It is not about life after death. It is about the funeral.

Does proselytizing commodify human beings? - Discuss Atheism - Beliefnet Community:

It’s not about your death. It’s about the lives of your grandchildren and their grandchildren.
Blü

And much more important the lives of those that showed up at the funeral or memorial service (or should have.) For most people only the children and grandchildren have any real interaction with the live parent. After that the genetic and memetic legacy is important in the progeny, but the folks at the funeral carry most of the social and loving legacy of the deceased. This is a fact for all, religious or not. Christians may get pie in the sky after they die, and Muslims their attendants, but that is myth. Those at the funeral are truth, whether they are there or not."

Two Careers, two children '70s

Ontological Inferiority of Women in Paul and the OT - Discuss Atheism - Beliefnet Community:

Men want to take a more active role in caring for their children, but two out of five admit they do not spend enough time with their sons or daughters.
Kwinters

As an early adopter of the concept of a two high level career household with children, I found many social norms to be totally incompatible with the concept, in two cases costing me my job and career prospects due to role issues for males and females. I chose to take the hit as I had the social (male ease of job movement) and educational resources, to be able to. The fact that my wife was not paid a head of household salary in spite of having a head of household job made the choice harder, but we both knew what we were up against in both large and small social issues. Just being the only adult male in a preschool area of a park was frequently an interesting experience. I would occasionally have to call my kids to justify my presence there, a few times to cops. Not complaining, mind you, we both chose the road with clear knowledge of the ruts and potholes. And believe me, the gender ruts were obvious and unavoidable.

It started when we were admitted to a big name U for Grad school, she in medicine me for an MBA. We went to financial aid and said "We are broke, how do we do this?" The aid guy said its easy she gets a job and puts you through the MBA then you get the big bucks from the MBA and put her through med school. We said we are both starting in the fall, what part of that don't you understand? To their credit they found a way, a grant for her tuition and a crippling loan for tuition and expenses for me. Abject poverty is good for the soul and for concentrating on studies, a movie was off the budget even if we smuggled in our own popcorn.

Tenure track medical education was no walk in the park in those days or now for women, which is why I had to use the MBA connections many times involuntarily. Like the time the boss said your wife must be at this party for the sake of your career. Guess what? He was right. She wasn't there (professional obligations) and I had to find another opportunity. I suppose if the promotion had been more important to me I could have arranged it, but I was pissed. It wouldn't have worked anyway as the company culture was wife as help mate in company politics.

The idea of social structures without a sexual division of labour is an interesting one...
Kwinters

It can be done. It just takes a major commitment on both sides. Mom was in her lab 'till lunch time in prep for a planned 2:00 induction for our second. In return I had to handle the middle of the night feeding. That is get up, get the kid, hang him on the teat, wait till he pooped, change the diaper and put him back in the crib.

Determinism, Randomness, and Free Will --Randomness

Determinism, Randomness, and Free Will - Discuss Atheism - Beliefnet Community: "I am quite comfortable with the randomness of living. Unlike some of the hard theists here, I think causality is the exception rather than the rule. If God is watching over anybody Hesh is doing a lousy job. In my view free will is expressed by how we react to the random events that color our lives including that huge one of our inevitable death. Our lives began with the random meeting of gametes, and random events like finding and losing friends, and lovers define how we choose to live. I live my life intentionally, in that I choose which random events I wish to react to and how I do so. Free will is not even an issue, there is no compulsion to do anything I choose not to do. Although things may happen that I must choose to react to. But there is always a choice. When the green car came flying over the center barrier into my lane, I could choose to do nothing and experience the fun of a high speed head on, or I could choose to steer as close to the barrier as I could. One might say the choice was forced, but it was still a choice. Making good choices is the essence of living in a random world."

Determinism, Randomness, and Free Will ---Solipcism

Determinism, Randomness, and Free Will - Discuss Atheism - Beliefnet Community

I need the axiom to get rid of solipsism &c.
Blü

What is wrong with solipsism? It needs to be recognized, understood and controlled, but even your axioms are fundamentally solipsistic. They are what you believe and what make you comfortable with your relationship with the material world. Pretending otherwise may cater to your materialism, but does not get rid of the solipsism.

