The blue roads of thinking

Was Jesus Extraordinary?

2012-01-21T06:54:00.000-08:00

beliefnet
As you know I use the Jefferson Bible as my main source for the details of the ministry of Jesus, mixed with my own analysis of the synoptics prior to discovering the Jefferson Bible. My childhood Unitarian statement of belief read in part "Unitarians believe in the fatherhood of God, the leadership of Jesus, and the progress of mankind (sic) ..." I did not believe it then either but obviously it made an impression.

I read the entire KJV Bible in middle school, gagging then as now on everything past Acts. I did better on the OT as useful myth than anything past John as Christian lies from beginning to end. It wasn’t until my abortive attempt at a philosophy major in the university that I was able to even study the end of the NT with any intelligence. It never said anything of use in the study of Jesus.

Two of my earliest lessons from Jesus that indicated to me that he was extraordinary for his time and place were the cleansing of the Temple, and the forgiveness of the whore. The first was a very public and radical break with the top down Jewish prevailing faith of the time. In effect equivalent to Ginsberg’s Howl for my generation. “You [the Pharisees and the Jewish establishment] have turned my Father’s house…” Note: Not the house of God, but the house of the personal God of Jesus. The very idea of God belonging to an individual and not the Jewish establishment that was the social structure of Jesus and his peers was just wild and crazy. The fact he wasn’t killed on the spot was testimony to the power of his personality and vision. The possibility exists that the "Occupy the Temple" movement was at his back.

The intervention in the stoning of the whore was not only a radical break with the law, but one of the earliest recognition of the humanness of even the lowest of women in ancient literature. In effect his statement “Let he [the human person] who is without sin, cast the first stone [at this female human person.]” Perhaps there were other instances of the treatment of ordinary women as human beings in ancient writings, but they were few and far between, and none that I am aware of that take on a group of angry men doing their lawful job.

The Sermon on the Mount, impractical as it was for actual living at the time, was again the gift of God to the ordinary people of the culture who would have been ignored by the priests and the religious establishment except as butts in the seats offering their hard earned pittances to the priests, er, God.

The summation of the Two Great Commandments particularly in light of his recent inhospitable treatment at the hands of a Samaritan and his subsequent use of a Samaritan as his example of the neighbor he was talking about still gags Christians, let alone the Jews of his culture. I find it significant that “Progressive Christians” have retreated to the Two Great Commandments as the essence of their faith in God and humanity.

All of this attributed as best we can discern to one insignificant itinerant preacher living off the “coins in the hat” as did most of the itinerant preachers who are lost in the sands of time seems to me extraordinary.

"The Book of Goddesses: Robert Paterson has arrived!!!

2012-01-12T15:48:00.000-08:00

Even more spectacular than I anticipated. The idiom of the Goddess believers in the unique idiom of Rob Paterson, is incredibly beautiful and respectful.

Buy it at iTunes, Amazon, CD Baby or wherever but buy it you will be glad you did.

Thanks once again Rob.

Atheists for Jesus

2012-01-08T17:53:00.000-08:00

Atheists for Jesus

Of course Jesus was a theist, but that is the least interesting thing about him. He was a theist because, in his time, everybody was. Atheism was not an option, even for so radical a thinker as Jesus. What was interesting and remarkable about Jesus was not the obvious fact that he believed in the God of his Jewish religion, but that he rebelled against many aspects of Yahweh's vengeful nastiness. At least in the teachings that are attributed to him, he publicly advocated niceness and was one of the first to do so.
Richard Dawkins

He also rebelled against the Priestly tradition of God and gave God directly to the individual. "Love the Lord thy God..." Paul soon fixed that and gave God back to the church leaders, mainly himself, and Christianity was formed using Jesus as the intermediary between "thy" and God.

I can get along fine with "Progressive Christians" who have returned to the Gospels and the humanistic message of Jesus, leaving the hate filled Lord Jesus Christ of Paul to the dust of Abrahamic myth.

The House Dog's Grave : Robinson Jeffers.

2012-01-05T23:56:00.000-08:00

The House Dog's Grave (Haig, an English bulldog)

I've changed my ways a little; I cannot now
Run with you in the evenings along the shore,
Except in a kind of dream; and you, if you dream a moment,
You see me there.

So leave awhile the paw-marks on the front door
Where I used to scratch to go out or in,
And you'd soon open; leave on the kitchen floor
The marks of my drinking-pan.

I cannot lie by your fire as I used to do
On the warm stone,
Nor at the foot of your bed; no, all the night through
I lie alone.

But your kind thought has laid me less than six feet
Outside your window where firelight so often plays,
And where you sit to read--and I fear often grieving for me--
Every night your lamplight lies on my place.

You, man and woman, live so long, it is hard
To think of you ever dying
A little dog would get tired, living so long.
I hope than when you are lying

Under the ground like me your lives will appear
As good and joyful as mine.
No, dear, that's too much hope: you are not so well cared for
As I have been.

And never have known the passionate undivided
Fidelities that I knew.
Your minds are perhaps too active, too many-sided. . . .
But to me you were true.

You were never masters, but friends. I was your friend.
I loved you well, and was loved. Deep love endures
To the end and far past the end. If this is my end,
I am not lonely. I am not afraid. I am still yours.

Robinson Jeffers, 1941

Practical Atheism and Feminism.

2012-01-01T08:21:00.000-08:00

beliefnet
Both Skep-Chick and Blag Hag are also feminist sites in addition to atheist sites. Perhaps as both claim, of necessity, but there is nothing that brings out the little shits with shriveled pricks like a woman who claims that women are not toys that are the property of any man who happens to notice they are not dressed in burqa.

I have been involved in practical feminism almost since utero as my mother was a practical feminist in politics who had no problems chilling any man who suggested that her place was at home with her kids or at church as she was also an atheist. But in my many decades of active involvement in practical feminism and atheism dealing with the misogynists is by far the more difficult. While it is relatively easy to lose the God associated with the Abrahamic religions it is nearly impossible to lose the misogyny which was taught before God.

This is not an apology, it is reality.

Atheism and Existentialism

2011-12-31T10:25:00.000-08:00

beliefnet

Human Social Development ISN'T a deeply Existential Matter ... ???
teilhard

Only for those whose God has failed them. If they have been indoctrinated into God dependence from childhood, they do not have the social resources to deal with the existential crisis of the loss of God when it is not their choice. Their church can only tell them to have faith in God Who cannot fail, when in fact He has failed miserably. They are left only with the fact of their existence and are forced to make sense of it. As Sartre wails in the title of his play there is NO EXIT! God is dead, the social support group still clinging to God is useless, and the atheist humanists were so far underground that there was no help there.

Fortunately that is changing. There is a critical mass of people comfortable with their atheism that those willing to reach out from their existential morass can get the human community support they so desperately need.

For others the existential crisis is unnecessary, as they move into and with a secular commuinity they no longer have to tolerate the dysfunctional relationship with God and can cut the dependency by choice.

Music on a Vuvuzela

2011-12-27T18:48:00.000-08:00

Vuvuzela Music FAQWhen people first time try out a vuvuzela, they tend to look at the mouthpiece, see the hole, blow some air into it and surprisedly listen what happens: "pfffff pfffffff..." - nothing! Slowly noticing that this is obviously more than one of those toy party horns, the next they typically do is reading either an instruction sheet (if present) or look for help on vendors websites. And there they usually find something stupid like "Close your lips and blow through them to make them vibrate with a farting noise. Squeeze the mouthpiece against them and BLOOOOOWWWWW as strong as you can..." And after the vase is broken, the wall clock stands still and the last shard of the fallen chandelier has stopped rolling around on floor, you can stop blowing now... ;-) Although that tip may help to toot loudly, it is useless for melody play, thus it is best to forget this for now and try something else. Also the common establishment's claim that one can anyway blow only about 3 different notes on such a short horn only refers to a certain type of very loud signal tones and deserves to be ignored. Claiming that it can't do others is like saying that a skateboard can not be steered because it has no steering wheel. Already millennia ago people played melodies on similar instruments, so let's now try what's possible.

A Christian asks about Dying

2011-12-07T15:54:00.000-08:00

Beliefnet
I hope you followed the link to legacy it should explain much. With nothing expected after death, you look backward, if you have taught your children well, all of them, not just your own, you should be confident that there are many who can build on your legacy for a better world for all who follow.

Thinking about the unknown that happens after death is a waste of time. All the data points to no answer. If there is something after death it would make no difference at all in how I live. If I have lived a moral, useful life any possible afterlife concierge would consider that and nothing else. Or as Forrest Church frequently charged "Live a life worth dying for." Note the active verb is "live."

Consider the second runner in a relay race. What does hesh think as hesh passes the baton? Hesh is probably the weakest runner, but if hesh did herm very best, the others may win the race. So, as hesh ran all that mattered was that hesh ran well. Focusing on anything else would doom the race.

The Book of Goddesses: Robert Paterson

2011-12-05T09:05:00.000-08:00

The facinating background on the upcomming release of the new CD Dec 6 Use CDbaby it is more fun and better for the artists.

My guess: it will be spectacular, and the packaging will be glorious under the tree without even a bow.

Absolute Moral Authority.

2011-11-25T10:03:00.000-08:00

beliefnet

The Bible has indeed been RECEIVED ais "Authoritative" ... This is so not least because an entire Community has received It so ...
teilhard

And thus we return to the topic. Absolute Moral Authority is whatever an entire community has accepted as morally authoritative. Different communities will of course differ on the source of that moral authority, it may be God, it may be some version of the Bible, or more commonly some quote mines from a particular version of the Bible, it may be the mediator for God, it may be Mrs. Grundy. In an advanced larger society the source is more diffuse, but no less definite. As an example in the large society of research scientists, one must not knowingly falsify data, one must cite all relevant influences on the research, and peer review either of knowledgeable people within a organization if it is proprietary research, or public if it is academic research. Any breech of these moral standards will result in "excommunication" and no scientific employment will be available.

Dogs and people.

2011-11-25T07:21:00.001-08:00

Afghans generally consider dogs filthy animals and will use them to guard their homes, but they don't treat them the way Americans treat pets, according to many soldiers. There are hundreds of stray animals that must hunt for scraps of food, endure the scorching desert sun and freezing winters, and generally live by their wits. Van Alstine took Chloe into his tent, groomed her daily and fed her his own rations. She was always by his side on the base and walked next to him on every foot patrol.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/11/23/BA401M0JGJ.DTL#ixzz1ejMT4osN

Absolute Moral Authority.

2011-11-21T12:34:00.000-08:00

There is an absolute moral authority it comes from the evolutionary need for intelligent social animals to live, breed and compete under a moral system that allows most to survive. This natural absolute moral authority is generally based on the needs of an extended village, and is frequently hijacked by shamans, priest, pastors, imams and other self-appointed mediators for God in the service of themselves, God and always themselves. But the absolute moral authority comes from the society not from the God.

Religion, Music and Art

2011-11-14T09:10:00.000-08:00

beliefnet

I have explored the entire realm of seeking called religion and found absolutely nothing useful for living except the music and art that probably have nothing to do with religion except a payday. Religion tries to hijack every basic human need in the service of whatever God is handy and will pay for the privilege. Intelligent and creative people are happy to accept the paycheck, and some of them may believe, but their belief proves nothing but that even intelligent and creative people can be duped by shamans and priests.

Defining Right and Wrong vs Morality

2011-10-29T15:35:00.000-07:00

beliefnet

we're confusing DEFINING right/wrong... from KNOWING right/wrong.
Aka me, all

Not we, you and religions. Most of us social animals have no problem knowing right from wrong which is the natural imprinting of proper social behavior by the herd, pack, or tribe necessary for the survival of the herd, pack, or tribe (or equivalent social structure whatever the arrogant human animals call it.)
Most religions have elaborate definitions of right/wrong for the benefit of the shamans to control the tribe, occasionally for the benefit of the God of the tribe, less frequently for the benefit of the tribe itself and always for the benefit of the shamans. Thanks RAH.

animals are incapable of knowing WRONG. they don't have an internal moral compass. what they have is instinct through genetic programming

You are a bit confused here, animals don’t define wrong, they generally do not have shamans to tell them what it is. They do have a moral compass, partly genetic, mostly imprinted by parents and alphas where the genetic social structure is alpha driven. All social animals have the equivalent of the canine “play bow” to indicate learning behavior, including play fighting and hunting to learn proper behaviors.

The difficulty here is accepting humans as being more than animals, because then we have to start talking about "what" makes them more than animals, and conversation is then heading in the direction of discussing souls.

Again the difficulty is religious as religions have to impose a soul or equivalent on the human animal to define right and wrong for the benefit of the shamans. Without a soul the human animal generally gets along well with at least the extended tribe, including the women and children.

it's not hard to see the cause of the current frustration.

Yeah, we don’t believe in the shamans or God.

Dot's Spirituality

2011-10-29T03:03:00.000-07:00

beliefnet

All humans feel awe and wonder resulting from certain things--a beautiful sunrise or sunset, rainbow after a bad thunderstorm, the first day of chilly weather portending the coming of winter, an unexpected act of kindness, a child's delight in simple things.

That we do is simply human, no gods involved, IMO. Current research has identified areas of the brain which react in this way. We're all wired to marvel at things.
DotNotInOz

Atheist Morality

2011-10-26T10:32:00.000-07:00

beliefnet

Morality for atheists comes from the same place that morality for theists comes from: The society of the peers we respect and interact with. The difference is that there is no God arbiter in an atheist society. Therefore the morality of an atheist is generally compliant with the current social imperatives of living in an interdependent, information rich, international, cosmopolitan society. Atheist morality has little to do with the needs of a group of bronze age desert marauders.

Emotional Wounds.

2011-10-24T12:53:00.000-07:00

Time and brain chemistry heal all wounds even emotional ones.

I know I’m not physically hurt. Though it feels like I’ve been kicked in the stomach with steel-toed boots, my abdomen isn’t bruised. Spiking cortisol levels are causing my muscles to tense and diverting blood away from my gut, leading to this twisting, gnawing agony that I cannot stop thinking about. I can’t stop crying. I can’t move. I just stare at the ceiling, wondering when, if ever, this pain is going to go away.
...
Pain is a strong motivator; it is the primary way for our bodies tell us that something is wrong and needs to be fixed. Our intense aversion to pain causes us to instantly change behavior to ensure we don’t hurt anymore. Since the need to maintain social bonds is crucial to mammalian survival, experiencing pain when they are threatened is an adaptive way to prevent the potential danger of being alone.
...
Where music comes from, or even why we like and create music, is still a mystery. What we do know is that it has a powerful affect on our brains. Music evokes strong emotions and changes how we perceive the world around us. Simply listening to music causes the release of dopamine, a neurotransmitter linked to the brain’s reward system and feelings of happiness. But even more impressive is its affect on pain. Multiple studies have shown that listening to music alters our perception of painful stimuli and strengthens feelings of control. People are able to tolerate pain for longer periods of time when listening to music, and will even rate the severity of the sensation as lower, suggesting that something so simple as a melody has a direct affect on our neural pathways.

Yet people wonder about teen suicides caused by rejection whether religious or social.

The whole blog post is incredible. A must read.

