Assailing BS Conceptual Blocks

beliefnet

Once more assailing religious conceptual blocks.  Not expecting to succeed, but the BS cannot remain unchallenged. 

JCarlin:  Humans have objective moral standards based on evolutionary imperatives for the survival of the species:  Altruism, compassion, empathy; shunning of cheaters, liars, and sociopaths; are all cross species needs for survival.

El Apologist: No, evolution also produced people like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and they were very successful at survival for a time so how can you condemn them since their source of morality is the same as yours? And all those things are just chemical reactions in your brain, one set of chemical reactions are no better than another set. And all those standards are just based on irrational sentimentality for the human species, there is nothing special about humans so you are being irrational by favoring human survival if atheistic evolution is true. So they are not objective.

One despot's survival has no evolutionary significance.  His crappy genes (He is after all in the image of God) are normally eliminated from the gene pool quickly.  The damage he does to the gene pool by his slaughter is much more significant and is the reason his gene pool is typically removed soon after his death, or frequently at the same time. As the Christian French Kings and the EOC Russian Tsar found out too late. 

The source of my morality is humanism and respect for all people. The source of a despot's morality is either God or power.   Neither are chemicals in the brain but social imprinting usually by religion but occasionally by other sociopathological belief systems.  As you necessarily ignore: Hitler was brought up Catholic, and Stalin was brought up Eastern Orthodox through seminary.  I am not blaming either Catholicism or Orthodoxy for creating these despots; most people survive religious childhood in both religions as decent human beings.  Unfortunately some don't. 

JCarlin: jc: Social species have other evolutionary imperatives including respect for vuvuzelas in fancy dresses in over decorated balconies which is where God's dysfunctional moral standards are promulgated as "TRUTH™" including such atrocities as love the bully and abuser because God loves everybody.  Of course it helps if the bully or abuser is a male in the image of God and can therefore identify with all the bullying and abuse documented in Scripture most of which is ordered by God and executed by men. 

El Apologist: No, God teaches that bullies and abusers should be punished, as it plainly taught in the Mosaic law and even Christ told His disciples to buy a sword for self defense. He also taught to love your enemies, and one way to love them is to mete out justice on them not necessarily you personally but you should report them to the proper authorities as Paul teaches in Romans 13.

God teaches that bullies and abusers should be rewarded with land, sex slaves, regular slaves, and the admiration of God, as is plainly taught in the Mosaic law. 

In context the Apostles were to buy swords as Jesus, not Christ yet, would no longer be around to protect them.  It turned out that the bullies and abusers were followers of Paul's Christ. Who, need I remind you, was God in your BS. 

Religious, Spiritual, and Atheist.

I think Forrest Church's mantra is appropriate here. 

Religion is the human response to being alive and having to die.

 I had a chance to talk with him about that.  He had no problems with atheists in his church. 

His question to me was something like have you come to grips with the the fact that you are going to die, and what effect has that had on your life up to now, and in the future.  I said something like sure I will die and quoted Jeffers "Surely they must know that cultures decay and life's end is death."  The Purse-Seine (1937.) He waited silently for the "and"

Every moment is a gift that must be used intelligently to enrich the lives of those around me in ever widening circles.   His response was: Is God involved? I said no and he said you have just defined your atheist religion. I didn't like the term religion as that implied dogmatic to me, and asked if I could use spirituality instead of religion. He replied.  They are the same thing.

Why Create?

beliefnet

May 12, 2015 -- 4:35PM, JCarlin wrote:

"So that is how God does it!" is essentially not conceptually different from "That is how it works!"  I am not sure anyone could find a scientist in any field that could prove that the Higgs is not indeed the God boson.

Response:  As Laplace rightly said, the 'God' hypothesis is simply unnecessary.

There is simply no good reason to advance the baroque assumption that there is a God, let alone ask "how" the supposed entity did anything.

A quip attributed to Edison suggests that genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration.  If a believer attributes the inspiration to God might that not provide a strong incentive to provide the 99% perspiration to prove to the world that God knows what Hesh is doing? Praying for a solution to an intractable problem at least focuses the mind on the problem.  Does it really make any difference whether the mind or God comes up with a way to the solution? 

One might argue that material rewards are enough of an incentive for the secular genius, but those same rewards are available to anyone who solves the problem.

The human mind is almost uniquely capable of going beyond the basic needs of food shelter and reproduction.  An important question is the incentive to do so.  Is to glorify God somehow inferior to The Game of Thrones is boring?