I have no problem with solipsism. As a wonderful quote from Heinlein notes, 'Sometimes she goes away, but I am always here.' That is how I know the relationship of self with the rest of the world. I do not doubt the reality of the rest of the world, even when it 'goes away' but I do know the difference between self and other."

Determinism, Randomness, and Free Will

Determinism, Randomness, and Free Will - Discuss Atheism - Beliefnet Community:

Forgetting 'random' for the time being -- if the brain's random we might as well pack up and go home --
Lavengro

What everyone is forgetting is that random is not an either/or condition. In fact rationality might be defined as reasonable responses to random events that occur both internally to the brain and externally as in spilled cumin in the curry. (Should I eat it or spit it out?) The brain has sophisticated feedback that evaluates odd inputs either internal or external to see if it is important to current events in the mind. That random linear flash of reflected sunlight might be nothing. In the vicinity of a passing car the brain will ignore it. But in a crowd of people the brain might decide to direct the full attention of the mind to look for danger associated with such linear flashes. Many millions of years of separating out dangerous random signals from similar random signals that are normal patterns in the environment make dealing with the randomness of the environment a critical survival trait.

The brain's internal random juxtapositions of thought patterns is the essence of human creativity and free will. A vaguely remembered dream of a snake biting its tail juxtaposed to a vexing structural chemical problem may be responsible for modern organic chemistry. One can play the determinism game all night long and say August Kekulé had the dream because of a logical train of subconscious thought on his problem, but the waking correlation of the dream to the problem at hand seems to be deterministically improbable to the point of ridiculousness. The mind might be envisioned as a laser cavity of random thought processes that reinforce to produce meaningful waves or flow past each other without hooking up at that time. Sooner or later less important thought processes are relegated to the memory for future use as needed, (don't ask me how the mind knows they are needed, or how it retrieves them from the memory, I am not that smart.) But I do know that the mind is extremely versatile in processing that endless stream of data.

Determinism, Randomness, and Free Will -- Peek-a-boo

Determinism, Randomness, and Free Will - Discuss Atheism - Beliefnet Community:

As I said, the only non-arbitrary starting point for knowledge to begin, which is implicit in all knowledge, is the distinction between something which is observed and ourselves as observers of it. Before we can know anything about anything, we must first observe something which we subsequently attempt to know (ie determine the nature of).
Clardan

A recent AI article in Scientific American noted that peek-a-boo is the AI holy grail. I have been thinking about that a lot recently, not only because peek-a-boo is fun to play with kids, but because an infant in the cradle can play peek-a-boo with a relative stranger and still tell the difference between self and other no matter which of them is doing the hiding. I would agree that the distinction between the observed and ourselves as observers and interpreters of what is observed is fundamental.

I think Blü is entitled to his axioms:

There is a world external to the self. The senses are capable of perceiving this world. Reason is a valid tool.

They describe the reality that he observes, just as the theist is entitled to the axiom that all observations are manifestations of the will of God, and Descartes is entitled to his view that observations are manifestations of his will. I agree that Blü's axioms are probably the best description of our interactions with what we observe, but he has no greater claim to TRUTH than the bible thumpers.

I have no problem with a separate material external reality that we can discover and manipulate with science and technology. I also have no problem with a separate internal reality in other people by which they view the world. If it includes a God that watches over them and will take care of them if they pray hard enough

how hard, hard enough to make water flow uphill. Lazarus Long

that is as much their privilege as it is Blü's and mine to depend on materialistic science and technology. I find the God that many pray to is worthless, but it is still their free choice to do so. Sometimes I would like to warn them that God and Herm followers are subject to evolution just like all the other animals out there, but it would do no good, and probably annoy them in the process.

How are people created?

Let's play a science game - Origins of Life - Beliefnet Community:

If 'Yes' did you cause yourself to exist?
If 'No' then something else was by NECESSITY responsible for your existence
CaliberCadillac

I did not cause myself to exist I exist because of the random meeting of gametes, which were generated by meiosis a random division of germ cells which creates a random mix of the characteristics of my parents (and their ancestors) to create maximum diversity in my genetic makeup.