Faith as Morton's Demon

2011-10-23T03:32:00.000-07:00

beliefnet

What think ye? Can you consider that you (A or T) can't really be objective, that your neural structure will not let you be objective? And, is there a means to "deconstruct" our (unconscious) bias, and see the world as it is in actuality?
stardustpilgrim

Interesting observation. However the major difference between the theist and the atheist is the concept of faith or acceptance of that which cannot be observed in any ordinary manner. While our worldviews are built from the input of our social support group, the theistic support group includes the faith concept which acts as a Morton’s demon to filter out that which conflicts with the faith teachings. Confirmation bias of course exists in all world views, but it is institutionalized in the theistic worldview with the concept of faith or belief. Faith is intrinsic in the teachings about God and any ancillary supporting entities, which cannot be questioned in any normal way, but must be accepted as taught as true. Therefore the confirmation bias cannot even be examined in a realistic way as long as the God is accepted as taught.

Atheism vs Skepticism

2011-10-20T03:14:00.000-07:00

There is some confusion in the minds of many including religious skeptics as to the relationship of skepticism to atheism. I think it is fair to say that all skeptics are atheists. It is not true however, that all atheists are skeptics. There are atheists that are not skeptics in that they are agnostic about many of the gaps normally filled by God. Reiki, ESP, paranormal phenomenena in general other unexplained activities of the mind/brain are simply unexplained phenenomena which are not attributed to God, hence atheistic, but simply unknowns. A religious skeptic believes that since God cannot be responsible it must be false.

The religion of skepticism can be just as irrational as any other religion, and skeptical beliefs like beliefs in any religion are frequently strongly held and vigorously defended. It is amusing to some of the atheists here who do not believe in Randi to see the God like status in him assumed by skeptics. Randi says it. I believe it. That settles it.

I am one of the atheists here that has found convincing evidence that the mind or brain if you prefer has much more control over the working of the body and the social environment than can be presently explained by science. I do not use skepticism of the gaps to deny or argue against alternative medicine or any other unexplained observations about workings of the human mind.

Atheism and Being Human

2011-10-19T20:56:00.000-07:00

beliefnet

Actually even in cases [failed theists] such as you describe, they are "observing the world" and finding that atheism does not fulfill what they know of the reality of being human.
El Cid

Nolo contendere. Atheism has never pretended to be a fulfilling philosophy for the reality of being human. All atheism is a rejection of God as being fulfilling for the reality of being human. This may be done for many reasons. One of the more common is the “hiding” from God. While this meets the definition for atheism it is a weak sort of atheism ready and willing to grab the God life saver when they can’t cope with reality.

Until one has replaced the big two of morality and death as mediated by God and come up with a coherent worldview that is both moral and realistic about death that does not involve God atheism is simply a meaningless label to fool the self and hopefully others.

Is Life Enough?

2011-10-16T10:58:00.000-07:00

beliefnet

When is one's current (often rather inadequate and inaccurate) understanding of reality enough? Shouldn't one desire more?
ctcss

One's current (often rather inadequate and inaccurate) understanding of reality is never enough. But by sharing one's current (often rather inadequate and inaccurate) understanding of reality with others with perhaps more wisdom or drive to make it more accurate and adequate is how human progress happens.

I have no intention of ceasing to share my current (often rather inadequate and inaccurate) understanding of reality with others, indeed that is why I get out of bed each morning, even though I know I will be unable to do so relatively soon.

I have already seen how others with more wisdom and drive have taken what I have shared to places I cannot get to. I see others in the process of doing so, and am quite confident that they will achieve goals that are beyond my capabilities. Have I personally changed my world for the better? I think so, but others are doing as much or more.

I have no time to appease some God so that I might increase my current (often rather inadequate and inaccurate) understanding of reality after I die. I do the best I can with what I have. If I haven't learned enough and shared enough by now one thing is certain: all the learning I achieve after death is useless. I never will share it with anyone who can affect humankind.

Atheists on the will to live.

2011-10-09T03:26:00.000-07:00

All my life I have been positive but lately I have been thinking why? I do not see the reason to live. I mean it all ends in death anyway.
s

Isn't that a bit like saying; what's the use in baking a cake because it just gets eaten?
wn

When it is gone it is gone.
s

There's no particular reason to live, but most of us have got into the habit of it. As long as we're doing it, we might as well make the best of it.
ka
Life is an end in itself. It is pointless to look for the reason to live beyond living itself.
ea

What is the best of it?
s

Being reasonably comfortable and having something interesting to do.
ka

But don't you want to just lay that down sometimes. As you said before no one will remember the person anyway.
s

Why would I want to be uncomfortable and uninterested? And why would I care whether anyone remembers me or not? My contentment doesn't depend on other people's opinions.
ka
Perhaps not, but if you change someone's life they will remember the change. Is that not enough?
ja
Some of the Buddhists that I have met over the years have said that one of the things that humans find difficult is valuing things that are impermanent; they tend to find value in things that they consider permanent, unchanging, and eternal. But just because something does not last forever does not mean that is is not of value, or that we cannot find a reason in it. Likewise, the idea of "being forever known" (as Charlotte Bronte phrased it). We may remember someone like Steve Jobs now, and he may have invented a number of things that many people find beneficial, and we consider him a "genius," but the things that he did does not mean that his name, let alone his life, will be remembered years from now. And does it really matter that people who did not personally know someone like Steve Jobs remembers him? I don't know. I'd personally prefer to be remembered by a few family and friends for a brief while after I have died rather than have people far in the distant future recall me.

Some authors, like Charlotte Bronte and Anne Frank, really did want to be forever known, while others, such as Emily Bronte, merely wanted to be left alone and to remain anonymous.

Sometimes individuals like Steve Jobs can make our lives look pretty puny and worthless. That, I think, is one of the problems with heroes and other individuals. We may celebrate them for their acomplishments, but they can make us devalue our own lives. But just because someone like Jobs is so famous now does not mean that his life was any better than anyone else's, or that what he accomplished is somehow better than, for instance, all of the men and women throughout history whose names are not famous. Many people accomplish great things -- things that are not celebrated in heroic songs, or that are not included in world history chronicles.
ca

I don’t know. Lying in bed at night knowing this –dying- which we will all do I do not know. How do you know my friend?
s

there are many reasons to enjoy life to the fullest:
passion for a hobby, mine is flying.
passion for those we love, mine is my wife and son.
pleasure of experiencing new things, like getting a pilot's license, or flying an ultalight at 5300 feet to discover a commercial airplane coming straight at you wondering if you have enough metal to show up on their radar.
satisfaction of making the world a better place.
enjoyment of helping someone in need.
even simple things like an excellent dinner with someone special.
I've long felt like life is passing me by, without having done anything extraordinary. since Steve Jobs passed away I've been asking myself "why does that does it bother me so much?"
at

I know a I have been asking myself, because of Jobs, the same thing.
s

Don't know if anyone remembers a movie with Robert Duval and James Earl Jones, "A Family Thing".
My favorite scene is Duval explaining to his newly met nephew that happiness is as simple as having something to look forward to.
wn
I've long felt like life is passing me by, without having done anything extraordinary.
at
Where would we be if it weren't for the billions of people who never do anything extraordinary? They keep things going.
ka

I guess that what bothers me the most is I do not care to dream anymore.
I can not seem to capture my happiness. I read poetry and it does not help. I take my long walks on the river. I spend time with friends. Who knew?
s

Then find an old dream and make it happen.
ja

Have you ever had a time in your life when you could not dream of better things. I ask you because you seem honest.
s

I don't dream of better things. I fully accept that my life is as good as it will ever be. But I don't care. It's good enough
ka
Many times. Which is why old dreams had to do. And each time the old dream led to new ones. As a result I keep a stock of old dreams around for emergencies.
ca

Is love an opinion?
s

I'd personally prefer to be remembered by a few family and friends for a brief while after I have died rather than have people far in the distant future recall me.
ca

Yes that would be nice but as you know my family are all gone.
s

But you have friends -- and me.
ca

Yes thank you. You hold away the thought of death for me.
s

I want to be clear the WHY is about the fear of death. Do you not have it?
s

I know ma but has there not been times in your life when you needed a reason?
s

I can't say that I've had much existential angst in my life. I've always found values that make life worth living. They don't have to be grand values either. Sometimes it's just anticipating movies based on some novel I've enjoyed in the past, such as the Lord of the Rings movies.
But I always locate my reasons in this life, and never outside.
Also, I don't try to force meaning onto life. There is an unusual aspect to happiness, and that is that it can't be achieved directly. It can only be approached indirectly. It's almost something that has to sneak up on you from behind, as you do things that suit you.
So, I do what I enjoy and find interesting and challenging. Meaning catches up
ma

Yes I also in the past have seen it that way.
s

I know but can atheist ideology fix things?
s

Sartre seemed to have thought so, but some critics think that his three-part system (anguish, forlornness, and despair) is only really relevant for former Catholics during the mid-20th century, and is of little use for anyone else during any other time period. (And the fact that Sartre was supportive of suicide makes his atheist Existentialism unacceptable for some people who otherwise support his Existential ideas.) Other than Sartre's, I am not familiar with any other atheist ideology, unless you are referring to an individual atheist's ideology, one that he or she personally invents for his or her own life
ca
That all depends on what we want it to fix, I suppose. Atheism doesn't seem to particularly fix our human struggles for meaning, purpose, and value, nor does it seem to particularly fix our human knowledge of our own mortality. Theism, though, doesn't particularly seem to fix those things, either. Saint Therese of Lisieux and Mother Teresa of Calcutta, for instance, are two examples of theists who seemed to struggle through much of their lives with a search for meaning and purpose.
ca
No, but it does give you an incentive to fix things for somebody that God isn't going to fix either. Maybe that somebody is you, maybe somebody else.

If it is to be it is up to me to do it.

I find that a liberating, demanding, and inspiring thought. If something needs to be fixed, neither God nor atheism is going to fix it. And there is always something that needs fixing. Endless opportunities to make each day worth dying for.
ja

I want to be clear the WHY is about the fear of death. Do you not have it?
s

You can find an extended answer on Thinking About Death. It is an atheist's answer.
The short answer is I do not fear death.
ja

The preceeding was extracted and rearranged from a beliefnet thread. Names abbreviated as this was obviously a personal thread.

Life 101

2011-10-04T07:47:00.000-07:00

“Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.”
― Dr. Seuss

Thanks for finding this Jamel Oeser-Sweat

Elizabeth Warren on Success

2011-09-30T19:27:00.000-07:00

moveon.org

Perhaps the lesson for the wealthy that trashing the social support is trashing self will soon be apparant. The writing is on the wall, and the night is falling.

No less of a Robber Baron than Henry Ford said (paraphrased) if I pay my workers enough to afford a car they will buy one and support the economy. The other car companies had to follow and for better or for worse the American economy was built on the automobile and the auto workers. Short lived as all progress is, by the late 20's wealth was moving up again and Hoover was attached to informal communities all over the country.

I recently read an article that by the end of each month even Wal-Mart is finding out that starvation wages can't even buy the cheapest shit in town.

Jesus' Sources

2011-09-29T02:57:00.000-07:00

beliefnet

There is nothing original about Jesus' "understanding." Virtually everything he said can be found in Cynic philosophy and liberal Pharasaism.
Ken

True but it was neither Cynic or Pharasaism, it was his synthesis of the important ideas of both, and certainly his showmanship in presenting the synthesis that made his message so important for its time. The fact that there are still many people trying to emulate his teachings no matter how corrupted, although some are going back to the gospels only, that makes Jesus so important in western religions. Show me a Cynic or a Pharasee of similar influence.

That's not a fair request. None of the Cynics or Pharasees had the advantage of being turned into gods.
Ken

Apparantly none of them had enough influence to be considered for the role. Jesus did. Against his specific wishes I might add. Sorry, I can't resist. Over his dead body so to speak.

Source of Wisdom

2011-09-28T15:27:00.000-07:00

beliefnet

In a modern working society there is no single source of wisdom. All profound thinkers have been examined by peers and then the profound thoughts are further winnowed by thoughtful people who are the intellectual leaders of the society. The result is a society which integrates the wisdom of all and benefits not only those who choose to be a part of it, but the larger society of which it is a part.

More cool Rob Paterson Work

2011-09-22T10:18:00.000-07:00

Rob Patterson: Mallethands. On the wonder and challenges of new music composing, promoting, and performing. Note use of the viola as a solo instrument.

Abiogenesis for Dummies

2011-09-19T20:16:00.000-07:00

beliefnet

With primitive organisms reproducing in hours if conditions are right, how long will it be before that low probability of a favorable mutation happens? Then if that favorable mutation works it becomes the dominant strain of the organism until a low probability event happens again and it loses out to the improved strain. It is not only chance, but chance and selection that drives evolution.

If you wish you can take the concept back to the

(With thanks to Miguel_de_servet for the image)
There were a bunch of organic compounds doing their thing, that is combining, folding, stapling, and mutilating. Most of them ended up in the recycle bin where they continued to combine, fold, staple and mutilate. Trillions of compounds in this dance the tempo of the dance depending on moisture and heat. (The source of the heat is not necessarily sunlight, ocean rift smokers in the deep dark sea are rife with life.)

Sooner or later, probably sooner if you think about it in evolutionary time of millennia one stable compound had a form that allowed it to copy itself. It didn't intend to, just that things stuck to it in an organized way that mirrored the stable compound. Then things began to stick to other places weakening the bonds that held the mirrored compound to its parent. It fell off. But like its parent it was stable and things stuck to it just like things were sticking to its parent. Both broke apart then there were 4 scrounging for things that would stick to the sticky places. If the soup was rich enough (Campbell was famous for rich soups) there would soon be 8 then 16, 32, 64 ... until it ran out of things to stick at 2n. Then its soup puddle flooded and more things to stick to the sticky places came to the puddle and some of the stable compounds were washed to new soup puddles. Campbell made a hell of a lot of soup.

Are Believers Happier

2011-09-19T19:54:00.000-07:00

beliefnet

The division between believers and non-believers seems to be on the question of who takes responsibility for the lives of the individual. It seems that believers are happiest when they can assign moral and ethical and even spiritual authority to God. In this sense perhaps believers are happier than those who assume personal control over their mores and spirituality. There is less angst, and unhappiness can be assigned to God's will and ignored. And of course all is better in heaven so unhappiness need not be really dealt with.

I for one am ok with the concept of believers being happier, I just don't consider happiness to be an overriding value. I would certainly rather be happy than sad or upset, but being responsible for my own life sometimes means dealing with sad or upsetting things. And by my standards being human means being responsible.

The Origins of Morality

2011-09-17T07:37:00.000-07:00

Beliefnet -

--We *are* hard-wired for morality... while we can accurately describe the biology of how this occurs, in my mind it doesn't speak to where this moral compass originally comes from.
fangi

It doesn't come from anywhere, it evolved as an advantage in humans.
Rules in religion are just other types of social rules. That they are religious is just a different classification. Many religious leaders use the idea of an authority of god as a way to persuade believers that a moral idea is better than if it was proposed on its own merit.
F1fan

SODOM AND GOMORRA

2011-09-16T18:17:00.000-07:00

From notes for a talk about the Bible and Homosexuality posted on Facebook by Meg Barnhouse. If you are not familiar with Meg you should be. She is one of the sanest, funniest, and most profound of the modern UU ministers. Just called as the permanent minister of the Austin TX church. If you are ever in Austin take an extra day to go to church.

