual is, "I don't run this shit."  Similarly, neither does anyone else.  This is what is truly meant by "turn your life over to God."  It doesn't mean abdicate all responsibility for yourself to God or the flying spaghetti monster.  It means acknowledge that you don't run this shit, continuously, in every aspect of your life.  That's not something that happens overnight, but rather over a lifetime and it takes some wisdom to realize when and how you are attempting to control that over which you have none.

When you stop thinking you run this shit or have control over just about anything except your own personal behavior, quite a few good things happen.

You stop trying to control others.  You stop letting others control you.  

You begin to live outside yourself to a greater degree.  You help.  You accept help from others.  You create and participate in a positive community.

Now, this may all seem to be a bunch of happy crappy  AA shit, which it is.

But there's some main truth in it.  You don't have to go looking for explanations for everything that happens to you that you think is bad.  You stop blaming others when stuff happens to you that you think is bad.  Similarly, you are accountable for your own behavior and you don't blame it on externalities.

Most of the positively religious, or spiritual, people that I know seem to "get" this to a greater or lesser degree.  They don't obsess over theological questions, or whether the Bible is inerrant, or whether homosexuality is a sin, whether Presbyterians, Jews, or Catholics are saved, or any of that shit.  But they have a sense of their place in a complicated, confusing, and basically fucked up universe and therefore tend not to contribute to the fuckery.

Edited February 7, 2021 by TwiceHorn

[atomheartbevo 89396]

19 hours ago, washparkhorn said:

Trump shrines are disappearing in many areas. 

I've been noticing that as well.

[Brisketexan 104537]

I've been noticing that as well.

There are a shitload still up. Was in rural areas today....saw Trump flags still flying from poles....INSTEAD of the American flag.

Motherfucking cult. Shame them, ostracize them, and be done with them. They are not savable or worth saving.

[Dahobbs 17420]

12 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Sure, here you go. And I’ve been careful not to ascribe causation....but there is lots of research out there. Here’s some from NBER.

Is this still true in the case of Q? I don’t know...but what I can say is that past evidence does not at all show that being active at a church means you’re more likely to believe crazy things or be otherwise broken by any empirical measure.

https://www.nber.org/digest/oct05/religion-good-you

Your claim related to dumbness. Nothing in the article or paper supports the proposition that the religious are less dumb. At most it suggests a correlation between being religious and following religious practices (eg marriage), which shouldn't be terribly surprising or really even useful information. It also suggests a correlation between religion and financial success, but the methodology used is more than a bit suspect. From the paper:

 

Quote

I make use of the fact that exogenous predictions of market density can be formed based on area ancestral mix. That is, I relate religious participation and economic outcomes to the correlation of the religious preference of one's own heritage with the religious preference of other heritages that share one's area. I use the General Social Survey (GSS) to model the impact of market density on church attendance, and micro-data from the 1990 Census to model the impact on economic outcomes.

Aka, a wild ass guess. 

Edited February 7, 2021 by Dahobbs

[956 Worldwide 34411]

3 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

Your claim related to dumbness. Nothing in the article or paper supports the proposition that the religious are less dumb. At most it suggests a correlation between being religious and following religious practices (eg marriage), which shouldn't be terribly surprising or really even useful information. It also suggests a correlation between religion and financial success, but the methodology used is more than a bit suspect. From the paper:

 

Aka, a wild ass guess. 

Quote

Overall, though, the argument that people who go to church regularly are dumber/more messed up/getting preyed on absolutely has no basis in data. The opposite. 

My claim was pretty expansive, but there’s arguments against the idea that it’s dumbness, too.

https://newsroom.unl.edu/announce/todayatunl/452/2932

While lower educational attainment isn’t a stand-in for “dumb”, I think it’s a tough argument to say that dumbness gets pronounced the higher you go up the educational ladder, but you’re welcome to go down that road. 

Quote

— Education had a strong and positive effect on religious participation. With each additional year of education, the odds of attending religious services increased 15 percent. 

 

Quote

The research also found that disaffiliating, or dropping religion altogether, was not a popular option for highly educated Americans — in fact, having a greater level of education was associated most often with converting to mainline, non-evangelical Protestant denominations. 