I was fortunate (that is the product of a series of favorable random events) to inherit an intelligent reasoning ability to evaluate my society and fit myself into the reasoning and intelligent portion of it. I was also fortunate to have a deficiency in the ability to kowtow to arrogant preachers and apologists who think they have all the answers to all questions. In fact it is more than a deficiency it is an active rejection of all such individuals and their BS."

Speed Dating

Head Lines: Men Are Choosy, Too: Scientific American: "Ladies must be picky because they invest more in their offspring, according to the oft-repeated evolutionary theory. But when researchers made the simple switch of having women do the table hopping while men stayed seated, the two sexes suddenly became equally choosy,"

So much for evolutionary explanations for a dumb experiment.

Just Don't Do It.

Obviously prior to contraceptives and STD preventative measures being commonly available this edict made considerable sense. With the ubiquitous availability if not use of these measures it would seem that the edict makes less sense than it used to. After all, the pair bonding efficacy of sex is a useful feature in a desire to form a pair bond against the vicissitudes of the big bad world out there. If that is the only intent of the pair bond, that is it does not include a desire or plan for parenting, I see no reason not to proceed. However when the pair bonding is for the eventual purpose of conception I have reconsidered the thought of contraceptive sex as a recreational or pair bonding activity.

Having been around the horn (pun intended) several times in several relationships with and without the intent for progeny, the decision to try for a child by a loving couple inevitably changes a relationship by changing the focus from each other as people and partners to the planned family with all the extra responsibilities and commitment that a family entails. With all of the other pair bonding activities available to a couple that are mutually gratifying and intimate there seems to be a case to be made for reserving that ultimate bonding act intended by nature for the welfare of the continuation of the species for the time when the couple is ready, willing and able to do so. Certainly "taking off the rubber" changes things, but in my opinion and experience not really enough.

Maybe all those religions know what they are talking about when they say "Just Don't Do It." Particularly for couples that commit early, and must defer family for educational or financial considerations, it would seem that the other pair bonding activities should be used to keep the pair bond intact and save the lets make a baby for the icing on the (wedding) cake, even if the wedding is off in the future. First gestations are notoriously short, but should never be an accident. If the couple has thought about it, talked about it, and decide parenting it right for them, the power of the first time "as one" seems to me to be worth the wait.

All Souls New York City

All Souls New York City: "REV. FORREST CHURCH


September 23, 1948 — September 24, 2009

Remembering Forrest—An Online Tribute"

Me, Myself, and I?

Me, Myself, and I? :

So for both atheists and theists out there, is there an overarching definition of personal identity, or is the answer based on who you ask?
Furthermore, how do you define yourself in such a way if that is taken away, one cannot call themselves same person that they were when they had that?
Ephemerae_inc.

"The differentiation between the mind and the sensory workings of the brain is what separates the concept of self from everything else, including the functioning of one's own body and brain. Whether this self concept is internal, that is supported by the activity of the brain, or imposed from some external source (God) will depend on who you ask.

Many who use Genesis as a source will aver that what God 'breathed' into Adam was the sense of self with the ability to reason about what one experienced, and not incidentally, the ability to separate a stimulus, that is hunger from the response, that is to decide what to eat. This ability to separate a stimulus from the appropriate response is what a theist will call a soul, and consider it to be separate from the body and ego and originating outside of either.

I find this a natural function of a brain of sufficient complexity. Right now I am training a puppy, and one of the things I am training him on is the appropriate responses to certain stimuli. And teaching him the concept of his space. This requires that I assume he has some ability to separate his actions from the stimulus that might lead him to leave his space. He has learned that his space is different from the space of others in his life. When someone leaves his rooms he must not follow as a dog normally would, he must stop at the edge of the rug which defines his space, and not pass the boundary.

My sense of self is much more complex of course, but includes the concept of my space, those things I can affect and respond to, and my ability to determine reliably and quickly appropriate responses to stimuli that affect my space. This includes of course other people who contact my space, and morality consists of how I respond to stimuli that they present. If someone smites me on the right cheek, I need to decide whether the natural response of a swift kick to the crotch is appropriate or not. But even the swift kick must be a reasoned response if I am to be comfortable with the self concept that separates me from all the others around me. The time a response is reactive to a stimulus is where I lose the sense of self and self control and become just another animal in the jungle."