If you know any GLBT Christians who still have concerns, this whole article should be required reading for you as a friend and for them as a necessity.

One of the Bible stories used to talk about homosexuality is the story of Sodom and Gomorra. Briefly, here is what happened. In Genesis 19, you’ll find the story of two angels visiting Abraham’s brother Lot at his house in Sodom. The men of Sodom gathered, demanding that Lot’s guests be turned over to them to be raped. In that time, rape was a tactic of war, a way to humiliate an enemy. In that region of the world still, hospitality is of the highest value. Lot could not have let his guests be hurt. He offered to give his two virgin daughters to the crowd, but the crowd tried to break down the door instead. The angels blinded the crowd and they couldn't find the door. To assume that homosexuality was the problem here is a gross leap made possible only by a void of cultural understanding.

Remembering HUAC

2011-09-14T19:41:00.000-07:00

It seems that it is time to once again remind people why "Under God" replaced "indivisible" in the Pledge of Allegiance. Those too young to remember the Army McCarthy Hearings of HUAC courageously broadcast by ABC seem to think it is an affirmation of God not a repudiation of atheists or in the vernacular of the time pinko-commie-atheist bastards. They wonder why atheists even bother to protest this "innocuous" insertion into the Pledge. Just for the record it is a painful reminder of the McCarthy witch hunt which deprived many artists and other citizens of their livelihood and their good names.

Mr. SEEGER: I have sung for Americans of every political persuasion, and I am proud that I never refuse to sing to an audience, no matter what religion or color of their skin, or situation in life. I have sung in hobo jungles, and I have sung for the Rockefellers, and I am proud that I have never refused to sing for anybody. That is the only answer I can give along that line. From History Matters.

Moral Responsibility

2011-09-08T08:44:00.000-07:00

beliefnet

Again ... "Religions" don't kill ... PEOPLE kill ...
teilhard

... often in the name of god.

You are correct, religions don't kill people. Atheism doesn't kill people. People driven by ideology DO kill people. How humans manage their ideology is the crucial element. I'd suggest that ideologies that have irrational and unrealistic elements are more tempting. Religious ideologies have a built-in authority of god, and humans can use that "authority" to defer all sorts of moral accountability. Of course political authority can do the same thing for a person. The crux is a failure of personal and independent moral accountability. Any time a person has an ideology to absorb accountability the more tempting immorality can be.

This is why non-theism is an advantage to one's own moral sense: there is no ideology to justify moral ambiguity. The sole responsibility is on the self, and the self must account.
F1fan

Sometimes a king or a priest or a despot finds it necessary to do things he wouldn't do as a person. This is the ultimate rejection of personal responsibility.
This is unfortunately a rejection of ones humanity as each human is ultimately responsible for everything hesh does. It cannot be laid off on a state, a God, or an ideal.

Atheist Pride

2011-09-07T22:26:00.000-07:00

Other Supernatural Things

I'm proud to be atheist. To me, it's just another IQ test I've scored well on.
Bob_the_Lunatic

Experiencing Transcendence

2011-08-22T20:44:00.000-07:00

An experience that is intensely moving is a natural reward system in the brain to impose certain patterns indelibly in the memory. Lets define these experiences as transcendental in the general non-religious sense. Music seems to be fundamental in this regard in some theories even preceding speech.

Such experiences are so fundamental to human experience that shamans, priests, pastors and poo-bahs do their level best to co-opt them to whatever it is they are selling, usually a god. I find any such co-option fundamentally degrading.

I will take my transcendent experiences straight. I might try to explain them in retrospect, using physics or music theory, or training but such explanations in no way subtract from the transcendence. I can explain a rainbow perfectly with optics and refraction. But being at the focus of all that beauty and color is a transcendent experience even though I know why it happens. But I can guarantee that I never have and never will think of a rainbow as Gods promise that he won't exterminate all life on earth ever again.

Is Politics Relevant to Anything?

2011-08-22T18:15:00.000-07:00

Libertarian, Liberal, Trogloright - I have decided that politics at least in developed countries is irrelevant for the people who make the country and the world work. Politics is basically fooling most of the people most of the time which is not hard since most of the people want to be fooled most of the time. The people making things happen pay politicians to fool the people to keep them off their backs. Income inequality is always a problem, but notice that the people who make things happen realize it and will at least fix it politically and probably in actuality.

I always vote. If only to encourage the least awful. And write to and phone politicians doing the right thing for the same reason. I do not expect results.

Why Atheists Study Religion

2011-08-21T21:56:00.000-07:00

Since I was a small child many of my good friends have spent significant portions of their life in the worship of and dependence on God. I was naturally curious about what drove this "waste" of time, and tried to discover the value in it. I came to some tentative conclusions, but none of them made sense in my life. It was in no sense a waste of time as I learned much about living from their religious views and my study of religious music. There is much to learn in myth and fiction, but it helps to be aware of the fact that it is myth and fiction.

It is probably true that I know more about most religions that I have studied than believers, as I can think about what they are saying without worrying about blasphemy or annoying God. So I can pick out the useful teachings and reject the useless ones.

It is very useful to read the New Testament without God or anti-God blinders on. There is much that is useful there and it is important to know the source of the dysfunctional values that drive much of the society I live with. I say with instead of in, as my ERSSG has very little commonality with the larger society. But it is valuable to know the drivers of the larger society to know how to deal with it.

Infinite Monkeys, Typewriters, and Shakespeare.

2011-08-20T20:28:00.000-07:00

However it is a fact that a finite number of primates breeding with no target in mind, did produce the entire works of Shakespeare. Not with typewriters obviously, but with quill pens.

Afterlife Considerations

2011-08-19T00:01:00.000-07:00

So What? - beliefnet

The probability of an afterlife is so low as to be a useless consideration in living. The chances of God mediating an afterlife are even lower. The chances of God's mediation of an afterlife based on religious choice are nil.

Jesus as theistic humanist.

2011-08-18T23:48:00.000-07:00

Jesus as teacher. - beliefnet

Jesus was using the prevailing paradigm of God to teach, but the focus was on being a better human being to and for other humans. In other words you learn from God how to be a better human.

Radically different from the prevailing learn from the priests how to worship God for the sake of God and the priests. A caricature certainly, but not far from reality. Paul went back to this paradigm. Worship Christ for the sake of God and to save one's soul. No concern for the human at all and certainly not for humanity.

I am not talking about The Lord Jesus of Nazareth I am talking about the human preacher Jesus, who was using God to teach his fellow humans humanity. I suspect he believed in his personal relationship to God and believed that his mission from God was to teach what he taught.

All of which had nothing at all to do with what his followers and usurpers did to create The Lord Jesus of Nazareth which he frequently denied having anything at all to do with.

Certainly the radical theistic humanism of Jesus in the Synoptics before the passion has much to teach Christians and atheists alike. It is true some of the idealism is over the top, but none the less effective as an ideal if not a practical paradigm for living.

In some payoff scenarios turn the other cheek seems to be an extremely effective strategy in game theory known as tit-for two tats. Opponent defects once, cooperate. If opponent defects twice retaliate. Practically: If hesh smites the other cheek, kill herm.

The Entire New Testament in 41 words

2011-08-16T18:33:00.000-07:00

The existence of gods - beliefnet

Aug 16, 2011 -- 6:43PM, amcolph wrote:

Jesus preached a radical moral philosophy which scared the crap out of everybody so they strung him up, and Paul turned it all into a pagan magic trick. Everybody breathed a sigh of relief and went back to business as usual.

University Communities

2011-08-07T22:15:00.000-07:00

SSGS - beliefnet

As an atheist I of course think the university communities are a viable alternative to the religious SSGs. The fact that membership in a university is elected and the values are adopted as adult choices (with some infantile exceptions) is a powerful unifying force to replace God.

A university community is much more than the students, and the student's involvement does not end with graduation. Like runs with like, and even before Facebook, social groups were generally formed based on educational achievement, not necessarily a particular university. As an example in the SF Bay Area graduates of the three major universities, one religious, one private and one public tend to gravitate to the same events and form networks around them.

Some professors and other professional university staff may view their position as a job independent of the community with values derived elsewhere, but in my experience these are the exception rather than the rule. Even the non-professional staff tends to choose the university in part because of the campus values, and comply with them. Even the campus cops and bus drivers seem to have a different attitude from their off campus compatriots.

Even campus churches seem to have a different set of social values although God may still have an important role.

Experiencing God

2011-08-07T22:13:00.000-07:00

Experiences - beliefnet

In my studies of the religion of my friends and neighbors I never made any secret of the fact that I was an atheist trying to find out more about their religious lives. They had no problems with my mirroring their devotions, as they knew I was doing so reverently.

In fact the closest I have ever come to experiencing God was in a community RCC with a good friend. We were nearly late for the service. Most were at their devotions in the pews. I mirrored my friend's genuflection knowing it was an acknowledgement of the presence of God. I could feel a presence like someone in the church with me that was not my friend. I did not have the background to associate any attributes to it, but whatever it was remained through the mass.

My post experience analysis was that the community had created a community consciousness that they identified as God. I could only feel the hem of the gown if you will as God attended to Herm duties with the parishioners as I was not a real part of the community to share in the consciousness.

I could discuss it with my friend and did so. My friend said "Of course you were touched by God. We all were." My friend wouldn't even consider the possibility that the community created God, and I didn't press the issue. God visited the community from wherever Hesh was when the devotions started. That was faith, and I know better than to argue with faith.

Experiencing God

2011-08-07T22:00:00.000-07:00

No Gods - beliefnet

The difference is quite simple when I experience anything of the Earth even something spiritual in the atheist sense of being true, or beautiful before rationalization, the fact remains that it can be rationalized and explained to others. The others may not get the same sense of spiritual wonder, but they might at least from my description understand where my spiritual experience is coming from. If I explain that I seem to be at the focal point of a brightly colored arc in the sky most people will say "Oh you mean a rainbow" It may have been a mistbow or a moonbow, but I won't quibble. They know and perhaps appreciate from having a similar experience to the one I described what I am talking about.

Similarly with almost any earthbound experience. Many more years ago than I want to admit I was 16 and in the middle of my active God search. I came out of a dark side street late evening and was stunned by the sight of the flood lighted Florence Cathedral across the plaza. Stunned in the sense I could not move or even think. All I could do was gawk at the sight. Later I could explain to my sister what I had seen, and she noted how she also was stunned even though she was expecting it and indeed looking for it.

In any experience on the Earth I can communicate what I experienced in a way that someone else could uniquely identify the experience if not the wonder I experienced. It would seem that someone experiencing God should be able to describe the experience in such a way that at least a sympathetic listener could say "Oh, that was God." It may be too much to ask for a skeptical atheist to recognize it, but at least a believer in some sort of God should recognize the description.

That was an experience when I was literally knocking on God's door, and should have experienced God if God existed. That and similar experiences where I was actually presupposing God not No-God, and got no result.

Psalm 14:1

2011-08-07T21:54:00.000-07:00

Atheist Inspiration - beliefnet

You have repeatedly throughout this thread stated there is no god. If you believe David speaks the truth where does this leave you?

As for the Psalm, a fool disguises herm ambiguities about God or gods and hides them inside. A wiser person knows exactly how they relate to God, gods, or some numinous all highest being and speaks it clearly, unambiguously, and right out loud. I will tell you clearly and unambiguously that there is no God, gods, or numinous all highest being that has anything at all to offer me. Therefore, whether there is a God, gods, or a numinous all highest being is of no importance.

Perhaps you could as unambiguously state your relationship with God, gods, or a numinous all highest being. At this point it is hard to avoid associating the Psalm with you.

My Creator

2011-08-07T21:49:00.000-07:00

Define God -beliefnet

I have no problem understanding my creators. Countless generations of organisms survived to reproduce culminating in a group of intelligent creative survivor humans that were my ancestors and finally my parents. Both of whom I know and who helped me understand the society of which I am a part. End of creation story.

Ancient Religions in a Modern Society.

2011-08-07T21:42:00.000-07:00

Knock on God's Door - beliefnet.

I don't see how a patriarchal, high maternal and infant mortality rate society can have any stories, myths or Gods that are relevant to a modern technological society where one conception equals one economically productive and reproductive adult of either gender.

Added to that is the problem for faith based religions that information is essentially a free good in today's society. Even the most repressed, burkaed, housebound female can access the internet to see how the rest of the world lives. It won't change many lives but it will change enough to create social networks that will change their world. Maybe even ours.

Atheist Spirituality

2011-07-19T22:51:00.000-07:00

No Gods not a Presupposition - beliefnet

The difference is quite simple when I experience anything of the Earth even something spiritual in the atheist sense of being true, or beautiful before rationalization, the fact remains that it can be rationalized and explained to others. The others may not get the same sense of spiritual wonder, but they might at least from my description understand where my spiritual experience is coming from. If I explain that I seem to be at the focal point of a brightly colored arc in the sky most people will say "Oh you mean a rainbow" It may have been a mistbow or a moonbow, but I won't quibble. They know and perhaps appreciate from having a similar experience to the one I described what I am talking about.

Similarly with almost any earthbound experience. Many more years ago than I want to admit I was 16 and in the middle of my active God search. I came out of a dark side street late evening and was stunned by the sight of the flood lighted Florence Cathedral across the plaza. Stunned in the sense I could not move or even think. All I could do was gawk at the sight. Later I could explain to my sister what I had seen, and she noted how she also was stunned even though she was expecting it and indeed looking for it.

In any experience on the Earth I can communicate what I experienced in a way that someone else could uniquely identify the experience if not the wonder I experienced. It would seem that someone experiencing God should be able to describe the experience in such a way that at least a sympathetic listener could say "Oh, that was God." It may be too much to ask for a skeptical atheist to recognize it, but at least a believer in some sort of God should recognize the description.

Modern Mythology

2011-07-16T23:33:00.000-07:00

Knock on God's Door

Probably because we have much more relevant modern mythologies that relate to the modern technological and rational world than Bronze Age desert marauder stories.

I don't see how a patriarchal, high maternal and infant mortality rate society can have any stories, myths or Gods that are relevant to a modern technological society where one conception equals one economically productive and reproductive adult of either gender.

Added to that is the problem for faith based religions that information is essentially a free good in today's society. Even the most repressed, burkaed, housebound female can access the internet to see how the rest of the world lives. It won't change many lives but it will change enough to create social networks that will change their world. Maybe even ours.

A World without Borders

2011-07-10T20:24:00.000-07:00

Is Theism Simply Fear Of Facing Reality? - beliefnet

I like to imagine a world without borders, without local goverments or political parties , without different religions or beliefs and where equality is not and empty word but a reality, where diversity is respected and appreciated for its contribution to enrich cultures, and where nationalities are not seen as a threat because there will be only one, Earth citizenship.
Silverada

This world is closer than you think. It is a world-wide coalition of educated intelligent people leading the world into a gender, skin color, nationality neutral rational meritocracy. It is being lead by the secular Chinese, abetted by secular Americans, Europeans, Indians, Australians and several other secular parts of the world. I say secular, as most religions discourage the rational education required to be a part of this coalition especially for women who are the natural leaders in this coalition.

Unfortunately it won't be for everybody. Religious and political leaders will opt as many people out of it as they can to maintain their control. In the US the politico-religious axis will opt most of the country out of this revolution. This is the reality that religions are seeking to avoid. Or looking at it crassly, religions are using to sell the big rock candy mountain in the next life, to substitute for the reality in this life that they cannot deliver.