At the risk of creating a centipede dilemma, just why do you as an atheist leave the Game of Thrones or beliefnet to create something beautiful or useful for your neighbor?

Cultural Christians

beliefnet

Cultural Christian wrote:

The author opines that his situation and those of others similarly situated provide an opportunity to create a space for the culturally Christian - and possibly the culturally Jewish - nonbeliever.

So where do these folks fit in to or with atheism?  Do you consider them atheists?  Is their experience anything like your experiences?

I suspect that many churches are what I call Sunday Country Clubs.  People go there for the calming, familiar rituals, reconnect with their friends, and provide a safe mixer for their teens.  Although the hymns and rituals refer to God, God is some numinous higher power that can be used in place of meditation to focus thinking on important issues.  Reformed Jews and most UCC and UU churches take this to the extreme of God is whatever you need Herm to be, an imaginary friend that understands your joys and sorrows and helps you manage them. 

I suspect that most theists would call this atheism and atheists don't really care. 

The only God that gets atheists on their soap box is the patriarchal, controlling, and "other" defining God of the fundamentalist Abrahamics.  "We are The Lord's sweet chosen few.  The rest of you be damned.  There's room enough in Hell for you; We won't have Heaven crammed."

The humanistic varieties of the major Western faith groups, the "Back to Jesus' personal God and the Two Great Commandments" Christians, the reformed Jews and as I am vaguely aware some Islamic sects view God as a unifier of humans not a divider, and as an atheist I have no issue at all with their beliefs.  If they are willing to consider me a desirable neighbor, I will certainly reciprocate. I might well go with them to their services, pray with them and sing their hymns including all the God celebrations.  They don't affect my atheism since it is their God not mine that I am celebrating.  

I will even "Celebrate" the traditional Christian/Catholic God, although one might detect a bit of irony in my interpretation of the celebration, but that is a long tradition in the Abrahamics, and the true believers interpret the irony as faith so it is a win-win for all.  Three of the most famous and effective Requiem Masses were written by atheists along with some of the most beautiful interpretations of the traditional Mass and ritual prayers. The church paid artists well, and the artists knew that too much was not enough for believers.     

Religious Patriarchy

beliefnet

 christine3 wrote:The assinine patriarchal religions killed the matriarchal religions off.
E.O. wrote:

Why were they able to do that?

Because the two major patriarchal violent religions who had all the violent proselytizing directives direct from God including the directive that all who believed in the wrong god must be converted or killed.  Since neither had any moral standards other than kill the infidels, they thrived for a while, at least in the parts of the world they came to dominate.  Matriarchies and other social solutions with moral standards that included respect for other humans were unable to withstand the genocidal onslaught.beliefnet
While it is necessary to your Belief System that patriarchy is a biological necessity as shown by the dominance of the patriarchal religions in the west and wherever their war based proselytizing takes them.  What you are arguing is simply that might makes right.  Except of course when might is not justified by a patriarchal god. As when those ex-seminarians say "Thanks God, but I don't need you any more to justify slaughter.  I have found a better belief system to do the job and don't need to support your patriarchy anymore."

beliefnet
I don't find anyone here is arguing for matriarchy (let's not impute arguments to others to make a bogus point) just an egalitarian social structure as before the fall when both men and women had choices.  I agree with you that "The woman made me do it" is intrinsic to the patriarchal control of women, so they won't once again find the tree of knowledge and discover the evil that is imposed on them by God and men.  This gives the men free reign to impose patriarchal God worship on all that get in the way of their avarice for land, wealth, and control.  

As you have pointed out men are stronger, can wield heavier weapons, and kill better than women, and when women are relegated to being brood mares for the cannon fodder and have no choice about whether or not their sons go to war since they are denied education and permission to speak out in the society, the advantages of patriarchy for social Darwinism are obvious.  

It worked for a while, but then God made a mistake and permitted the invention of printing so that everybody once again had access to the tree of knowledge.  Women being in charge of the children had to teach them to read, write, and figure, and therefore had to be given access to knowledge themselves.  This was the beginning of the end of patriarchy, religious or secular.  Then He really blew it big time by permitting the internet giving anybody, women, children, and minorities access to that tree of knowledge.  And at the bottom of Pandora's Box women, children and minorities found hope.  

The Hole in the Religious Donut

I have been free all my life.  I don't really care what, if anything, my friends believe or even my enemies.  When their church is putting on a good show I will go and enjoy it with them and put the price of a comparable show ticket in the plate. 