Jeff Danziger on Health Care Reform

Fairy Godmothers

Facebook | Home: "Meg Barnhouse from Nina and Dan: 'If I could I'd find a fairy godmother with a magical wand and combat boots so that she could grant your wishes and kick the crap outta anything that tried to get in the way of your happiness.' Thanks!"

One of the many reasons Meg Barnhouse is on my Google Alert list.

Mary Travers

From an email to members from Rosanne Zoccoli President of NYCS.

She has said everything I have been trying to get posted so much more eloquently than I ever could.


Dear members,

No doubt by now many of you have heard the sad news that longtime folk legend and friend of NYCS, Mary Travers, has passed away following a valiant battle with leukemia.

Along with fellow performers Peter Yarrow and Noel (Paul) Stookey, Mary was part of an enormously successful collaboration with NYCS. For 21 years, Peter Paul and Mary performed their pioneering brand of folk music with the NYCS on the stages of Carnegie and Avery Fisher Hall, on Broadway and on television. Throughout our collaboration with the trio, they had always donated their services free of charge to the NYCS - a gift for which we will forever be grateful. We will forever be thankful for the gift of music they gave to us and our audiences.

In all of these concerts, Mary was a central figure. She sang, smiled, and loved being a part of NYCS. Those of us who have been in NYCS for many years also remember fondly how Mary would bring home-made chopped liver to rehearsal ---a gift for all to enjoy.

Thank you very much.
Sincerely,

Rosanne

Mary Travers, Singer of Protest Anthems, Dies at 72 - Obituary (Obit) - NYTimes.com

A giant who made the world a better place is a beloved memory now. The privilege of rehearsing with and performing with PP& especially Mary was a highlight of my many years with the New York Choral Society.

Mary Travers, Singer of Protest Anthems, Dies at 72 - Obituary (Obit) - NYTimes.com: "Mary Travers of Peter, Paul and Mary Dies at 72

By WILLIAM GRIMES
Published: September 16, 2009

Mary Travers, whose ringing, earnest vocals with the folk trio Peter, Paul and Mary made songs like “Blowin’ in the Wind,” “If I Had a Hammer” and “Where Have All the Flowers Gone?” enduring anthems of the 1960s protest movement, died on Wednesday at Danbury Hospital in Connecticut. She was 72 and lived in Redding, Conn.
....
Ms. Travers brought a powerful voice and an unfeigned urgency to music that resonated with mainstream listeners. With her straight blond hair and willowy figure and two bearded guitar players by her side, she looked exactly like what she was, a Greenwich Villager directly from the clubs and the coffeehouses that nourished the folk-music revival.

Moral Evolution

The evolution of morality : "The 2000 year old text is really two different and incompatible texts. In one a radical humanist preacher tried to update a morality suitable for desert marauders into one more suitable for a more cosmopolitan diverse society. He shifted moral responsibility from God and the priesthood to individuals. The other recaptured God centered morality ironically elevating the radical humanist to God.

I find many Christians are finding the humanistic preacher more applicable to a modern diverse society, and are rejecting the God Centered morality of the OT and non-synoptic NT. I can't count the number of times I hear the Two Great Commandments of Jesus as the essence of Christian morality. Fundies and Bibliolators may disagree, but for me and for Jefferson, the morality of the Synoptics is a reasonable basis for a cosmopolitan morality."

What is "Real"?

What is "real?" : "

What do you mean by 'real'?
Clardan

"Since everybody else is playing dodge-ball with this issue, let me try. Real for the human mind or brain if you prefer, is a conception of an object external to the mind that can be described with sufficient precision to be identifiable to others as a similar conception in their mind of sufficient power and experience. Hence, rocks, rainbows, even virtual particles are real. A mythical entity such as Santa Claus can be considered to be real, as the conception is of an object that can be described and understood by others, even though certain properties may be differently conceived by different minds and the referent of the myth is fictional.

Please note that even the magical aspects of Santa Claus, the flying reindeer, the self replenishing present supply, can be considered real at the unsophisticated child level although the sophistication is not age related. An adult given no opportunity to understand the differences among magical, mythical, and material reality may not be able to conceive the difference.