On Atheism

2011-07-09T15:05:00.000-07:00

Comment on Philosophy Talk
Atheism is not a definition of anybody's life. Atheism is simply an answer to "Do you believe?" or "Are you saved?"
Atheists get their meaning, purpose, morals and ethics the same place God does. From the tribe they belong to. Modern tribes are more diffused and amorphous than traditional tribes, but we know who we are.
The afterlife is a con game that has no meaning for most atheists, even a theist like Forrest Church recognizes that the best we can do is live a life worth dying for. After that, who knows, and who cares. Any afterlife mediator that doesn't look at that life that was worth dying for isn't worth worrying about.

Existential Issues in Belief

2011-07-08T19:55:00.000-07:00

Beliefnet - Religion and Mind

It is the belief not the existence of the referent that causes all the problems. A person believing in the reality of John Galt as a living, historical person, is not going change herm behavior if you can prove that Galt never existed outside of the pages of Atlas Shrugged. Better to attack the belief itself as dysfunctional than waste time attacking the referent.

Perhaps wisdom is being able to learn values for living independent of the existential reality of the originator of those values. I think I have learned many useful values, and rejected as many as useless from Jesus whether or not he ever existed as per the stories told about him. I can say the same about Lazarus Long who certainly never existed. Why is the existence of either an issue.

ERSSG Houskeeping

2011-07-06T14:16:00.000-07:00

(I was just visiting my daughter, son in law, grandson and brand new grandson. My daughter and son in law are pigs. They never met a closet door they wanted to shut or a bed they wanted to make. It would drive me nuts--but it is their home, they are great parents, and if I need to wash my feet before I go to bed, it isn't that big of a deal...)

It seems to be a trend. Parents who share parenting and have high level jobs, something has to give. Appearances are less important in their lives. Also part of the deal in removing the contraceptive is that the other partner usually a man is going to do more than his share of the housework. Men in general are not socialized as children to be OCD about neatness, closed closet doors, made beds, dusting etc. As long as the floor is vacuumed once or twice a month, there are clean clothes in the drawers, there is food on the counter when it is his turn, and the dishwasher gets
run so there are clean dishes to put the food in, what's the problem?

Meaning

2011-06-24T14:34:00.000-07:00

If you treat meaning as a quest you will never discover it. The meaning of life is apparent to anyone who lives intentionally and rationally. I should probably add realistically with respect to life's finite duration. It is not provided by God or anyone else. This is not to say a theist cannot discover meaning in life, but as a quest to find what God intends is a open invitation to the con artists who are happy to satisfy that quest.

The Biology of Ethics

2011-06-22T10:47:00.000-07:00

The Biology of Ethics - The Chronicle Review - The Chronicle of Higher Education: "Churchland, professor emerita of philosophy at the University of California at San Diego, has been best known for her work on the nature of consciousness. But now, with a new book, Braintrust: What Neuroscience Tells Us About Morality (Princeton University Press), she is taking her perspective into fresh terrain: ethics. And the story she tells about morality is, as you'd expect, heavily biological, emphasizing the role of the peptide oxytocin, as well as related neurochemicals.

Oxytocin's primary purpose appears to be in solidifying the bond between mother and infant, but Churchland argues—drawing on the work of biologists—that there are significant spillover effects: Bonds of empathy lubricated by oxytocin expand to include, first, more distant kin and then other members of one's in-group. (Another neurochemical, aregenine vasopressin, plays a related role, as do endogenous opiates, which reinforce the appeal of cooperation by making it feel good.)"

Facing Death

2011-06-22T09:50:00.000-07:00

Is Theism Simply ... The Fear of Facing Reality? - Beliefnet

I suspect you will find that for those of us who accept the permanence of death anything, even God, is a distraction we cannot afford. I am too busy living each day as if it were the last, doing what I can to make this space I live in more inviting and user friendly for those who will inherit it I can't say I fear death. I plan as if it will never come, although I know it will. There will be, as my late mother bequeathed to me, 'Things I haven't finished' but I will have done what I can undistracted by planning for the unknown.

I have found that all God concepts are so encrusted with the barnacles of a violent and hateful past that it is better to rediscover human values that underlie the religious dogma. Humans evolved as tribes, and once we got beyond a face group tribe things began to fall apart, imperfectly glued back together with God and religions. I find it useful to go back to the tribal mores: be nice to those in the tribe, help all the children in the tribe grow to useful intelligent adults, and make the tribal space a better place for the whole tribe. I try to generalize that to the large and amorphous tribe I consider to be my Social Support Group, that is, people who have the same values and mores that I do.

No Afterlife?

2011-06-10T12:48:00.000-07:00

Is Theism Simply ... The Fear of Facing Reality? - Beliefnet

No afterlife at all. When I die, nothing remains but a few ashes. If I have done my job in this life I will have affected a lot of people who will either grow with it and affect others, or not. In either case I neither know nor care after death. I do however, know and care now and that affects the way I will conduct whatever life is left to me. And has affected the way I have conducted my life up to this point. I have seen people I affected grow to greatness. I am content.

Atheist Values

2011-06-09T14:00:00.000-07:00

Differences in outlook - Discuss Atheism - Beliefnet Community

Most non-believers I know are interested in social values and the direction of human evolution, neither of which is bounded or delimited. Much of the thinking in this area is found in fiction, that most do not recognize as atheist until you realize that nothing in the fiction depends on God. Steinbeck for example superficially uses religious themes in East of Eden but it is one of the most profoundly humanist books I have ever read and reread frequently I might add. Similarly for Grapes of Wrath. None of the major characters can or do get any help or guidance from God in their attempt to create a livable society for the propertyless. Douglas Adams, Isaac Asimov, Robert Heinlein, Pournelle-Niven are all working out the ramifications of social structures without God. Ostensibly telling fictional stories about the future, they are dealing with real situations that exist in societies today, and working them out without the help of God. And not incidentally showing how such societies can work quite well in many cases.

The other, much more difficult source of information about atheists working out the problems of living is to observe the lives of graduates of the top universities. Very few get their direction or inspiration from God in working out the messy and unbounded problems of making a contribution to their society through their work, perhaps in business, but frequently in a non-profit, the arts, or academia, living and raising families that will carry their values and aspirations forward. Most are too busy to blog, but an interesting source that many depend on is peers in the social networks on line. Almost always simply links to interesting idea sources, but once a trusted atheist acquires a following others feed links that are reposted for those interested. This source is obviously quite new. And used by Churches effectively to promote religion, but the secular world is using it effectively as well.

I am not sure how any of this might help us find common ground, as it appears to me that God solutions are necessarily static and conservative, and the atheist solutions fluid and nebulous. Uncertainty is part and parcel of an atheist life, as the only certainty is death. Living in a way to justify having lived is an important issue for most atheists. God won't help.

Atheist Lfe Stages.

2011-06-09T09:34:00.000-07:00

Is Theism Simply Born And Persist Due To The Fear of Facing Reality? - Discuss Atheism - Beliefnet Community

I also think that after the age of fifty or so we should gradually become disenchanted with life so as to ease more gracefully into our departure from it.
Ken

If I may respectfully offer an alternative for an atheist. As a youth with a lifetime ahead one has plenty of life to waste even if one is vaguely aware that death is somewhere ahead and final. So one wastes it discovering what is of transient value and what might be of more value to self and society. In midlife one is so busy with creating value for self, family and society that thoughts of the end of life seldom intrude. After the creative torch is passed to children and/or the creative successors at work, 50 is as good an age as any, that the end of life becomes apparant and one reflects on the contributions one has made, and what still is left to be done to help those carrying on the legacy. Telling stories about life lessons learned is a common solution, either live if one is fortunate enough to have the successors nearby, or in writing if not. Self published books that may have surprising impact far beyond their intended audience of friends and family, or which languish on shelves. The value is in the creation, not the result.

I know of one atheist who is struggling to stay alive to finish volume IV of an immigrant's life story that is resonating with another immigrant from a different country in a different era. Worthless? Easing into death? I think not. But the pressure of impending death is powerful, and the work left to be done is reason enough not to go quietly into the night.

On a Life Worth Dying For.

2011-06-07T13:28:00.000-07:00

Is Theism Simply Born And Persist Due To The Fear of Facing Reality? - Beliefnet

Accepting the reality and finality of death, does not lead at all to fear of dying today or any day. When the time comes that the mind and body cannot maintain their integrity they will cease to function. In the mean time there are many things that a person needs to do to affect the society of which hesh is a part to make that society more human friendly. Some of those things will have lasting effects, some perhaps will have none, but all are important reasons for living today, and as long as one can affect others in the society.

Death might well be described as a condition when affecting others is no longer possible. It is nothing to fear, if one has affected others properly they will carry on the task of making society a better place for humans, and life in the larger sense goes on, even though the no longer useful individual is not a part of it.

Today I can see people I have affected taking the society to places I cannot conceive, but which I approve of. Whether I die today or some day in the future I am content. But I am not finished affecting others in my society. So until the time comes when I can no longer do so I will continue to live my life so that it is worth dying for. Thanks, Forrest Church.

the unfulfilled dream

2011-06-06T09:13:00.000-07:00

uuworld.org : the unfulfilled dream

Note the linked article is necessary background.

As long as UU does not define a belief statement it will remain a social club that meets on Sunday.

UU's seem to fear any statement containing God as offensive to us atheists, but Forrest Church's Cathedral even had windows for atheists. In that Cathedral atheists could worship meaningfully with their theist friends. The humanist God of Jesus (Matt 22:37-40) who loves all Herm neighbors is perfectly acceptable to most atheists. They won't believe, but as a unifying principle with their theist friends God can work as an avatar if not a deity.

As a side benefit you will probably attract a lot of Christians who are fed up with Paul's trinity and have refocused their theology on the Synoptics and Matt 22:37-40 in particular.

The Education Common Privatized.

2011-06-04T13:59:00.000-07:00

Blogger: Free and Responsible Search - Post a Comment:

The common that is being stolen today is the right of every child to the education hesh needs to claim herm place at the workbench of ideas. Good public education has become the property of those that can afford the homes in the few good school districts and vote for the local taxes that support them. With some charity to a few who can make the trek and get in.

This is the modern stake that was once given to anyone that chose to pay attention in school. It is now denied to most.

Random Thoughts from The Believing Brain.

2011-06-02T11:16:00.000-07:00

I have just started The Believing Brain by Michael Shermer. This post is a collection of quotes and reactions not to be taken too seriously. It is definitely not a review, and should not be quoted as such.
"The brain is a belief engine.
Beliefs come first, explanations for beliefs follow: Belief-dependent realism." p5
Pattern seeking certainly, but a belief engine? I think not.
"Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for nonsmart reasons." p36
Certainly true for many smart people that are not trained to be skeptical about beliefs in general. There may in fact be two types of people, believers and for lack of a better term philosophical non-believers. Or in Heinlein's terms learners.

I have no beliefs. Belief gets in the way of learning. Lazarus Long Time Enough For Love, Robert A Heinlein, 1973 p20.

Chapter 3 The journey of a believer from nowhere to religion to fundie skepticism. The will to believe will not be denied. I hope he does more with his thinking up to the conversion in 12th grade.
Chapter 4 Patternicity
People believe weird things because of an evolved need to believe unweird things. p62
He is assuming that there is no evolutionary pressure to sort out the weird things from the unwierd, since the cost of believing in weird things is assumed to be zero. This may be true for the evolutionary scenario for individuals, the theory being that there is no cost for being skittish of wind in the grass compared with the cost of a lion in the grass. But in a sense this is a Pascal Wager argument. If one shies at every odd movement, one will never get the hunting or gathering done. There must be a BS detector built into the belief system even at the primitive level.
The rest of the chapter is a series of experiments in pattern seeking in uncertain situations. In the Ono experiments the subjects were in effect told to find patterns. "If you do something you will get points on the counter." The Catania and Cutts experiment also created the impression of pattern possibility. Encouraging pattern seeking behavior involving the two buttons.
Chapter 5 Agenticity.
Typical of a skeptic believer Shermer picks extreme examples to mask the underlying reality of the natural duality of the human mind. As if you have to be in extreme conditions to be aware of the inner control segment of the mind. True most of us don't hallucinate doubles or OBEs or God for that matter, but the society imprints the necessary and life maintaining control mechanisms on the subconscious mind that we seldom are aware of. Including the necessary social controls necessary for getting along with "our people." It also takes care of the extreme staying alive situations by essentially shutting down the vaunted rational cortical control and going back to the basics of breathing and putting one foot in front of the other.

He includes the obligatory skeptical look at some of the weirder manifestations of this duality. Sort of like the cartoon ex-drunk sweeping the drinks off the bar. Too much time spent on paranormal psychic garbage, which are God substitute ways of staying in contact with and attempting to manage the inner control mechanism.

It was just one of many readings [of conversations with the dead] (at ninety dollars a pop) conducted [by one of the gurus for the psychic crowd.]

The position of shaman... is lovely work, if you can stomach it. Lazarus Long.

Chapter 6 Part 1. The neurological argument for the mind. He starts by demolishing a straw man argument of a mental force argument for the mind, weak argument weak rebuttal. The description of the working of neurons is detailed, and informative, about the right mix of science and gee whiz for the educated layperson who is the presumed target for the book. The discussion of dopamine as the belief mediator it detailed and persuasive. I am skeptical of experimental protocols using groups of skeptics and believers as subjects, as the skeptics seem to be believers in skepticism, that is ESP and the paranormal is crap. As a true non-believer, I wonder if some of the pattern finding activities might show different results for those with a finely honed pattern finding facility with an excellent BS detector as well. Apparently more to come on this issue. A nice few pages on patternivity, creativity and madness. Using 3 Nobel prize winners Feinman of A bomb fame, Mullis of Polymerase Chain Reaction fame, and Nash whose game theory equilibrium is certifiably crazy. Feinman sane and creative Nash Schizophrenic and creative and Mullis somewhere in the middle, a definite believer in weird things, but somehow able to sort out the weirdness useful enough for a Nobel. I am not convinced that the craziness is not in the eye of the beholder, Shermer in this case.
Chapter 6b Good discussion of mind-brain that makes me wonder about whether all monists are believers in the sense of either the mind belongs to God or it belongs to me as actions of the brain. Quot\ing Paul Bloom: "We are natural born dualists." He then goes on to defend monism as an unnatural state of affairs, which I find involved belief. He then goes on to explain the Theory of Mind (TOM) which is the way we think about how we think and how others think. Tying it all together with agency, mirror neurons, and story creation. According to Sam Harris experiment on 14 subjects some "believers" some not. We perceive all things as true and evaluation of falsity is a separate function. Even religious statements for believers and non alike p135-7 I wonder if any "real" non-believers, (acreds) that is non-believers unrelated to religious beliefs were a part of the experiment. I would be curious to see the raw data and see if there was an "anomalous" result that was thrown out. Probably not as I find acreds to be a very small segment of even the secular and especially the skeptic population.
P143-4 Making a lot of stew from the oyster of the Harris poll. Where are the unbelievers in the dthe 6 pretty well cover the waterfront. ata? Ok for believers in afterlife he gives some plausible reasons. Pick one and you can explain anything.