As far as the messed up bit, Gallup reports better levels of well-being among regular attendees at religious services and separates it out from things like marital status, socio-economic status, etc. What’s really interesting is the effect is more pronounced between the moderately and very religious than it is between the very religious and non-religious.

Quote

The most substantial differences between the very religious and nonreligious groups are in the Healthy Behaviors, Work Environment, Life Evaluation, and Emotional Health Indexes. Differences between the very religious and nonreligious on the Basic Access Index are smaller, but statistically significant. In four of the six cases, the larger gap exists between the very religious and moderately religious groups, rather than between the very religious and nonreligious groups.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/152723/religious-americans-enjoy-higher-wellbeing.aspx

 Like I said in my first post, I knew this would not be a popular stance here. What is interesting is that the posters who most dispute it have come back with the following: this research conflicts with my anecdotes from life and YouTube/this research from places like the National Economic Research Board (!) is biased/non-rigorous, this research doesn’t measure things the way I would/you can’t measure this stuff anyway. 
 

What hasn’t happened: A presentation good data (or any data at all) showing that regular church goers are dumber/more messed up/worse off than average. 
 

I mean, all this could be wrong/biased/not measuring the correct thing—- or regular engagement in religious activity could be a whole lot more complicated and nuanced than can be determined by catching a bit of Paula White/Kenneth Copeland and their flock, or the outspoken people you are most likely to notice in your daily life.
 

It’s not a surprising response to information that challenges deeply held narratives, and it’s a tactic you might recognize from other political and cultural arenas of debate. 

 

 

 

Edited February 7, 2021 by 956 Worldwide

[956 Worldwide 34411]

Anyway, to bring this back to Q, which I will freely admit speaks the language of certain strains of evangelical Christianity and how churches are handling (and not handling) it, I found this politico interview pretty illuminating.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/02/04/qanon-christian-extremism-nationalism-violence-466034

The link between religion, extremism, education, etc. is for me one of the most interesting things about human behavior. I started to really get intrigued after spending a long time in Pakistan and being forced to confront some tough truths about who is and is not attracted to extremist versions of Islam, or politically active conservative Islam that isn’t violent, and who ends up going off to the Northwest or Afghanistan to pick up an AK or join some local outfit closet to home. (Hint: Things like education, socio-economic status, mosque attendance, and lots of other factors do not play the roles you’d likely expect).

People in the field are getting pretty good at abandoning “common sense truths” about this stuff when it’s not so close to home; we’d do well to keep that in mind as we confront similar phenomenons among people who are closer to us and therefore we think we understand. 

[Dahobbs 17420]

2 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Like I said in my first post, I knew this would not be a popular stance here. What is interesting is that the posters who most dispute it have come back with the following: this research conflicts with my anecdotes from life and YouTube/this research from places like the National Economic Research Board (!) is biased/non-rigorous, this research doesn’t measure things the way I would/you can’t measure this stuff anyway. 

 

What hasn’t happened: A presentation good data (or any data at all) showing that regular church goers are dumber/more messed up/worse off than average. 

***

It’s not a surprising response to information that challenges deeply held narratives, and it’s a tactic you might recognize from other political and cultural arenas of debate. 

 

 

 

Fuck your condescension. Seriously, all I did was question the methodology of the paper you presented. I don't care if your assertation is true or not. But that paper doesn't even purport to support it. And, even if it did, its methodology of simply assumimg the religioness of people wasn't well established in the paper, and it isn't clear to my how it could be reliable. 

Here is a question for you: if your position is well supported by research, why do you keep citing to preprint material? Are you even reading the papers or do you simply like the summaries in the articles because they support your preexisting belief? It is easy enough to find research supporting almost any position. The question is whether the research is reliable. If you aren't questioning the methodology and rationale of your material, then I suggest you aren't serious about finding answers but instead prefer finding comfort. 

 

Edited February 7, 2021 by Dahobbs

[956 Worldwide 34411]

7 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Fuck your condescendation. Seriously, all I did was question the methodology of the paper you presented. I don't care if your assertation is true or not. But that paper doesn't even purport to support it. And, even if it did, its methodology of simply assumimg the religioness of people wasn't well established in the paper, and it isn't clear to my how it could be reliable. 