Maturity of mind allows us to separate reality into categories like magical, mythical, material, and conceptual among others depending on the sophistication of the mind involved. The big bang, or inflation, is a conceptual reality for those able to deal with the concept of best explanation of reality to date but not necessarily a material reality. "

So for me, reality's (first) what's out there and (second) the reasoned inclusion of oneself in the resulting picture.
Blü

Which eliminates all of the interesting conceptual, fictional and mythical things that inform and amuse the mind, which of course does not exist in your material world. I find your material world orderly, understandable, and boring. I much prefer the messy, incomprehensible, wonder-filled world of the mind, where truth is not found by observation but by understanding.

You can borrow my Vintage Playboy collection if you get too bored.
Blü

Typical materialist. Just look at the pictures and you don't have to deal with the interesting conceptual, fictional and mythical complexities of a real woman.

I will go with the materialists that consciousness or mind is supported by neural activity of the brain. Where I differ from them is that consciousness is not dependent on input from the sensual processing areas of the brain, but uses selected data from those areas and creates a relationship between itself and the rest of the world as sensed, and in addition provides self referential feedback on how to manage that relationship.

Pain input from the senses, causes the reflex action to minimize the pain, but also triggers the consciousness to analyze the source of the pain, and the consciousness will analyze the cause of the pain and figure out ways to avoid it in the future, or perhaps decide that it is a necessary accessory to some other project the consciousness has in its in-box. The easiest way to avoid the pain of a hot stove is to stay away from hot stoves. But the consciousness says I'm hungry and some scrambled eggs would be good right now, and that means go near that dreadful hot stove. Be careful Y'all.

As noted I have no problem with the mind being supported by neural activity of the brain, but I would bet long odds against sombody with a fMRI being able to say "Here lies the mind"

Labels, Prayers and Wishes.

Antitheism? - Discuss Atheism - Beliefnet Community:
"If wishes were prayers and all worth a penny we would all be rich. People cling to labels, and prayers and wishes because they cannot or will not deal with the reality of a changing world where wishes, prayers and labels are holdovers from a time where ones local social group membership was all important, and ignorance was rampant. Today we can choose our social group(s) ignorance is dispelled with a click on Google, and all who chose can find out anything they want on the net.

Those clinging to labels are desperately refusing to adapt to the modern human ecology. This is known as evolution in action. (Thanks Niven and Pournelle, if you haven't read Oath of Fealty it is worth the price.)"

Material or immaterial mind?

The mythical "non-fundamentalist atheist":

Isn't the mind and brain the same thing?
Ephemerae_inc.

I would think that even a strict materialist would say no. Certainly an intricate series of neural firings supports what we think of as the mind, but the intricate feedback loop between the working of the mind and the neural actions which support and are affected by the working of the mind strongly suggest a separate conceptual entity. It certainly develops with the brain and ceases to exist when the brain ceases to function, no dualism here, but I find the mind to be a separate entity.

To an idealist, no - the brain (and all other matter) is an 'objectification' of mind which is non- material.
Clardan

To a realist ****waves hand and says "Teacher call on me!"**** both the material and the immaterial exist in reality. A rainbow exists only in the mind, damn the pedants who draw ray diagrams to show it is merely (sic) an optical phenomenon. The rock I stubbed my toe on was real and material, the pain was real and immaterial. I didn't imagine the pain.

No, the pain was not immaterial.
farragut

Yeah, it was just the firing of neurons telling the mind "Hey dipshit, you just fuckedup. Don't do it again.

Now, was the mind's response to that firing of neurons material?

The Mind, making sense of chaos.

The mythical "non-fundamentalist atheist" - Discuss Atheism - Beliefnet Community: "The conscious mind evolved or emerged if you wish, to make sense of the chaotic material input presented to the brain by the senses. To take a simple example, at a large cocktail party with many conversations going on with perhaps music and other random noises are presented to the brain by the auditory nerve complex. The mind needs to separate out the important noises, like the conversation one is engaged in. It can even sort out ones name mentioned in a conversation across the room. Visual stimuli are even more chaotic. Reality is much too messy to deal with in its unfiltered existence. Hence the mind to make sense of the data overload."