148-50 way too much attention and debunking given to ESP theory of the afterlife. To be expected from a believing skeptic. Lots of what is the mechanism and reliance on the data protocols of esp skeptics. Look for esp under the streetlight of heavy emotional content: Lovers and musicians and dancers.
P152-6 Long discussion of NDEs and drug induced OBEs which he as expected confirm his belief in monism.
It may be true that the brain is 9integral with the mind, but as I read the data a natural dualism explains things better.

Amusing but basically useless CNN panel including all of the usual suspects Depak Chopra, Sanjay Gupta, and a few NDE survivors and reincarnations for color. I won’t watch the replay.

The wrap up of the chapter is the counter argument that lack of afterlife simply makes this life important. As I use it all the time myself in almost the same words he has to be right.

It is nice to see that believers and acreds can come to the same conclusions occasionally.
P171 In his discussion of VMAT2 gene which seems to give 'Self forgetfulness' and "transpersonal identification" and "mysticism". The link to nicotine addiction seems plausible to me, absent other influences which was the basis for the study, the link to God p172 seems like a leap of faith. It would seem that eg Mormon eschewing of nicotine, caffeine, and other addictive substances, would lead to the opposite conclusion that VMAT2 would lead away from God belief to self actualization.
p 170 the link of DRD4 to risk seeking behavior seems unrelated to God belief to me, not sure what Shermer is trying to get to here. It would seem that risk aversion is more closely related to God beliefs, and therefore low DRD4=high dopamine fix naturally would lead to no risk belief in God.

I wonder about this psychobabble self-transcendence. "Becoming totally absorbed in an activity, feeling connected to the larger world, and an unwillingness to disbelieve in unfashionable things like ESP (my restatement of the last) sounds like simple rational intelligence to me not spirituality. Dopamine makes you feel good about the way you look at the world. If you look at it without beliefs or prejudices, and concentrate on things that make the larger world a better place of course you will get a dopamine high. Any relationship to God beliefs is clearly Shermers belief in a believing brain.

pp172-184 Conventional skeptical analysis of God belief as created by humans to fill a God hole in their brain. Certainly true for a large portion of the population who will disagree with the human creation part and assert a Creator.

p186 "It is time to step out of our evolutionary heritage and our historical traditions and embrace science as the best tool ever devised for explaining how the world works. It is time to work together to create a social and political world that embraces moral principles [Whose?]and yet allows natural human diversity to floursh." "Religion cannot ...." Although he denies it typical liberal skeptic BS.

Chapter 9. Conventional skeptical look at the alien as replacement for God. Now that religion has lost its elevated position. He uses it to buttress his premise that the belief comes first and justification later. It works just fine.

Chapter 10. Standard debunking of conspiracy theories focusing on 9/11. Not enough focus on why conspiracy theorists think the way they do.

Chapt 11 Politics. He begins with Jost's Meta-study of conservatives linking conservatism to psychological management of uncertainty and fear. I am less comfortable with the endorsement of inequality. Haight points out the group binding and support of essential institutions as part of the conservative pattern. He Lakoffalso mentions the Political Mind, Lakoff and The Political Brain, Weston p234 with the liberal trope (This God forbid) rationality, intelligence, & optimism. This conflicts with Shermer's belief bias toward Libertarianism. He confirms this by the association of university profs with liberalism. Duh they all are smart, flexible and rational enough to get a PhD. [Also at least in my experience they have left behind their religious beliefs if they ever had any. The selection process is reinforced by the conservative religious bias against education.] Interesting factoid, USA Today is the most centrist media. Probably due to its primary market in the hotel and travel areas where money talks and the well off are either liberal or successful conservatives generally at least well educated.

He then conflates p237-40 belief based morality with politics using Haight and Graham's 5 innate and universal moral parameters. 1. Harm/Care. 2. Fairness/Reciprocity. 3. In-Group/Loyalty. 4. Authority/Respect. 5. Purity/sanctity.

P 240 "Liberals question authority, celebrate diversity, and often flaunt(sic) faith and tradition in order to care for the weak and oppressed" ?????

"Religion and Government are the two systems for social control and watchdogs" to control the free riders. Shrmer then wastes a few pages with different studies using different words to confirm his belief that liberals weight H/C, F/R higher than G/L A/R & P/S with conservatives the opposite.

He then spends several pages setting up the justification for his Libertarian BS. (Which according to the thesis of the book came first.)

Chapter 12 101 ways our brains fool us into thinking we are right. He starts with one of my favorites post hoc odds. "A talk show you will never see: Our guest has had several dreams about the death of prominent people none of which have happened. Stay tuned maybe the next one will be confirmed" p260-1 describes a delightful experiment in which 15 Dems and 15 GOPs were wired up and presented statements by Bush and Kerry in which they contradicted themselves. The cognitive areas of the brain were out of the circuit, the emotional areas and conflict resolution areas were hot and everybody got a dopamine fix when their candidate was right.
He goes on to describe all the usual suspects Hindsight bias and self justification bias getting prominent attention, along with a host of other biases people use to avoid thinking about what they are observing.
The obligatory debunking of ESP. [not convincing] but a good discussion of the return to the mean fallacy. The SI Cover jinx is simply back to normal for the athlete after a flurry of good stuff that made the cover. Extraordinary things happen given enough time and attention. It is important to recognize they are just that: things on the tails of the bell curve.

I get the impression that in Chapter 13 Shermer is trying to justify his belief comes first in the face of the fact that the inductive paradigm of science has the potential to put the data before the belief in spite of our inherent tendency in his thesis of belief first. He properly points out that in Terra Incognata the absence of belief is liberating, and frees science to create de novo theories, unclouded by belief. But he seems a bit uncomfortable with this conclusion and points to belief based interpretations of data by Columbus and even Galileo in his interpretation of the Saturn data. It seems he is fighting a confirmation bias of his own Belief first belief. Which is threatened by the Scientific Method. He claims to be examining this in the final chapters. We shall see.

Chapt 14a Even astronomers can be victims of confirmation bias, but eventually science prevails, as a lead in to the orgins question.
Chapt 14b. Apparently an extended confirmation bias of Goddidntdoit. Shermer presents a bunch of origin of the universe theories as if they have more value than Goddidit. He messes around with the theist argument of the cosmological constants being just right for our existence as if there needs to be an explanation. Or as if no explanation is conceding the Goddidit argument. Amusing speculations to be sure as a confirmation bias that Goddidntdoit. But what is wrong with the universe exists, I exist, it all works. The only reasonable answer to why? is don't know, don't care.

From Beliefnet:"Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons."

—Micheal Shermer--"

In his most recent book The Believing Mind, Times Books, 2011 Shermer makes a strong case that the human brain is necessarily a belief engine. His case is that pattern seeking and assigning agency to the patterns is a survival trait built in to the brain. His claim is that we believe first and think about it later, if ever.

In my experience this is as true of atheists and skeptics (including Shermer) as it is for religious believers. As many will testify dragging a belief say about UFOs out and trying to ask whether the belief is justified or not is extremely difficult for most people. Whether you are for 'em or ag'in 'em can you really decide you just don't know? My experience is that most people can't on any belief based subject which is to say, if Shermer is right, all subjects. It as if "I just don't know" just doesn't have a home in the human brain. "That's right!" has many homes OFC and ACC and lots of reward mechanisms in the ventral striatum in the brain. P 260. This makes a lot of sense, in the modern world "I don't know" gets in the way of many necessary decisions. Which stock to buy, which way to bet on a business decision, etc, as they say, it is better to go with the gut, i.e. the belief systems in the brain, and just do it.

I of course can't speak for Shermer but one of the reasons I enjoyed the book is that he makes a hard scientific case, that is materialistic and rational, for woo-woo. Maybe I am belief disabled, or I had the wrong upbringing and went to the wrong school, but I have never been able to understand how extremely intelligent and rational people can believe weird things. I think I understand it better now, but I am still an outsider looking in.

Whew, finally done. Formal review on Thinking on the Blue Roads

Get Your NBA Cheerleader Out of My Kid’s School

2011-05-26T12:21:00.000-07:00

Facebook: "Remington Stone via Susie Rodriguez
Get Your NBA Cheerleader Out of My Kid’s School
blog.pigtailpals.com
Don’t try and tell me that I’m being uptight, or ashamed of the human form, or discriminating against women. What I’m doing is raising the bar, and demanding more. I refuse to settle for the patronizing, sexualized options offered to my daughter.

Tara Dresbach That's an interesting article. On the one hand, there is a push to get cheerleading to be considered a sport in it its own right. On the other hand, a visit from a pro sports team's cheerleading squad doesn't feel quite right.

J'Carlin While it may be true that sports/religious fanatics that dehumanize women should not be permitted to exist in a reasonable world, they do and there is nothing we can do about it. They outnumber us. As long as women of all ages are indoctrinated into being sex objects, what does it gain to prevent them from doing it as well as they can?

J'Carlin Reality check. What do you think of a ballerina?

Suzi Anvin carlin - have you ever LOOKED at a ballerina? I fear gay men are more likely to be attracted to the long, lank, smooth form than straight ones :-P OMG the muscles...

Rachel Clein-Cunningham
‎@Carlin I don't think there is any suggestion that the pro-cheerleaders shouldn't exist, just that they are not necessarily appropriate role models to be giving a presentation at an elementary school without parent foreknowledge. Giving parents the opportunity, at least, to contextualize the pro-cheerleaders in advance would have been more appropriate. Were I in those parent's shoes I would want to know why my children were being marketed to and whether there was any educational value to the presentation. Parent's are supposed to mitigate TV adverts by never letting young children watch TV alone. What are they supposed to do when the adverts show up in school?

Suzi Anvin
question for you all.... OK would you consider it weird if male pro sports teams visited a high school to talk to promote athletes of their sport? or is it just cuz its cheerleaders? Double standard cuts both ways, both in the sexualizing, AND in the rampant DAMNING of the sexualizing that this response blatantly plays right into. "You have to be sexy but its WRONG BAD WRONG" is not the message we should be reinforcing. You really, truly, will NOT stop the first as long as teens have hormones, so reinforcing the second is really NOT helping...

Suzi Anvin that's their professional uniforms. Would you expect Olympic swimmers to not wear their speedos ever at a school?

Suzi Anvin what you're saying is 'oh, ew, cover up the form, its bad bad bad to be that sexy' the double standard is a real bitch to fight, exactly because it is a DOUBLE standard. its very hard to fight both halves at the same time.

Susie Rodriguez
This is not a case of athletes. There are cheerleaders who are athletes and these aren't them. These are essentially exotic dancers. If you read the article, toward the bottom is a side by side pair of photos that illustrate the difference nicely. That this is what they wear to work does not automatically make it appropriate to display to small children in school. The kid whose mom brought this up? He was six. This isn't about teen sexuality, this is about small children having adult sexuality flaunted at them at a public school.

Tara Dresbach For me, it's the pro without context or prior knowledge. Also, if it somehow could have been a competitive cheerleading team that wasn't attached to to a pro sports franchise I would have felt better about it.

Lori L Foster A pro sports cheerleader is no more an athlete than a college athlete is a student. Their skills in those areas are irrelevant. As to the ballerina question: I've known a lot of (straight) men, and I never once heard one say of a ballerina, 'She's hot!' nor have I heard one praise the grace and skill of an NFL cheerleader.

Remington Stone The issue isn't even their professional uniforms, Suzi. Check the picture of the poster the kid brought home halfway down. That's a lot closer to underwear, to my eye.

Remington Stone On the other hand, don't even -say- gay in school. But highly heterosexualized mascots are all right?

Rachel Clein-Cunningham
‎@Suzi It is a hell of a stretch to call pro-cheerleaders atheletes. The Warrior Girls are more like synchronized strippers (tear away shirts and pants and all). Granted stripping requires stamina and looking fit, but it is not an athletic avenue that many parents would be happy to direct their children to. Being sexy and being a sex object are not the same. Sexy is being confident, knowing yourself and your body and how to work it. Being a sex object means displaying your body (and altering your body with heavy makeup and plastic surgery) for the enjoyment of others, whether it turns you on or not. Sex objects have a short shelf life before they are thrown away. You won't see any 50 year old pro-cheerleaders. Sexy is what you do with it.

High school and college cheerleaders are atheletes. They are synchronized gymnasts. They are selected for athletic ability, not sex appeal. The same is not true in pro-sports. In men's pro-sports it is the men who are atheletes, not the women.

If an olympic swimmer showed up to a school wearing nothing but a speedo, people would be scandalized.

Kathleen Gabriel
Did you look at the poster that the first-grade boy was given? It was a bunch of grown women looking sexy and pulling at their clothes to display their boobs better. If my (fictional) first-grade daughter was visited by grown men who gave her a similar poster of those men looking all sexy and pulling at their shorts to give more attention to their junk, yeah, I'd be pretty pissed off.

It's not so much about the fact of cheerleading, but of marketing to elementary school kids in a sexual context.

J'Carlin ‎@Suzi Re Ballet. Ballet is acknowledged to be the most demanding of sports but it is a celebration both of the human body and sensuality. If you appreciate an athletic body over boobs and cut pecs, ballet is the ultimate for any gender preference, on both sides of the pas de deux I might add.

J'Carlin @Suzi Re ? As noted different strokes for different folks. I find pseudo-warriors as bad as the cheerleaders. I would hope society has moved beyond this view of males and females. But as long as it is being celebrated by many groups the damning for control is necessary. Otherwise you are going to have a bunch of pregnant cheerleaders after every season.

Jack Pryne ‎@Suzi- I cannot possibly express to you in words how appealing the right ballerina is.

Memes in Evolution.

2011-05-22T14:10:00.000-07:00

Is This Life All There Is?. - Beliefnet

While for 3.5 billion years, reproduction has been key and is still important in evolution, in the last 10,000 years of so Homo Sap has thrown an incredible wild card into the picture in the form of memes. Suddenly that moral element has become one of the most important determinants of survival for life on earth. The 'moral' failing of not getting along with the dominant humans is detrimental for survival as a species and as an individual I might add.

The human species is no exception. Morality, that is compliance with the mores of the tribe whatever that tribe is, is critical not only to survival as an individual but survival for the memes that might become part of the culture of the tribe. In a real sense the tribal memes are the modern mechanism of human evolution. The meme of divine right king led tribes is effectively dead, although the despot led tribal meme is unfortunately alive and well.

I suspect that in the lifetime of my grandchildren the religion meme will have disappeared, and certainly the trip-omni God gene associated with many religions. Out breeding resources is always a fatal mistake, although the death throes of that meme suicide are always ugly.

Meaning, Purpose and the Afterlife

2011-05-22T13:58:00.000-07:00

Is This Life All There Is?. - Beliefnet

the meaning will vanish. the very moment the person dies. it will be as if they had never been on this earth because:
Aka_me

Ain't no because. This is just flat wrong morally, factually, spiritually, and in the words of Fler0002

It sounds] like a plan that not only creates fears of what happens after death, but also creates in humanity fears of each other. Fears of any tolerance for anything other than what is sanctified by the church. Fears that turn into hatreds. Fears that turn into witch hunts. Fears that turn into jihads, crusades, and terrorism.