Here is a question for you: if your position is well supported by research, why do you keep citing to preprint material? Are you even reading the papers or do you simply like the summaries in the articles because they support your preexisting belief? It is easy enough to find research supporting almost any position. The question is whether the research is reliable. If you aren't questioning the methodology and rationale of your material, then I suggest you aren't serious about finding answers but instead prefer finding comfort. 

 

Ok, so one more “I don’t have any data but I still don’t like yours or its presentation.”

Go find some that shows that churchgoers are less intelligent/mentally hindered/less educated/socially vulnerable/ whatever. I’m open to challenges.

 

 

Edited February 7, 2021 by 956 Worldwide

[SydneyCarton 47836]

2 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

My claim was pretty expansive, but there’s arguments against the idea that it’s dumbness, too.

https://newsroom.unl.edu/announce/todayatunl/452/2932

While lower educational attainment isn’t a stand-in for “dumb”, I think it’s a tough argument to say that dumbness gets pronounced the higher you go up the educational ladder, but you’re welcome to go down that road. 

 

As far as the messed up bit, Gallup reports better levels of well-being among regular attendees at religious services and separates it out from things like marital status, socio-economic status, etc. What’s really interesting is the effect is more pronounced between the moderately and very religious than it is between the very religious and non-religious.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/152723/religious-americans-enjoy-higher-wellbeing.aspx

 Like I said in my first post, I knew this would not be a popular stance here. What is interesting is that the posters who most dispute it have come back with the following: this research conflicts with my anecdotes from life and YouTube/this research from places like the National Economic Research Board (!) is biased/non-rigorous, this research doesn’t measure things the way I would/you can’t measure this stuff anyway. 
 

What hasn’t happened: A presentation good data (or any data at all) showing that regular church goers are dumber/more messed up/worse off than average. 
 

I mean, all this could be wrong/biased/not measuring the correct thing—- or regular engagement in religious activity could be a whole lot more complicated and nuanced than can be determined by catching a bit of Paula White/Kenneth Copeland and their flock, or the outspoken people you are most likely to notice in your daily life.
 

It’s not a surprising response to information that challenges deeply held narratives, and it’s a tactic you might recognize from other political and cultural arenas of debate. 

 

 

 

And now your “research” your citing is literally a Gallup poll. Which is the same as people spouting their opinions on a message board. Polls are great for something’s, like gathering opinions, but they’re hardly a telling metric when attempting to prove whether or not a herd of people are less intelligent or more open to following charlatans it’s not a great tool. At one point you’ve stated this to us:

 

Quote

Overall, though, the argument that people who go to church regularly are dumber/more messed up/getting preyed on absolutely has no basis in data. The opposite. 

You have listed nothing that supports that in any meaningful way other than your own anecdotal experience. No data. Just some articles that say religious people are happier and lead lives you find more stable/beneficial. Which can be explained by the tenets of religion items, at least the major organized ones. Shockingly a bunch of people feel better about life if they think they’re going to a paradise afterwards and any suffering they may be feeling will be paid off. This isn’t rocket science. So while I’m skeptical to much of what you’ve typed, you also have shown any actual evidence to prove your points. 
 

Here is some research that Fox News watchers are consistently dumber and less informed than their peers. Is a study that specified religious user being less intelligent? No. But at some point you’ve got to overlap the Venn diagrams and figure that there might be a similar pool from which these groups are drawing, namely religion and Fox News watchers. 
 

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/study-watching-fox-news-actually-makes-you-stupid-235770/

 

https://www.businessinsider.com/extended-exposure-to-fox-news-may-be-detrimental-to-your-intelligence-2010-12
 

https://trofire.com/2020/08/08/another-study-confirms-that-fox-news-makes-you-stupid/

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2016/07/21/a-rigorous-scientific-look-into-the-fox-news-effect/?sh=4463874712ab
 

why so many links? Because they do the study every 2 years or so and it keeps saying the same motherfucking  thing. 