I even enjoy a good religious argument.  I don't try to show them they are wrong but I am curious about why they are wrong.  Knowing how and why they are wrong helps me help me help them deal with the crap God throws at them (their BS) usually by throwing more crap at them that makes them feel better about God's crap.  I frequently use art and music which makes the crap palatable and sometimes beautiful.  I have to admit that the RCC sure knows how to sugar coat the crap so you don't even notice the BS hole in the donut:  All the good stuff happens after you are dead.  

Warped Echoes of Religious Patriarchy

Beliefnet

Apr 22, 2015 -- 3:48AM, Kwinters wrote:

Thanks! I am hoping to do more to highlight the link between the way religious patriarchy demeans women and the warped echoes of it in today's sexist religious institution and the proponents of religion.

I suspect a more productive tack would be to examine the warped echoes of it in the secular culture.

I grew up as a secular feminist male in a Sunday Country Club society.  Everybody went to church but nobody took it very seriously.  At the university few went to church and so few took it seriously that I had to travel to a nearby Jesuit University to find a good religious discussion.

Nevertheless the echoes of male dominance and sexual entitlement were everywhere. Even the women at the university seemed to think that the Mrs. was as important as the BA.  The way to the Mrs. was universally understood as submissiveness in everything from academics to sex. 

There were a few women on campus that would whup yer ass in anything ya tried to compete in including finding them on top in sex. But the word on campus was that they were failures as women destined to a life of loneliness and frustration.  It generally didn't work out that way as there were some men in the academic world that respected that attitude and were looking for a partner rather than a "wife" and lived happily, if not ever after, long enough to propagate their genetic line. As might be expected their kids were awesome.   

Some Wrong Answers Better Than Others.

Apr 20, 2015 -- 7:23AM, theist wrote:

Apr 19, 2015 -- 6:14PM, JCarlin wrote:

The a-religious simply suggest that disabuse of religion would eliminate most of the wrong answers to life's questions.

Right.

How’d that work for the Bolsheviks, et al.?

Bolsheviks were a political group not a philosophically anti-religious group.  Religions were seditious hence persecuted along with all the other seditious groups. 

In any event, eliminating wrong answers does not necessarily provide right answers.  Ideologies religious or secular generally provide wrong answers.  I would argue that secular ideologies provide better answers than religious ideologies, but whether or not they are right is a long historical test.

Religious Wars Today

beliefnet

Yea but no one is killing bodies . . . right?

Quite wrong.  The war on Godless Communism was a religious war with the genocides in Korea and Viet-Nam. Note that the white Christian Russians were spared. God told Bush/Cheney to invade Iraq. The fact that the collateral damage was Islamic was not lost on them.  There is credible evidence that Al-Qaeda was at least supported by the Christian right to foment Islamic hate to support wars in the Middle East and Afghanistan.  The Christian right is advocating bombing Iran.  Apparently the Muslims there are not "bodies."

That seems like enough bodies to make my point.  If you mean today US drones are still active in the Middle East and the 'stans.

Scholarship

beliefnet

Um, all of this is just speculative nonsense. You are not an academic JC, and until you do some actual research that is all this is.

Just compare what you make up out of nothing to what actual scholars do.  Your opinion is of no use here.

An academic studies more and more about less and less until hesh knows everything about nothing.   Congratulations.

A dilettante studies a little bit about a lot of things until hesh knows nothing about everything.

Neither is worth much in advancing the knowledge base of humanity. 

A scholar studies in depth a broad range of subjects and finds common themes and messages that help in understanding a topic.  It is speculative but it is not nonsense.  Like all scholarship it is subject to review and criticism, but ad hominem arguments don't really matter.  If you wish to comment on the accuracy of my speculations, or demonstrate that they are incorrect, I would appreciate your academic input assuming it is relevant to the speculation in question. 

Religion has been my area of scholarship for most of my life.  I have studied it from an atheistic bias, which I recognize and account for.  My studies have not been in an Ivory Tower, but in places of worship, scripture and especially music.  You may criticize from any of those points of view.  Your PhD BS is not useful.

Natural and Supernatural

beliefnet

Skeptic wrote:

I think that the difference between nature and supernature is similar to the difference between

Normal and Paranormal

Physics and Metaphysics

Medicine and Alternative Medicine

Astronomy and Astrology

History and Mythology

Philosophy and Religion

Science and Pseudo-Science

Knowing and Believing

In a sense I agree with you, except the Knowing and Believing part which I will get to later.  But it seems that your implication is the first in the pair is true and the second false.  The first generally has a consensus, but time after time parts of all have been shown to be incorrect.  Occasionally by investigation of aspects of the second in the pair. 