1. they will have no awareness of having been on earth.
Aka_me

They will have been acutely aware of living, knowing each day that they are making differences in the lives of others. Major or minor, each difference reinforces their membership in that great and dominant species of humanity, which exists for the purpose of making a difference in the lives of other humans and indeed many other species on the planet. <

2. all people who ever knew them will eventually depart earth, leaving no one behind to 'speak good things about them.'
Aka_me

So what? Those people if they did their job as a human being well and influenced them properly and effectively will have continued their Legacy and built on all that is worth while in that legacy. They don't need to be remembered by name although some will be. But 'There is no limit to what you can accomplish if it doesn't matter who gets the credit.' Ralph Waldo Emerson, d. April 27, 1882. I am relatively certain that he did not consider this quote one of his major contributions to humanity. In fact it was buried until Truman resurrected it, or reinvented it. But please note that all the people who knew Emerson are now departed from the earth. But others who never knew him are still speaking good things about him.

meaning... getting up and going to work, does exist, albeit temporarily. so long as one does NOT contemplate purpose, ie why do I / everything exist.

the moment one assigns zero value to purpose, they run the risk of waking up to the fact that any answer they may have assigned to meaning...becomes worthless in the end.
Aka_me

Only a theist can assign zero value to purpose. If purpose comes from a non-existent or at least numinous and indefinable God it is no surprise believers assign zero value to the purpose of being human.

My purpose in life is far from zero. It is to make as much difference in the lives of other humans and others dependent on humans as possible. I am extremely careful to insure that the differences I am making are good for the individual and for the society of which I am a part. I may not always succeed, but I can normally repair the damage, and part of my purpose as a human is to do whatever it takes to do so.

and many people spend hurrendous amounts of energy trying NOT to have to admit this to themselves out of fear there is no value to anything.
Aka_me

They are called believers in the afterlife.

What is Meaning?

2011-05-19T09:51:00.000-07:00

Is This Life All There Is?. - Beliefnet

I have never been able to figure out what 'Meaning in Life' means to a Christian although it seems to be some desirable mystical attribute provided by God. One of those undefined 'Good things' that comes from God. Perhaps one of our Christian visitors can help.

I have appropriated the term, to describe those things that I do each day that make life better for those that are important to me including myself. Random acts of kindness, paying attention to a particularly nice piece of music on the stream in the background and commenting on it if appropriate to another who might appreciate it or to the performer if it was a live performance. Simply sharing the things big and little that make life worth getting out of bed for each morning for.

Meaning is not provided by anyone or anything, but is created by living intentionally with conscious intent to improve the overall welfare of whatever one considers to be one's tribe or Social Support Group. The importance of any specific act does not determine or create meaning, a simple 'Good job' to a deserving friend is essentially equivalent to an earthshaking policy speech. We can't expect all acts to be earthshakers, but we all can make life better for those around us. Therein lies meaning in life.

What is an Atheist?

2011-05-16T23:18:00.000-07:00

..Pavlov and der Atheist... - Beliefnet

You are talking about at least three separate groups of people here with the term atheist.

Some atheists learn only that certain friends have some weird beliefs and do funny things with their families that they call religion. Other than a natural curiosity about things that are important to other people in the world, there is nothing to learn. Morality, meaning, purpose, etc. are found in the groups they grow up with and are absorbed just like the language and accent of their peers.

A second group of atheists have learned that their milk religion just doesn't work for them any more. They read their Bible or equivalent, they listen to the sermons, and the hymns and find they cannot relate to it any longer. Most leave their milk church and find other systems that work for them.

A third group resents the fact that God and the vuvuzela can tell them what to do and rebel. Their whole life revolves around this revolt and they spend no time trying to find something to replace God and the vuvuzela. Generally like most prodigals they return with their tail between their legs. While they called themselves atheists, they never learned what atheism was about other than denying God was watching.

Tribalism

2011-05-16T23:13:00.000-07:00

Is This Life All There Is?. - Beliefnet

As intelligent social animals I would argue that the basic human evolutionary unit is the tribe. Larger than a relationship clan but small enough that all members have a 'nodding acquaintance or potentially so. The tribe sets the mores, creates the Gods, and establishes the membership rules. And historically, establishes other. Gods allow the tribe to exceed the acquaintance limitation, as all tribal members worship God as the unifying entity. And use the rituals as the unifying principles. As long as communication was controlled by the priesthood, this worked well, although resource conflicts with the others were always an issue.

Gutenberg, laid the groundwork for the disintegration of the tribe, and humans have basically tried to find a substitute since. Nations, Religions, and Ethnic groups have all in one way or another tried to replace the tribe, and it seems we are still working out the solution. It is as the Chinese Edit: proverb curse notes 'Interesting times.

Is This Life all there is?

2011-05-16T23:11:00.000-07:00

I live as if it is. There is not enough evidence for an afterlife to even be agnostic, but in any event even an improbable God as afterlife concierge would have to base a decision on the life lived between birth and death to be worth paying any attention to. Below we have one take on the issue, thanks Aka_me. It almost sounds reasonable but still is a distraction from the important task of living. But if the principles that get you the cookie result in a good life for self and all others, I have no argument.

when this life IS all there is...what is the difference between dieing today and dieing 40 years from now?
Aka_me

40 years of making life a little better for those who are important in my life. Each day I do what I can to make myself and others around me a little wiser, more compassionate, and more willing to share our gifts with the living, and to share the gifts from the deceased with the living. The Mozart sonata is relevant here, but so are the lullabies composed by my atheist great-grandmother that are still lulling generations of children into pleasant, hopeful sleep, secure in the love of their parents who will be there for the next 40 years.

Exactly the point. I not only have the memory but I can encourage others to share the experience at a later performance. Or if push comes to shove I can buy (not rip) a recording and share that. I was at a stunning concert just last night with an unusual combination of chamber singers with a string quartet. Three commissioned works and two works rescued from the ignore pile by Brahms and Beethoven and adapted for the combo. I have already promoted several copies of the planned CD and ordered one for myself. They made a huge difference, and I certainly hope they will be around for another 40 years, doing innovative things with the human voice.

As for the crappy hypothetical. I paid almost that in current $ to hear Messiaen play Méditations sur le mystère de la Sainte Trinité at the National Cathedral. The experience itself was transcendent and was priceless. I cannot remember it well in the sense of which note came after which, and the experience was entirely in the moment. There was in fact nothing left after the silence at the end.

I am not so egocentric that value to me is the most important thing or even an important thing. What is important is how I affect the others that are important to me.

Take for example Socrates, not comparing myself mind you, just using a famous example. He certainly is worthless to himself right now. He had no illusions of an afterlife. But he affected students and one, Plato, was affected enough to document how he affected those students. Socrates is still one of the most important people in a philosophical discussion.

While the children and grandchildren are important, the fact that they look like me is of no importance. The fact that they think like me, love like me, make music like me and thousands of other ways are like me is what is important. And there are others, who don't look like me that in some measure think like me, love like me, make music like me and in thousands of other ways reflect my influence on them.

This is my legacy, at some point I won't be around to enjoy it but I rest assured each night that it will be carried on and enjoyed. Some who carry parts of it on don't even know where it came from. That bothers me not a whit. If their lives are better for it I did not live in vain.

Moral Evil

2011-05-08T12:30:00.000-07:00

....Athiest, never dear... - Beliefnet

You went a few words too far. Slavery was abolished because it was a moral evil. Moral evil. Period. Full stop. End of sentence. A very few religious people saw through the biblical blessings justifying slavery and recognized it for the moral evil it was. It never was or could be considered a sin under any biblical or Christian definition of sin.

Sin is a Christian concept involving a human relationship to God. It has nothing to do with human relationships with each other which are covered by the concept of morality not sin. Any person who does not accept Paul's rants about sin cannot sin. According to Paul in Romans 1:18-23 humans although they knew God they glorified Him not as God. ...and for this cause God gave them up to vile afflictions, that is made them sin. If they knew not God they could not sin. They could be immoral, as immorality is a hateful act or even a hateful statement against another human. Whether it is sin or not makes no difference.

May 7, 2011 -- 2:24PM, wrote:

remember too it was the Church first in England through the leadership of Wilberforce that abolished Slavery there, then here in America here too through the spark ignited by Harriet Beecher Stowe in Uncle Toms Cabin. Slavery was abolished because it was a moral evil it was saw for what it was --------> Sin

Atheism, among those who know is a sinful condition.
Leight

On the Internet

2011-04-30T10:35:00.000-07:00

atheism is NOT a "worldview" - Discuss Atheism - Beliefnet Community

One of the glories of the internet is that everybody is free to post anything they want to even if it gives them and those they pretend to represent a very bad name. On this very blog you can see that exhibited frequently. The trick is to pick your arguments carefully lest you fall into the trap 'Don't argue with an idiot. Hesh will drag you down to herm level then beat you with experience.' This is true all over the internet.

But please, here and all over the internet, no one speaks for any group, no matter how loudly they shout 'I AM AN IDIOT,' they don't even speak for idiots.

Tribal Moral Law

2011-04-26T08:40:00.000-07:00

atheism is NOT a "worldview" - Beliefnet

All moral law is ultimately the mores of the tribe. That which allows the face group of the tribe to function. The tribe may adopt a moral law giver in the form of a shaman or imaginary super shaman, but either will of necessity codify the mores of the tribe: Be nice to members of the tribe, protect the children of the tribe, respect the leaders of the tribe and protect the traditions and lore of the tribe.

In the modern world tribes are larger than a face group, and dispersed among other tribes in the society, but have common tribal values. Some are built around a religious tradition, others are built around business traditions, and another is based around the traditions of the university community. The university communities are typically split into the scholars and the warriors, and loyalties to each group carry beyond the campus with the warriors transferring loyalties to professional warrior teams, either sport or military.

The above is grossly stereotyped of necessity, there are major differences within each 'tribe.' Religious groups in particular are split into smaller and smaller groups some as small as a parish, each with its own mores and most with it's own higher moral law giver providing an absolute higher moral law for the tribe. Of course it is too much to expect that these absolute higher moral law agree on much of anything except that they are right and all the other absolute higher moral law givers are wrong.

It should be noted that there are atheists in most of the tribes, and the atheists generally adopt the world view of the tribe with the exception that the absolute higher moral law giver, if there is one, is an imaginary myth.

Harry Jesus Christ Potter

2011-04-20T19:47:00.000-07:00

The bulk of Jesus Potter Harry Christ is a well researched and readable source for the mythical (literary) underpinnings of the figure of Jesus Christ in the mythology of Christianity. Which author Derek Murphy argues should be seen as a literary myth rather than a historical preacher who walked the earth and died in a spectacular fashion. He argues convincingly that the existence of a historical Jesus destroys the mythical basis of Christianity. (Not a bad idea in this atheist's opinion. For my take on the historical Jesus see Jesuism posts on this blog.) Murphy argues that the myth that grew out of the historical mythology that is well documented in the book is the real Jesus Christ of the Christian faith not the historical Jesus.

In the summary he draws the parallel between the nascent Harry Potter cult and the development of Christianity built on the mythical underpinnings of the Christian religion. I for one would like to see the sequel where he documents the humanist mythology underlying the Harry Potter myth. Christianity is passe.

Origin Stories

2011-04-15T08:59:00.000-07:00

Science vs. Religion - Science & Religion - Beliefnet Community

There is overwhelming evidence that all gods including God came from tribal stories to explain the unexplainable at the time, including the origins of people and things and by extension the universe. These tribal stories ultimately came from the minds of people, who pre-existed the stories. Since these people presumably had something to sit on while telling their stories, the universe, technically ebergy/mass must be the bottom turtle.

Morals of the Tribe.

2011-04-13T12:32:00.000-07:00

The 'existence' of gods - Beliefnet

They both are talking about morality. The real issue is where Ken gets his preferences and cptpith gets his empathy basis for good and evil. And for that matter where you get your 'God says'

Humans are basically tribal animals. Tribes these days are distributed in the larger society. But within the tribe morality, that is, what is right and wrong is as rigid and strict as the 10 Commandments, although less frequently violated. 'Aunt Matilda' tells mom and dad which fork to use, who may screw whom, and who may own whom, and all of the other rights and wrongs of the tribe. Mom and Dad in turn make sure the children from the time they are old enough to play with other children internalize these rules with their pablum. 'Aunt Matilda' has lots of help, other relatives, teachers, mentors, authority figures all play a role in defining right and wrong for the tribe.

Your tribe throws God into the mix, but in general God's moral precepts are so archaic that even the most devout must pick and choose among them and interpret the ones they choose so heavily that in effect God's morality is the believer's personal preferences just like Ken's. I would bet that Ken's preferences are based on a modern educated tribe's morality, and that in fact they are more rigid than a believer's.

If the believer has chosen only the Second Great Commandment and discarded all the rest of the archaic moral precepts, they don't have much of an argument with cptpith, except maybe that God said so rather than the tribe dictates.

Gil Robbins, Vocal Musician

2011-04-10T11:39:00.000-07:00

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/10/arts/music/10robbins.html

Gil's love for and dedication to vocal music of all kinds made a profound difference in the the many different genres he touched. As a singer, a conductor, or even as a club manger he changed everything and made it much better. It was a pleasure an privilege to have known and worked with him. Condolences to Mary and the wonderful family they raised.

However...every time I touch my lip to catch a breath in a fast passage I remember Gil and all the other things he taught me about how to be a better singer. And that leads to Mary and the family in the apartment in the village going over Choral Society business. All good memories that will be around as long as I am, and as long as anyone touched by Gil's genius is around.

Just 12 days later Mary joined him. Loving memories washed with tears will always be a part of their legacy to all choral singers, but especially to the New York Choral Society. Thanks Mary and Gil for all the joy and music you gave us.

Spiritual But Not Religious

2011-04-07T19:12:00.000-07:00

Dawkins' chapter 8 - Beliefnet

For more years than I like to think about I have been trying to find a word or even a short phrase to substitute for spiritual, as well as a word that I can nail on a theist that means spirituality attributed to God. I have failed.

I finally found a God specific substitute for transcendent in "numinous" thanks to Rudolf Otto.

But I haven't yet found a word that I can say "You mean ..." when a theist uses spirit or spiritual. So I am left with accusing God of hijacking a profound human experience and generally turning it into crap. "Hey, look at the rainbow!" "That is God's promise that he isn't going to kill us all again." I am not impressed, I will enjoy the rainbow without the help of God.

I think the world is making progress in taking spiritual back for human experience, just as we have reclaimed soul from God. I am pleased that it is now referring to human experiences.

I always congratulate a person who claims to be spiritual but not religious. If they ask why I suggest that they have reclaimed their humanity from God's playpen. More than a few have thanked me for expressing their thinking so concisely. I once heard an echo, always a nice experience or should I say a spiritual experience.

Natural Spirituality

2011-04-06T11:35:00.000-07:00

Dawkins' chapter 8 - Beliefnet Community

For political reasons you don't call it spirituality, but I suspect that there is more to your life than the material/intellectual inputs. Awe, wonder, love, hate, beauty, are all values that I call spiritual, in that they inform the non-rational component of the mind that I call spirit. Just to be clear spirit is not put into the mind/brain by some God or other external force but is an integral part of it. Religions try to hijack spirituality just like they try to hijack morality, but there is no need to let them do so. I would like to find other words for spirit and spirituality, as I don't like the religious overtones, but like morality, there just isn't a secular concept that does the job. We will just have to reclaim them from religion.