[SydneyCarton 47836]

13 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Ok, so one more “I don’t have any data but I still don’t like yours or its presentation.”

Go find some that shows that churchgoers are less intelligent/mentally hindered/less educated/socially vulnerable/ whatever. I’m open to challenges.

 

 

I mean, we’re still waiting for you to respond and support your initial claim with any evidence at all worth a shit. The burden of proof should be on you. I’ve presented plenty of things you haven’t addressed and countered reasonably yet.

 

but I’ll take a stab at this too while we wait for you to bring some data that isn’t reinforcing opinion pieces. This was a 5 second google result. 
 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mr-personality/201312/why-are-religious-people-generally-less-intelligent
 

https://digest.bps.org.uk/2018/01/26/are-religious-people-really-less-smart-on-average-than-atheists/
 

https://www.psypost.org/2019/11/meta-analysis-of-83-studies-produces-very-strong-evidence-for-a-negative-relationship-between-intelligence-and-religiosity-54897
 

 

Edited February 7, 2021 by SydneyCarton

[956 Worldwide 34411]

Fox News is for dumb people who want to get dumber, but considering that less than 1 percent of the adult population is watching Fox News Prime Time any given day, it’s a pretty shit stand-in for “active church/mosque/synagogue/temple goers”. Yeah, a bunch of those viewers go to church regularly, but then again so does Joe Biden and a hell of a lot of recent Mexican immigrants. 
 

I am on board with “professing atheists/agnostics on average have higher IQs than professing believers in god(s)” especially here in the U.S. But even in the studies you posted, you will see the disclaimer that the effect is much less strongly related to religious practice (what I am driving at) as opposed to professed religious belief. There’s a pretty vast spectrum of religious belief/practice/confession out there, it is not a binary “atheist or churchgoer.” “Regular church/temple/mosque/synagogue goers are dumber than the average bear” isn’t even close to the same proposition. 
 

As far as Gallup goes, they measure not only “how are you feeling” but a range of behaviors and health indicators. Somehow I think findings that increased education/financial stability/volunteerism (all this exists) is also linked to reported well-being as would be challenged if posted in a vacuum, but when the same holds for religious engagement it’s all just sheeple deluding themselves. 
 

It’s the last I’ll engage with this, but TL;DR, religious practice in the U.S. and elsewhere is a whole lot more complicated and diverse than Jerry Falwell has successfully made people believe. 

[Dahobbs 17420]

3 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Ok, so one more “I don’t have any data but I still don’t like yours or its presentation.”

Go find some that shows that churchgoers are less intelligent/mentally hindered/less educated/socially vulnerable/ whatever. I’m open to challenges.

 

 

You're the one making an argument. The burden is on you. I'm challenging the evidence you are presenting because it doesn't appear to be reliable. In court, your experts would be struck and their opinions not admissible before the jury because you haven't shown that their methodology is reliable. You may be right, I honestly have no idea and I don't have an opinion one way or another. But right now you're presenting bullshit as if it were evidence and then getting mad at others when they call you on it. 

[Ten Bears 2479]

Hmm... 965 seems incapable of presenting a coherent argument.  It's almost as if his intelligence is below average.

[Brisketexan 104537]

Y’all are arguing past each other.

The idea that people who participate in “institutions,” of which organized, church-going religion is one, have more stable and productive lives isn’t revolutionary or controversial.

Religion isn’t unique in that regard, though. Other institutions (schools, clubs, etc) can perform the same role as “grounding and stabilizing influence and support network.”

So, it’s not that having religious faith is a positive, it’s that meaningfully participating in a religious community generally has a positive effect.

Having a religious “belief system” can be separated from that - see Q, which is absolutely a quasi-religious cult. The problem with Q (well...A problem with Q) is that it is JUST a belief system, with no structure or institutional role. Q doesn’t get you to church on Sunday, where your kids get to go to Sunday school with your peers, doesn’t put on a Saturday picnic, doesn’t run a day school, doesn’t offer couples counseling, doesn’t bring your family together for big life milestones like baptism or marriage, etc. It just offers a batshit belief system that, while you share it with other people, you aren’t brought into an actual community. In fact, it breaks family relationships.