A few are laughable.  History and mythology are both tales told by people that weren't there purporting to be knowledgeable.  Personally I find more truth in mythology and fiction than history which is always reported by those at the top of the pile to support their position there. 

The only difference between philosophy and religion is that religion has been around a lot longer and therefore is more robust. 

The difference between knowing and believing is the amount of self-delusion involved.  If one knows something the self-delusion is complete.  A believer at least understands that some of the BS requires faith and therefore further adjustments to the belief may be considered.

The Trinity as Schizophrenia

beliefnet

Thoughtful theist No, God would be strictly, numerically identical to the three taken collectively. Your interpretation is explicitly ruled out by the Athanasian creed, which I've already quoted as well as your favorite internet sources - which btw - don't support your reading at all. I'm still waiting for you to post your "data" as you called them.

Blü No. God would be strictly identical not onto to the plurality of the three, but simultaneously strictly identical to EACH of them.

Neither is correct.  God is a single entity with three personalities striving for dominance only one of which can be expressed at any one time.  And this all before there were serotonin antagonists to help. 

For the Jews the angry, vengeful, murderous, personality was dominant, although the priestly rule-maker tried to keep the people under control, and the storyteller Jahwist tried to make sense of it all for humans. 

For Catholics and many Christians the forgiving, empathetic and human centered personality is dominant, although he seems to have had trouble keeping the "My Way or the Highway" rule-maker under control, especially when the political pressure on the humanist became too intense and he had to suppress that personality. 

Other Christians focus on the "My Way" personality. 

It is very simple they all worship God, and the necessary personality shows up at the right time.

Communities Rules About Sexual Conduct.

Rational Christian All religions have rules about sexual conduct.

Believer No, I said that I didn't feel that some forms of marriage are of equal dignity and honor as others.  I commented on aberrations from traditional, normative marriage.

All communities have rules about sexual conduct.

Right now in universities throughout the developed world are having vehement discussions and legal battles about what constitutes rape.  These all boil down to the issue of whether a man has the right to have sex with whoever he wants to.  Note that universities are generally secular institutions. 

These issues have nothing at all to do with the traditional definitions of marriage and adultery, just whether a woman has any choice in the matter. The issue of choice by women is why many religions are so protective of their normative marriage rules.   

In my ERSSG affirmatively consensual, non-procreative, responsible sex has few other restrictions or rules.  And cohabitation agreements may or may not be legally formalized and generally have little to do with sexual conduct.  

The exception is when a (usually) couple decides to include children in their relationship either naturally or by adoption.   At that point all of society's rules, laws, and traditions of marriage become important and the formalization of the relationship becomes imperative.  It is perhaps ironic that the religious marriage traditions which assumed lots of children a few of which survived to puberty, became an established legal structure in which to raise the few children required for replacement of ones memes and/or genes.    

Religion - Definition

Beliefnet

Religion for me involves two components.  The first is an irrational belief in the superiority of some conceptual entity, God, the Buddha, The Tao, Deepak Chopra, a sport team, a political position, etc.  The second is a passionate commitment to that belief in the sense of spending considerable time and money on following the belief.  Wearing the "colors," going to events, socializing preferentially with those of a similar religion, and usually dislike or hatred of the other. 

One may support a conceptual entity based on some rational criteria, a university for its academic credentials; a sport team for its skill set relative to the others or its proximity; a political position for its support of your values; without it becoming a religious passion.  If the rational criteria change the support will vanish. 

On Respecting Religious Beliefs

Feb 3, 2015 -- 7:06PM, Eastern Orthodox convert wrote:

Feb 3, 2015 -- 6:41PM, JCarlin wrote:

If it isn't secret can you share commentary that says one should leave other tribes alone and respect their religious beliefs.

You don’t respect religious beliefs because you feel they are false.  Why do you begrudge others doing the same thing or do you feel you alone are enlightened enough to disrespect religious beliefs?

I respect most religious beliefs.  There are a few that are problematical that I will comment on, as they are the ones that justify pathological social behavior by believers.  It is the behavior of believers that I am objecting to not the religion they belong to.  I enjoy Christian services in most denominations and had a chance to "participate' in an Eastern Orthodox informal service as a part of a choral group visit to a church in Tampere, Finland lead by the Cantor.  A few of us sang the congregational responses to one of the Liturgical passages.  It was a moving experience for all including the American Eastern Orthodox convert that arranged the visit.  Apparently the Cantor's children were part of the informal service representing the children that were part of the normal service.