Spiritual Truth

2011-04-06T10:29:00.000-07:00

Dawkins' chapter 8 - Beliefnet

When you let the material/worldly override truth, it is spiritual suicide. Spirituality is as necessary for human survival as eating and pooping. Spirituality is the function of the mind that is the reward center for discovering exceptional beauty, truth, relationships, and emotional truth. In a spiritual experience all mental activity is subsumed to the importance of the moment, and the truth contained therein.

Spirituality is not necessarily the province of religion, but religion can be a cliff notes version of spirituality for those who cannot or will not do the study and introspection necessary for personal spiritual truth. Religion does not prevent and in fact encourages the study and introspection but many ignore it and let theology override spiritual truth.

The Tribe as the Human Evolutionary Unit.

2011-04-06T10:00:00.000-07:00

What is the Purpose of Religion? - Beliefnet

As the human evolutionary selection unit is the tribe, as long as tribes were small enough and cohesive, a god was a useful entity to take the responsibility of leadership from the tribal leaders. 'Hey, it isn't me making bad things happen, it is God. I only take credit for the good things that happen.' Religion codifies the social necessities of tribal cohesion, providing the moral and social rules that allow the tribe to function. Another important function of religion is to codify and preserve the stories that transmit those moral and social rules. Humans are story telling animals and the stories told in the gatherings are the way the mores are transmitted and preserved.

A Week of Aurora

2011-03-28T08:17:00.000-07:00

http://vimeo.com/21294655

The Aurora from Terje Sorgjerd on Vimeo.

HUAC History and Religion

2011-03-26T23:07:00.000-07:00

"In God We Trust" nation’s official motto? - Beliefnet

The traditional but not official motto was 'E Pluribus Unum' Out of many, one. The problem with this motto was that it might have been interpreted to refer to the ethnically diverse population of the country including many that were not Christian or white. So they fixed it by adopting a motto that included the Christian God so no one would be confused in what the country stood for.

The original Pledge 'One nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all' had the same problem. The disenfranchised and the minorities might have mistakenly been included in the liberty and justice phrase so they added 'Under God' so that only those believing in God would have liberty and justice.

In those days the House Unamerican Activities Committee HUAC was synonymous with bigotry. The Hollywood Blacklist was aimed at atheists and Jews who might have had some concern for the downtrodden and celebrated them with movies and folk songs. Even then it might have been politically incorrect to pick on Jews so Communist was added to Godless that is, not believing in the Christian God, so that GodlessCommunist, or GodlessCommieAtheist became one word for political reasons.

I say those days as if they were over. They are not. Although HUAC was discredited the Christian Right simply continued where they left off.

Yeah, it worked by destroying the cultural diversity that made America Great. It worked by denying some of the nations best and brightest a living by a Christian witch hunt for "godless communists" It worked by destroying an educational system that was the envy of the world by making students and teachers no matter what their beliefs or lack thereof, pledge allegiance to God instead of "One nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all" no matter what religious beliefs they held or did not hold. Instead of "E Pluribus Unum," out of many, one, we get "In God We Trust" fuck everybody else.

The entire decline of the United States can be traced to the fight against "Godless Communism." Korea, Viet Nam, the cold war, the Bamboo Curtain, a resource suck that took many of our finest men and either killed them or turned them into PTS dysfunctionals. I can justifiably add Iraq I and II to the list, as Communism was just a modifier to Godless. And you can be sure that the God in question was the Christian God.

Yeah, it worked. Maybe we can get Jesusland to secede and let the rest of us who do not trust in God try to rebuild the USA with the original E Pluribus Unum motto.

On second thought why wait for them. They are to retarded to accomplish anything so beneficial. Why not have the educated rational states secede and either join Canada which already has a functional government, or recreate that country that was based on E Pluribus Unum instead of God.

"In God We Trust"

2011-03-26T09:43:00.000-07:00

"In God We Trust" nation’s official motto? - Beliefnet

Yeah, McCarthyism worked by destroying the cultural diversity that made America Great. It worked by denying some of the nations best and brightest a living by a Christian witch hunt for 'godless communists.' It worked by destroying an educational system that was the envy of the world by making students and teachers no matter what their beliefs or lack thereof, pledge allegiance to God instead of 'One nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all' no matter what religious beliefs they held or did not hold. Instead of 'E Pluribus Unum,' out of many, one we get 'In God We Trust' fuck everybody else.

The entire decline of the United States can be traced to the fight against 'Godless Communism.' Korea, Viet Nam, the cold war, the Bamboo Curtain, a resource suck that took many of our finest men and either killed them or turned them into PTS dysfunctionals. I can justifiably add Iraq I and II to the list, as Communism was just a modifier to Godless. And you can be sure that the God in question was the Christian God.

Yeah, it worked. Maybe we can get Jesusland to secede and let the rest of us who do not trust in God try to rebuild the USA with the original E Pluribus Unum motto.

Evolution in a Knowledge Based Society

2011-03-26T09:31:00.000-07:00

Is Religious Misogyny Viable in a Modern economy - Beliefnet

Darwin is no more relevant to modern evolutionary theory than the Bible is to modern morality.

Evolutionary theory suggests that whatever sexual dimorphism in behavior and breeding functions that works for the species studied in the ecological niche they find themselves in will result in an evolutionary advantage. However when the niche changes a species than cannot adapt may well become extinct.

In a survival desert marauding niche, with high infant mortality and high male mortality in war a female human as a brood mare, socializer of children and society made evolutionary sense.

In a modern society with sophisticated medicine and technology the evolutionary pressure seems to be for maximizing intellectual innovation, and eliminating half of the population from that activity seems like an evolutionary dead end. Out breeding resources is another evolutionary dead end. We are seeing in countries like China and India and some parts of the USA that women are critical participants in the economy, and fit in the 2.1 replacement children as time permits. Or not at all in many cases.

Nobody is trying to turn them into men. They still are the producers of the next generation, but if men want to participate genetically in the next generation, the rules have changed considerably. It is no longer useful to fuck anything with a vagina, she probably is infertile until she finds someone that will be a good parenting partner. Which these days means recognizing her intellectual contributions to the society and the economy.

One of the reasons misogynistic religions are so down on homosexuality is that the good parenting partner may well be female, and the requirements for getting sperm into that mix can be interesting to say the least. It happens, frequently naturally, but never by accident.

Radiation dose chart link

2011-03-24T15:42:00.000-07:00

http://www.xkcd.com/radiation/

Eat one banana 0.1 microSv about the same as living for a year within 50 mi of a nuclear plant
3 times that for a year living within 50 miles of a coal plant
400 times that flying from NYC to LA

Misogyny in Living

2011-03-16T20:31:00.000-07:00

Hi there misogynist atheists. - Beliefnet

Out of respect for misogynist atheists and other misogynists of all faiths and lack thereof (if the shoe fits you can still refuse to wear it because it is too ugly) we will now replace misogynist with sexist.

If a poster reports that women are generally not interested in joining contests to see how far they can piss into a strong wind. Is this a sexist comment? Does the sex of the poster matter?

If a woman does not choose to participate in pissing contests about the existence of God is she being sexist?

If she points out that many women do not wish to participate in pissing contests about the existence of God should she be required to remove the atheist label from her blog? Does the language she uses to point this out matter?

If a man refuses to go to a school board meeting to protest the religious backed attempt to dumb down the science and arts curriculum can he still call himself an atheist. Is he being sexist because he thinks that is women's work. < sarcasm> Y'know Kinder, Küche, Kirche and all that?< /sarcasm> Does the fact that he is attending an atheist conference on the existence of God instead make any difference?

If a woman suggests that one of the turn offs to women is that to many, atheist are a bunch of testosterone dominated, egg heads with no emotion who like to argue.. and the response is a boobquake, one might expect that she and many others who have learned not to think with their genitals would find confirmation of at the very least insensitivity to what she was trying to say.

FYI the term "Boobquake" is a reference to a fundamentalist preacher who blamed the Haiti earthquake on women who dressed inappropriately. It has been generalized to any inappropriate reference to or misuse of especially images of women's breasts. In my opinion, the use of the photo was inappropriate in the context of the thread, hence a boobquake. It had nothing at all to do with the characteristics of the woman in the photo.

If a woman is trying to educate an argumentative, dogmatic person, frequently male, about things that are important to many women that the man seems to be ignorant of, it is not stereotyping it is information. IMO that was the intent of her main post. She was trying to inform the atheists here why this forum is generally unattractive to women. It is quite apparent that some of the atheists here were offended by her remarks and chose to attack the messenger rather than deal with the message. The comments in the link I sent to MOP were almost universally in the same attack the messengers mode, including some argumentative, dogmatic women.

The atheist movement if not atheists in general have a serious problem. Women should be the driving force in combating religious misogyny and religious anti-intellectualism including the gutting of the school system. They after all, are the ones most affected by it. Atheist men are generally more concerned with dogmatic issues as those make the best arguments. Sterile intellectualized discussion of God beliefs isn't an alternative to anything. It is in effect an admission of acquiescence to the status quo. You are welcome to it. You are ceding the fight against the misogyny and anti-intellectualism of fundamentalism to others. Your privilege certainly but I would prefer that you keep it in your Ivory Tower where intellectualized discussions of issues don't bother anyone else. Some of us are trying to make a difference, and egg head BS doesn't help. I find dogmatic issues almost trivial compared to misogyny and anti-intellectualism. Pissing and moaning about whether God exists or not resolves neither of those issues.

I have dealt with subconscious misogyny for most of my life, and am therefore hypersensitive to it. Some of it is directed at males in "female" roles. As one of the original Mr. Moms by agreement with the mother of my children who was in a very demanding, very misogynic career environment, I was frequently the target of remarks like "that is woman's work," "Where is your wife?" "Why isn't your wife taking care of that?" Hmm, lessee, "She is presenting a paper at an international conference that is critical for her personal grant funding. Is taking her kids to the park more important so that her husband should be excused from the duty?"

If you think a simple descriptive term like misogyny is an insult, please explain how it is so. Or better please explain how misogynist is an insult if it is a true description of a pattern of behavior. Am I insulting Paul by calling him a misogynist or merely describing the over all tenor of his writings concerning women? If a man is wearing a T shirt saying "Women are Property" and refers to all women as "Bitches" or worse, am I justified in calling him a misogynist or am I insulting him? If I refer to the T shirt wearer as a misogynist and he responds "Damn right!" did I insult him?

A descriptive term is an insult only if it applies to you and you wish it didn't. If a woman calls a man a misogynist and he says "That bitch just insulted me." I wonder who has the problem. Someone can call me a misogynist, and I can just laugh at them and ask what gives you that impression. Or if I wanted to be insulting I could reply "liar." At that point is simply an argument about fact. Am I or am I not a misogynist. If the accuser said you did this or said that and that indicates misogyny, I can say here is the context that makes it OK or I say I am sorry I didn't mean it that way, or in rare cases simply apologize for my remark.

On another thread (but more relevant to this thread now) I commented that it is surprising to find misogyny bubbling through atheism. JCarlin rightly corrected this to "bubbling through society in general". I completely agree; I just had higher expectations though from a group of people who after all have been independent enough to examine their commitment to a previously common belief in society and choose a different mindset. In a similar way, I have higher expectations from professionals who work in university settings and large corporations than from, for instance, a clerk at Radio Shack.

I wonder if there are 2 issues here:
1. Misogyny
vs
2. An approach to solving problems that is more feeling-based than thinking-based, separate from gender. (Attention all you thinking-type guys: this is NOT the same as logical/illogical!) Have you ever taken any of the Meyers-Briggs personality tests? Many women identify with the "feeling" category, and many men identify with the "thinking" category. I can see why religion would tend to attract the "feeling" set more so than the "thinking" set... perhaps the opposite is true for atheism.
Fangi

I suspect that if some prick told some woman that she should go shopping, care for her children, dust, iron, and talk about relationships instead of messing with the intellectual matters here it certainly would be a pejorative gender stereotype in fact full blown misogyny. Hmm. Providing information about the characteristics of a group by a member of that group may or may not be prejudice or bigotry, although the same thing said by an outsider may well be hate speech.

Like it or not, if atheism is to be an effective alternative for those disgusted by fundamentalist religion atheism is going to have to attract a lot of people who don't want to shout and argue but will quietly talk in their relationship circles that the excesses of fundamentalism are bad for women and children. If one of those people chooses to point out what atheists need to appeal to if they are not going to remain a marginal group of pricks shouting into the wind of fundamentalism, maybe the pricks should listen. So far their record is pretty dismal.

Maybe atheists should be content in their ivory towers not believing in God and ignoring the rest of the world. But the rest of the world will go right on gutting the schools and turning large parts of the US into a third world country. I find that abhorrent, and personally don't give a NoGod damn about what somebody believes or not about God. I do care about the children who are pulled out of school to worship God. I am not going to reach their mothers with intellectualized BS about whether or not somebody can prove God exists. I am going to reach their mothers with atheists some of whom paint their fingernails, and care about not only herm children but all children. The gender inclusive pronoun is significant because there are atheist dads who take their children to the park and talk to the women there about bringing up children and go to the PTA meetings demanding effective science education and who put their testosterone charged aggression to good use by challenging the fundamentalist status quo, not staring at boobs advertising intellectual arguments about God.

Not incidentally I am not chastising Freedom From Religion and other female dominated atheist groups for using all the conventional appeals to the misogynists that run things. We need a lot more of them. We are not going to get them with intellectual discussions. Thanks for showing us a path that many more of us should be taking.

Misogyny Sexism and Male Chauvinism

2011-03-16T20:02:00.000-07:00

Further Deterioration of Language - Beliefnet

Early in the feminist movement it became clear that the language needed a word for the attitude expressed first by Paul in Corinthians and Timothy: Women should be silent and subservient. This is an expression of an underlying attitude that women are fundamentally inferior to men and are suitable only for breeding, child care and housekeeping. Since this is almost a definition of hatred the word misogyny seemed not only useful but correct in tone and inference. As noted in a different post it does not refer only to women but to men doing 'women's work.' See a male nurse in the mid 20th century. Or the movie Mr. Mom.

Sexism is a different issue that is best expressed as women as sex objects. No real implication of inferiority, just that no matter what they have accomplished or their position the comment 'check out that rack' would be acceptable in a sexist group. And the minor sensation the Million dollar challenge raises no eyebrows: Would you bet a million dollars that you could have sex with a random woman stranger by midnight? Usually referring to the women in the room at a conference or lecture.

Male chauvinism is a step up? the ladder in that women are while not simply sex objects are not as necessarily as important as men in the society and can therefore be paid less for the same work, exploited as arm candy, and in menial jobs like receptionists despite their credentials, and historically librarians and teachers which are grossly underpaid for their importance to the society.

When I use the word misogyny I am generally referring to a disrespectful attitude toward the contributions of women. But many of the insults were misogynic, in that they implied that she shouldn't be playing with the big boys here.

As I have said several times before it is the society as a whole that is misogynic, in large part because Christianity, not just fundamentalist Christianity is misogynic and Christian mores are dominant in our society. It is not surprising that atheists are affected by these mores, but of all people we should be trying to raise our consciousness of this pernicious Christian and to a lesser extent Jewish effect on the mores of the society. Theoretically atheists should be looking at all the dogma not simply the God dogma and rejecting the crap.