So, maybe this broad correlation: traditional organized faith can be a positive and stabilizing influence, extremist cults can be a bad influence.

[956 Worldwide 34411]

17 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Y’all are arguing past each other.

The idea that people who participate in “institutions,” of which organized, church-going religion is one, have more stable and productive lives isn’t revolutionary or controversial.

..............

So, it’s not that having religious faith is a positive, it’s that meaningfully participating in a religious community generally has a positive effect.
 

 

Quote

Look, don’t take my own word for it. It’s a fascinating thing and you can see that I said “church attendance” and not religiousness

Shit, it’s almost like I said exactly that. 

[tx 3 putt 76295]

LuLz 

[Dahobbs 17420]

29 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Y’all are arguing past each other.

The idea that people who participate in “institutions,” of which organized, church-going religion is one, have more stable and productive lives isn’t revolutionary or controversial.

Religion isn’t unique in that regard, though. Other institutions (schools, clubs, etc) can perform the same role as “grounding and stabilizing influence and support network.”

So, it’s not that having religious faith is a positive, it’s that meaningfully participating in a religious community generally has a positive effect.

Having a religious “belief system” can be separated from that - see Q, which is absolutely a quasi-religious cult. The problem with Q (well...A problem with Q) is that it is JUST a belief system, with no structure or institutional role. Q doesn’t get you to church on Sunday, where your kids get to go to Sunday school with your peers, doesn’t put on a Saturday picnic, doesn’t run a day school, doesn’t offer couples counseling, doesn’t bring your family together for big life milestones like baptism or marriage, etc. It just offers a batshit belief system that, while you share it with other people, you aren’t brought into an actual community. In fact, it breaks family relationships.

So, maybe this broad correlation: traditional organized faith can be a positive and stabilizing influence, extremist cults can be a bad influence.

I had actually written something similar to this, but it got lost to the internet gods. The hypothesis that the religious benefit from involvement in a shared community seems like a good one to me. And, I wouldn't be surprised if emperically we would see economic benefits to that group compared to population as a whole. I do think the benefit has more to do with community support rather than anything specific to religion, i.e., other forms of community support would likely confer similar benefits. 

The only issue I have with his posts is the condescension to an observed critique of one of his cites. He/she makes no effort to defend the methodology, but rather shifts entirely to attack. In short, I think he/she is an asshole. So, probably a good fit here. 

Edited February 7, 2021 by Dahobbs

[956 Worldwide 34411]

36 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Y’all are arguing past each other.

The idea that people who participate in “institutions,” of which organized, church-going religion is one, have more stable and productive lives isn’t revolutionary or controversial.

Religion isn’t unique in that regard, though. Other institutions (schools, clubs, etc) can perform the same role as “grounding and stabilizing influence and support network.”

So, it’s not that having religious faith is a positive, it’s that meaningfully participating in a religious community generally has a positive effect.

Having a religious “belief system” can be separated from that - see Q, which is absolutely a quasi-religious cult. The problem with Q (well...A problem with Q) is that it is JUST a belief system, with no structure or institutional role. Q doesn’t get you to church on Sunday, where your kids get to go to Sunday school with your peers, doesn’t put on a Saturday picnic, doesn’t run a day school, doesn’t offer couples counseling, doesn’t bring your family together for big life milestones like baptism or marriage, etc. It just offers a batshit belief system that, while you share it with other people, you aren’t brought into an actual community. In fact, it breaks family relationships.

So, maybe this broad correlation: traditional organized faith can be a positive and stabilizing influence, extremist cults can be a bad influence.

I’d also say that the collapse in organized religion wouldn’t concern me so much if it was accompanied by people rushing out to join the Elks, or the Secular Society of Mutual Aid and Discussing the Big Questions of Life.

But you’re not seeing that, you’re seeing a collapse in civic engagement overall. And it’s not people switching to cool rationalism, it’s people groping for meaning alone, often on the internet, outside of a community with guardrails and support, even if that support and guardrails are flawed.