I have sung masses as part of Catholic special occasion services, as well as at concerts in churches not a part of a service.  I sang the Rachmaninoff All Night Vigil in a Catholic Church with a spectacular acoustic with an Orthodox Cantor inserting the liturgical background with choir responses as appropriate.  It was a concert not a service but people of all faiths left the concert in tears.  Incidentally I was the rehearsal tenor soloist for the embedded solos, and had to respect the liturgy to convey the message to the choir.

So stuff your sneer in a dark place.  It missed entirely.  Incidentally it missed most of the atheists on the board.

Gish Gallop

Beliefnet

 Since when does Rocky's comments determine whether or not you should defend your claim?  If you choose not to defend it -- I'm cool with that.  But why do Rocky's comments absolve you of responding to my request?  -- Israel defender.

 It is not necessary or useful to respond to a Gish Gallop.  The answers are obvious to any reasonable observer.

Congregational Patriarchy and Inequality

beliefnet

It simply isn't accurate to say that patriarchy and inequality are intrinsic to the Abrahamic faiths.       Theist

 Questions:  Percentages please, estimates OK, choose a congregation you attend regularly.  Or have a friend answer who attends regularly. 

How many couples have pre-marital meetings with clergy?

How many couples have traditional wedding services?

How many men are preparing and serving at Coffee Hour?

How many men are teaching Sunday School?

How many men are teaching Sex Ed?

Do you even have Sex Ed?

What age does Sex Ed start?

Are Sex Ed classes mixed?

Are Sex Ed classes parent discretion?

What percentage of the clergy are women?

Please note these questions are concerned with 21st century practices not bronze age stories. 

Cover Thy Temptation

beliefnet

Jan 28, 2015 -- theist wrote:

Are men typically more violent than women?  Does their physiology say they're more visually stimulated?  Are they typically stronger?  Is covering that which visually stimulates them one way to solve the problem these aspects create or at least decrease the likelihood of the problem occurring?  We both know the answer is "Yes".

You may not speak for me.  I do not know the answer is "Yes," in fact I repudiate it entirely.

Eve proved that forbidden fruit will cause even the sinless to fall.  Your visually stimulated pricks are far from sinless. 

If your eye causes you to sin cut it out.  Jesus has told you how to solve the problem much more effectively (He tells you three times in Matthew and Luke.)

I have a much more effective solution, respect for all people no matter how they look or how they choose to dress or which God they do or don't listen to.  Unless they show by their words or actions that they are unworthy of respect.    

Religious Persecution

I doubt you're being persecuted.  Why do you play the victim?

Because "me" would be in fact persecuted by any religion she is being asked to respect.  In fact "me" would be persecuted in any culture dominated by any religion she is being asked to respect.  Could "me" go to Saudi Arabia on business, rent a car and drive it in western clothing? Could "me" go to the good old USA and visit Planned Parenthood without being harassed?  Could "me" go to Paris and publish an article on child abuse by Muhammad?

Now tell me again from your position of male religious privilege why "me" should not play your victim?  Please be specific.  Tell "me" what respect atheist women have from you that they should respect your religious views. 

Meaning and purpose Religion vs Science and Technology

Beliefnet an interesting discussion
Not mind boggling at all.  It is an evolutional necessity that the mind find a way to drag the body out of its nice warm bed every single morning, spend the day doing what it takes to acquire food, others to share it with, and repeat ad lib.  Any brain which didn't do this would find only a non-survival option. 

For the glory of God and not incidentally the vuvuzelas in fancy dresses in over decorated balconies is a tried and true option.  Conservative and stult stable it provides meaning and purpose even for the idiot stick operators who can believe that they are building a Cathedral. 
It takes a heretic who finds meaning and purpose in improving the lives of those important to herm to shake up this self-perpetuating institution of the prevailing church which is why heretics are routinely scourged, tortured, and crucified or otherwise killed slowly and painfully.  The usual way out is to pretend to be a believer and start a new religion, usually with the same basic crap with a new vuvuzela.
 
Rarely an innovative group will find mutual support and quietly undermine the prevailing religion and enable others to find their own ways to meaning and purpose in living.  They and the innovators will always be a small group but their influence on the world will be, for better or for worse significant in changing the way the world works.  Evolution works on innovators as well and most fail, sometimes spectacularly, but their failure may in fact be caused by stimulation other innovators to find fresh solutions to living without God, the vuvuzelas, and the politicians who are their sock puppets.  

Science and technology may in fact be emerging as a secular alternative to the religious infrastructure.  It is not without issues, but innovation and improving the lot of the average person is basic to the system.