A World Without Religion

2011-03-16T19:54:00.000-07:00

Is religion is a "mind rotting" disease? - Beliefnet

Atheism is not an answer for the mind rot of religion. If there were no theists there would be no atheists. Atheism is simply one solution to life without God. If the mind rotting religions of faith and salvation were somehow eliminated you would probably find much the same things you see now. People gathering in social settings for conversation, perhaps some music, many might choose something resembling a religion without the mind rot of imposed belief. As someone else pointed out a 'high' UU church has all the ritual, music, stories from the pulpit, of a traditional religion without the requirement for a specific belief. Arguing with the minister is a strong tradition in most UU churches. I suspect that many of the traditional religions to survive will adopt a similar strategy. Listen to the stories of Jesus, discuss them. What can they tell you about getting what you can from the life you know about, the one with the fancy bookends of birth and death.

Meaning and purpose must be found in this life, and traditional stories might help. But don't count on anything unusual happening at death.

Misogyny and Religion

2011-03-16T19:51:00.000-07:00

what pray tell is sexist about stating the fact that many women prefer consensus to dominance. Is this not perhaps a reaction to millennia of dominance where they were forced to care for some rapist's kids, make and iron their clothes and otherwise do the bidding of the rapist. Might they not have sought out the company of other women to resolve issues of how to deal with their rapists. Might they not have created a more powerful entity to control their rapists. And therefore have a vested interest in God?

Misogyny bubbles through society in general. Atheism is no exception. There are islands of exceptions that are growing rapidly now that women can have control over reproduction. Men aren't stupid. But mores change very slowly. And if everything from advertising to sporting events to movies to restaurants, and most everything else promote ogling the boobs, it is hard for everybody of both sexes to realize that women are not just sex objects.

Interestingly religions are leading in some of those islands of exceptions, and also in the rearguard maintaining of women as property. Some Universities are also leaders, in both directions, generally correlated with fundamental religious influence in the area. There are no simple answers and generalizations are impossible.
If you are truly interested I would recommend this report from Blag Hag on a conference discussing the lack of women in the atheist movement. Note the panel was 5 men and one woman. In particular read through the comments. The men either attack the messengers, say "what's the problem," or blame the women.

I don't really blame the men. Thanks to Paul and the Jewish tradition, women as property is a given in most Western societies, whether they are still religious or not. Even western languages especially the gendered languages have a cruel bias against women. In a gathering to introduce a new department head from a South American country, he proudly introduced the members of his department: This is my collegue Dr. Werner, and my collegue Dr. John, and my collegue Dr. Jesus, and er, um, Dr. Mary. As I knew Dr. "Mary" very well I knew she never became a collegue. If you want an example in English, what pronoun do atheists use in referring to God?

For a long time in my life atheism was simply a position about God. I became more active mainly to combat the Christian mysogyny of Paul, which is reflected even in the atheist community, at least the vocal atheist community. Just as a minor example. Why was the London bus ad a minor blip on the radar until Dawkins was photographed with his "tongue" hanging out with the buxom instigator of the movement. Why the hell didn't he pose proudly by a bus with the ad on it? Ho, hum, no sex, no news value. She is a journalist and entertainer, so she knows what sells even to "rational" atheists.

Navigators USA alternative scouting group

2011-03-14T09:07:00.000-07:00

uuworld.org : alternative scouting group starts to grow

As an early atheist scout and scoutmaster with a possibly gay co-scoutmaster (don't ask, don't tell) at a troop from a welfare hotel sponsored by All Souls, I have been dismayed by the Boy Scouts religious right lurch. Magnum kudos to Robin Bossert and again to All Souls for leading the way to an inclusive outdoor adventure program.

The benefits I got from scouting were incredible. Where else could an atheist go to a Pontifical High mass? (Irvine CA Jamboree) The self confidence, and self assurance from being able to build a shelter from sticks and a bit of rope and a poncho was critical to being able to get as my fortune cookie taped to my monitor says "The great pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do."

The benefit from being a Scoutmaster at All souls with the kids from the welfare hotel were more subtle, but being able to work with kids whose enthusiasm overcame their minor disability of living on welfare was a joy and an inspiration.

DNA Argument for a Creator

2011-03-10T23:09:00.000-08:00

Post Evidence Here - Beliefnet

From data of molecular biology and from some information theories, we can now argue that an "intelligent force" is the cause of the origen of life, do to the simple analogy that exists between DNA code and any written language. There is not a clear identification from scientific data, neither we can give it a proper name to that intelligent force, and from empirical deduction the only thing we can said is, the intelligent force that produced the first spark of life , is within the cosmos, and off the earth, or perhaps beyond the cosmos as historical theism maintains. We can ponder about all this for ever and the only sure answer will be that humanity might pondered about it until the end of time.
Silverada

This is basically a more sophisticated and intelligent reworking of the Behe's irreducible complexity argument. It has many of the same flaws the main one being where did the super irreducible complex designer come from? The assumption is that some omniscient something arranged the codons in the first DNA and either let it evolve from there or tweaked it as necessary to accomplish its aim of producing the amazing supremely intelligent being in the image of God namely me.

Frankly, I am not that important. The other problem with this argument is that it is assumed that this omniscient creator had some goal in mind when Hesh created that first DNA. If it wasn't me the atheist in God's image, what was it?

It is certainly possible in spite of the difficulties mentioned, but it is far more likely that a totally undirected chemical process that can be guessed at but not defined at this point ended up as that first DNA, and the organisms built by that DNA did their best to stay alive and reproduce more DNA as best they could, but that inevitably errors crept in, some helpful some lethal and by this time a bunch of intelligent people came about that could imagine God in their own image. I think my scenario takes a lot less faith, but you may not think faith is as dysfunctional as I do.

I do think DNA language code is not a selective, random or out of necessity evolutionary happening. Molecular biologists do know now how life came to be, but they don´t know from where that first cause came from or how that language code was introduce into the molecules with the ability to store, transmit and edit information and to use that information to regulate their most fundamental metabolic process. There is nothing under biological research that have had yet an indisputable answer to that. So mysticism findings are still the only answer untill science can otherwise contradict it and make it false forever without any doubt.
Silverada

Like many creator advocates you ignore the brutal power of selection. Any change to the DNA that doesn't work is generally lethal and that change disappears. Some changes don't make any difference and are conserved until they change again and either help or more frequently kill the organism. But there are billions of organisms and even the dead ones are food, that is sources of nucleotides to make new DNA for other organisms. So the fact that most of it doesn't work means very little in the big picture. As long as one strand of DNA works and the zygote lives to reproduce whatever the change is will be conserved. And successful zygotes tend to make lots more. It works even faster for cloning organisms. One successful strand of DNA makes two more, those 2 make 4 and 4 make 8 and you can do the rest of the math till you get a whole pond full of organisms until they run out of food.

Even the simplest form of life, with the store of DNA, are characterized by specified complexity, therefore life itself is "the first evidence" that some form of intelligence was in existence at the time of its origin.
Silverada

You can keep your designer if you wish, but the designer works by trial and error just like most human designers. The designer tried RNA and it was almost good enough but the thiamine introduced too many errors in transcription. So after a bunch of ungodlike expletives the designer tried uracil and finally found the stability in transcription that was necessary to compete in the nucleotide gobbling world of early protolife. A whole lot of errors in programming later the designer finally found a sequence that could wrap a lipid membrane around itself and protect its nucleotide sources.

If this sounds like natural selection to you it does to me as well. I just can't come up with a way to create a designer smart enough to figure out in one shot, that first DNA sequence that used the lipid membrane for protection.

Maybe you are smarter than I am or have more faith that the designer could just poof out of nothing, but in any event you have to explain the origins of the designer. "I believe it, and that settles it" works, but that is not evidence simply belief.

Did I post anything that a certified chemist might find a complete ignorance of the matter? if it is so, please correct me. For sure I do not have a chemist point of view of how DNA works, I only learn about from reading a few things.
Silverada

The major difference between the chemistry of DNA and written language is that DNA chemistry is relatively inflexible. It is similar to low level computer code, in that any minor error generally causes the whole program to crash. As a low level programmer at one time I can assure you that such programming is error and trial over and over again.

Even if your creator had the ability to manipulate individual codons of DNA that is "write" a strand of DNA my guess is that the creator would use up as many combinations as evolution did to finally get a self replicating strand that could encase itself in a cell membrane to create life. The difference is that the creator thought about it, while evolution just kept trying at random until something worked.

I just can't imagine a creator intelligent enough to "write" a strand of DNA that would waste the time it would take to create life, when the creator would presumably be intelligent enough to know that evolution would do the same thing, sooner or later.

When religion dies.

2011-03-10T20:34:00.000-08:00

Failed Theists

2011-03-05T14:21:00.000-08:00

The Bright Line - Beliefnet

There is a reason that atheists are a small but rapidly growing segment of the population: It is hard intellectual work to find substitutes for the God myths of childhood that provided the security blanket that one can wrap oneself in when life spins out of control. Unfortunately many of those God myths are getting tattered and the blankie doesn't work as well as it used to without strong faith.

I know the University one failed theist attended and rational thought is not its strong suit. It is an excellent practical knowledge source, as it was designed to be. If you needed support for rational abstract thinking the University down the highway a piece might have provided more support. But I suspect that even there the support would have been insufficient.

Jesus as humanist.

2011-02-28T10:04:00.000-08:00

Definitions - Beliefnet

The problem with Christian theology is that it has nothing at all to do with Jesus. John was closest to Jesus, but even he tried to wrap theology around Jesus. It didn't work.

Once you divorce Jesus from theology most of the objections to his historical existence as a person evaporate. The miracles become mnemonics, the eclecticism from past religious traditions only shows he was aware of them and incorporated what he thought were the best parts in his ministry. Paul's hijacking of his charisma is for me definitive proof of his existence as a popular preacher probably named Jesus in Greek. The fact that the Synoptics survived in spite of their disagreement with all Christian theology is additional proof for me of the importance and historicity of Jesus.

I find Jesus to be quite human, quite humanistic, and radically respectful of all people. No wonder they killed him.

ChooseYour Parents Well

2011-02-27T10:26:00.000-08:00

The origin of self in relation to truth - Beliefnet

Why it is so important to pick your culture very carefully: A child will be necessarily be imprinted with the memes of his parents and their Social Support Group. It is called socialization and is critical if the child is to survive to puberty. This is in fact nature's plan. It in critical for a human to be a part of a tribe. A lone human is a dead human in the natural world. Nature has provided an escape hatch in the adolescent rebellion phase of any normally intelligent child. And if the child is exposed to other tribes as many modern children are in school, the rebellious child may find a better (or worse) tribe to associate with.

Obviously as a child this is a pipe dream, but as an adult anticipating reproducing the SSG that you will provide for you child will determine whether the child is warped into some form of aberration or becomes a useful, productive contributor to the larger society.

Religions can be acceptable SSGs but again it is important to choose, if you can, a religion that is aware of and trying to be a part of the larger society. Many are not, and treat the larger society as hostile and dangerous, even to the point of home schooling or religious schooling to keep the child warped into the aberrant group.

The Internet as SSG.

2011-02-25T11:22:00.000-08:00

Rationally Speaking: Massimo’s Picks:

Nice article on the internet, thanks. The revolution that is being missed is the fact that until the net social groups were chosen for individuals. You belonged to a family, a church, a university, a company, a political party, a country etc. With the net your social group is whoever you want it to be. Many of the most important people in my social group I have never met and probably never will. Yet they shape my thinking and I shape theirs. In particular the ERSSG seems to be heavily dependent on the internet for its cohesion and ethos. The articles people link on facebook, the blogs they cite and write are all critical to the functioning of the ERSSG.

The group seems to expand on the net as well. Two middle aged high school buddies hooked up on facebook. No surprise there. The comments of a "friend" of one of them appealed to the other and that person requested friend status for the second degree friend. The second degree friend suggested to others that the person was a good addition to the local ERSSG.

As we are seeing around the world, a social group determined to change their world with the net has no problem doing so simply by creating a group dedicated to doing so and gathering enough like minded people into it to make it happen. I see the momentum building on the net for supporting the unions in Wisconsin. Hmm. If they can do it to Mubarak and Qaddafi how will Walker hold up?

Addendum: Listening to Finlandia on the KDFC stream, the thought occurred to me that perhaps music performed much the social grouping function as the net does now. As everyone can type, everyone can sing. The Marseilles, maybe Yankee Doodle, and a few others that provided the unifying identifier for the revolutionaries.

What is an Atheist?

2011-02-24T15:07:00.000-08:00

Definitions - Beliefnet

Let me make it as simple as I can. If a person believes in at least one God or god that person is a theist. It doesn't really matter to an atheist what sort of a god it is or whether it is imaginary, delusional, or stands naked on mountain tops throwing lightning bolts at humans that are not liked and occasionally has sex with a human,.

They are all the same to an atheist. Not contributing anything of value to our lives. As soon as you define theist as A, Not A is an atheist. Just like there are many kinds of theists, there are many kinds of atheists. Since theists hate us all, we don't spend much time in public discussing our differences. Frankly they are of no importance to a theist.

If I don't believe in their particular God or vuvuzela it makes no difference why or how I don't believe. Fundie theists will respond with bigotry and spend as much time as I will let them trying to convince me that I am a horrible sinner that will burn in Hell forever if I don't convert to their God or vuvuzela or in any case I torture women and children and have sex with men.

Reasonable theists will try to figure out why I don't believe so that they can point out the error of my ways in not accepting their God of vuvuzela. They don't care whether I think God does not exist, whether I think God is a numinous brain fart or whether God is simply worthless. They will try to find that God hole and try to fill it.

A few don't care at all and let me go to Hell in my own way.

A minuscule subset will ask intelligent questions about how I deal with important issues of living and dying, meaning, purpose, spirituality, transcendence and wonder. But they don't care about what kind of an atheist I am. They are simply trying to find out how I cope without God or god(s) as the case may be.

Clan of the Cave Bear

2011-02-18T08:42:00.000-08:00

Modern DNA analysis, mitochondrial vs whole genome puts a pretty dark slant on the movie Clan of the Cave Bear. No mitochondrial Neanderthal DNA in humans means that no Neanderthal women mated with Sapiens men. 3% Neanderthal DNA in the whole genome means that a lot of Sapiens women were, shall we say, used by Neanderthal men. Maybe they were incorporated into the Neanderthal clan, but it seems unlikely to me.

Neanderthals seem to have been the apex predator, with Sapiens surviving pretty well on wit and guile. But as Neanderthals were bigger, stronger and possibly more intelligent I suspect that a Sapiens man trying to mate with a Neanderthal woman would lose some valuable anatomy parts. However a foraging Sapiens woman would be helpless if encountered by a hunting party of Neanderthals or even a lone Neanderthal hunter.

Tribal Issues

2011-02-18T08:32:00.000-08:00

king of the universe(s) - Beliefnet

The basic human social unit has been the tribe or clan. Certainly tribes and clans competed for space and resources, just as religions and nations do today. But within the tribe or clan social compliance, that is being nice to one another, was absolute. A serious social error got you expelled from the tribe, and until very recently a lone human was a dead human. Even today, disfellowshipping or shunning can be a devastating experience that frequently leads to suicide or in some cases being killed. The social contract between the individual and the social group is critical to the survival of both. Even at the nation level an individual who violates the social contract no matter how powerful can be brought down by the tribe abetted by modern communication channels. See Nixon and Mubarak. There will be more. You got to be nice to your fellow tribespeople no matter how big the guns at your back are. Those guns are operated by members of the tribe.