Edited February 7, 2021 by 956 Worldwide

[ndawg 1242]

Most discussions that find themselves in orbit of religion devolve into a dispute about their plausibility, which I think a lot of us probably find kind of dull and reductive at this point. I read an interesting thread on twitter a few weeks ago that argued for religion -- irrespective of its truth -- as an undeniably valuable coordinating technology. When you have something like a shared belief in the ten commandments, you've got a system for elevating the common good above someone's own impulses, particularly during antiquity. Religion goes far beyond a code of laws in this sense, though, as it provides a common narrative for interpreting the human condition. This in turn produces stability, which then begets a degree of prosperity that is far beyond what humans can achieve when we have no communal trust. Religion was therefore a key ingredient to enabling small tribes to band together and form a prospering civilization.

When I look at religion in this light, and then consider today's landscape, I immediately notice something of a paradox. Evangelicals are some of the most individualistic and least trusting members of our society. Their religion appears to be leading them towards becoming fundamentally uncivilized, as they don't really seem to hold themselves to any moral code whatsoever. Conversely, on the left, there's an attempt to impose something akin to a secular version of religious law. The latest example I can think of is the high school in San Francisco that is apparently renaming itself from Lincoln High School because, evidently, it's not just confederates whose legacy is being dismantled. If I squint hard enough, I can almost see a kind of religious zealot emerging on the left. It's as if our society as a whole is turning itself upside down trying to figure itself out.

[ndawg 1242]

10 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

I’d also say that the collapse in organized religion wouldn’t concern me so much if it was accompanied by people rushing out to join the Elks, or the Secular Society of Mutual Aid and Discussing the Big Questions of Life.

But you’re not seeing that, you’re seeing a collapse in civic engagement overall. And it’s not people switching to cool rationalism, it’s people groping for meaning alone, often on the internet, outside of a community with guardrails and support, even if that support and guardrails are flawed.

For three generations, we've increasingly subjected Americans from an early age to a constant barrage of 1. superhero fantasies, 2. seeing everyday schlubs "making it" via reality shows or popular youtube channels, and 3. a cultural identity around entrepeneurship and exceptionalism that punishes the weak.

It's no wonder adults aren't joining organizations greater than themselves, they're stuck as adolescents in grown up bodies, still indulging the delusion that they are individually great. We've been high on our own supply for about 70 years and poisoned our culture with toxic narcissism.

Edited February 7, 2021 by ndawg

[956 Worldwide 34411]

11 minutes ago, ndawg said:

For three generations, we've increasingly subjected Americans from an early age to a constant barrage of 1. superhero fantasies, 2. seeing everyday schlubs "making it" via reality shows or popular youtube channels, and 3. a cultural identity around entrepeneurship and exceptionalism that punishes the weak.

It's no wonder adults aren't joining organizations greater than themselves, they're stuck as adolescents in grown up bodies, still indulging the delusion that they are individually great. We've been high on our own supply for about 70 years and poisoned our culture with toxic narcissism.

I also think there’s a loss in opportunities to actually show real leadership or authority and so we replace it with resentment and narcissism. If you’re participating, you have a chance to do meaningful things, even if they are small. You can be a deacon or teach Sunday school. You can serve as a club officer. You can organize the bazaar or city day. You can make decisions, be listened to, learn to exercise responsible authority, even if it’s circumscribed. So you are not completely defined as “worker drone who isn’t a captain of industry or influencer.”  Your boss tells you what to do all week, but at Lions Club, you are in a position of directing and managing. 
 

And Q can fulfill a lot of that, because all of a sudden you are initiated into special knowledge that not everyone knows, and you are playing a part even if it’s in an imaginary, bonkers RPG that makes the players crazy. And eventually you’ll stick it to the people out there who currently are making decisions and being listened to while you are just trying to keep your head above water. 

 

(This is just my thoughts and I’m not claiming inerrancy, for the show your work crowd.)

[Mrs Whiggins 13049]

For an outside perspective, here is a thread from Twitter that you might find a somewhat pertinent read based on the earlier conversations. First tweet and then rest is behind spoiler. The account holder is anonymous, was raised in a fundamentalist homeschool setting and left due to abuse. Uses the account to educate others/researchers (as it is a very 'closed' society to outside influencers).

Spoiler