Nyah Wynne on UBI

Nyah Wynne

3 hrs · 

Thoughts on the value of a Universal Basic Income

The biggest reason I support UBI(Universal Basic Income) has nothing to do with our possible automated future, as labor becomes less essential, or at least as we need much less of it, though that's a great reason to support it. It's not even about eliminating poverty or making the unemployment rate a non-issue, though those are very good reasons too.

The reason I want a UBI is to make work at least -technically- optional. I want this because so long as work is not optional, so long as it is mandatory, it is coercive. I want UBI so that every low wage worker whose boss screws them on hours, who reprimands them for taking sick days, who asks them to work too fast in unsafe conditions(see the current fast-food lawsuit), every young employee whose boss secretly grabs their ass while no one is looking, who's constantly making lewd comments, or racist comments, or any other sort of hateful bullshit... So that every employee who finds themselves trapped in the fiefdom of some petty little tyrant of a boss, which is actually The Majority Of Low End Workers, so that they can say:

"TAKE THIS JOB AND SHOVE IT"

So that they can really, truly, meaningfully walk the fuck away. And not have it mean they end up on the streets or their kids starve or they find themselves turning tricks to keep the water running and the lights on. Or for that matter just ending up in yet another job with a slightly different petty tyrant. And they can do this, deal with this, without having to deal with lawyers or Union Reps, who though are better than -not- having them it'd be nicer to just be able to do it ourselves. Because if -enough- of them(us) say 'NO' to this petty fucking bullshit, then firms will be forced to stop letting the petty bullshit happen(those who fail to will simply not get workers), and work in general will end up less awful for everyone.

Because the ability to say 'NO' to someone who's actively abusing you... that should be pretty high on the list of 'Liberties' worth defending. In my mind.

Religious CV

I do not need to defend my knowledge of religions of all cultures including the dominant ones of the cultures I have lived in.  My bookshelf, the opinion of Priests, Rabbi's, Ministers, and university scholars in many religions I have studied at that level give lie to your bigotry.  Not to mention several thousand posts here on beliefnet discussing religion. Including hosting (one of several experienced beliefnet forum hosts) a forum on Paul and Jesus in support of a Peter Jennings ABC documentary on the topic at the request of the beliefnet forum managers who knew I was host of the Atheism Debate board.

Atheism or Anti-Theism?

beliefnet

Perhaps we can get around to actually discussing atheism?
rockyJew

We are discussing atheism that is: why we are not a believer in the various gods, God or G-d that we are respectfully asked to learn more about, distainfully demanded to learn more about, proselytized to believe in, forced to believe in, or forced to pretend to believe in to avoid ostracism at best.  Historically, non-belief is punishable by torture and death. Whether that continues today is, shall we say, arguable.   

Torah Myth as Allegory

beliefnet

Which do you imagine are 'critical stories' in the Torah texts?

As you are well aware, JC, one of the Jewish principles of Biblical interpretation is that the farther back in time the narrative covers, the less 'historical' and the more allegorical the account is seen as being. JewOne

I am an atheist.  I see nothing in any fable religious or secular that is anything but allegorical or occasionally ironic.  Allegory must teach something of value that bears some relationship to the details of the story or it would not persist as a part of the lore of at least a tribe or subset of humanity.  It is not necessary to believe that the wolf in Little Red Riding hood was anything but allegorical to understand that young women should be wary of strangers.  Even strange women.  Female wolves are as predatory as the males. 

The critical stories in the Torah texts are the ones everybody remembers. Most were written by the Yahwist as hesh was by far the best storyteller in the Torah, and herm stories translate well as they deal with universal human issues in any language.  Whether they are translated by a Jew, an unknown Aramaic scholar, or various Roman and Christian translators.  They all say about the same thing.  Believe in and do what God tells you to do or else.  We can argue about the details of "what else" other than the fact that it isn't good.

Some of the later stories incorporate the mediators for God as authoritative interpreters of the B_b drone of "Believe in and do what God tells you to do or else."  

Reinterpreting Jesus as God

beliefnet

Jul 15, 2015 -- 9:50PM, Blü wrote:

Which brings us to this thread, where we consider a being who, the story says, lives in heaven but was incarnated on earth to proclaim the imminent Kingdom - yet knew nothing more about reality than his time and place did. The report (or tale, as the case may be) matches human tendencies perfectly.

Interesting thought.  Let me take it a bit further.  Imagine this multi-omni God created by men but somehow having some sort of numinous existence after a couple of thousand years watching the creators botch things up miserably, decides to go fix things. 

Hesh assumes a human male form and teaches that the priests are the ones botching things up, and shows a few people how to heal, feed the poor and the needy, love everybody even the Samaritans that had just refused hospitality on a hot day, preached that the meek and the poor in spirit (atheists?) would inherit the earth and the kingdom of heaven respectively. 

Pretty good morality. Depending what he taught about healing; maybe the difference between viral diseases and pathogens which needed to be healed differently, and He gets a few people on the right path.   What happens?  They kill him.  The priests and wanna be priests exterminate his cults, and bastardize his teachings to give every Tom, Dick, and Harry the Kingdom of Heaven if they only believe and do what the priests tell them to do. 

Three days after they kill him he goes back to Herm numinous existence to watch the priests and their money-bags continue to screw things up.  So instead of trying to do things single handedly Hesh picks out a few bright rational people teaches them science and humanism and lets the message spread itself, underground at first, but with a few nudges in the right direction to the right people occasionally.  In a couple of more thousand years as predicted and lot of nudges to a lot of people Hesh gets us on the right path to create the promised land on earth that the priests and the rich took away from those that were in it to begin with. 

Maybe the priests and their money-bags will defeat Herm again, they certainly are trying hard enough. But they seem to be losing ground rapidly around the world, winning a few battles here and there, but overall the rationalists, scientists, and humanists seem to be taking over. 

Goo to Zoo to You Redux.

beliefnet

Again, I challenge you to take a look at just what the DNA Information coding and non-coding system is.  The signature of Yahweh is there in every single "jot and tittle" of that three dimensional CODE-SYSTEM.  Codes DON'T evolve!  You need to deal with that FACT! --YEC

Sorry, Yahweh, God or whoever that misanthropist was that Moses invented to control his people, was not around a few billion years ago when that first twisted strand of goo found a lipid bubble to live in and start the process of divide and conquer that resulted in the zoo, originally one celled replicating organisms that found out that cooperation beat fending alone in the difficult environment of the early earth.  Those cooperating organisms made their DNA better and more efficient at eating goo and replicating, until eventually Moses, Yahweh, Blü and I evolved. 

God probably doesn't even have or know about DNA, since Moses didn't know enough about it to invent it when he invented God. 

Born Good Learn Bad

Social animals are born socially responsible at least within their species.  That is they are born good.  Socialization begins at birth and in general reinforces good social behavior.  Play well with others, share, be empathetic, respect authority, and don't hurt others.  The good and bad news is that the socialization is exclusively within the tribe.  Belief Systems (BS) are not generally important at this stage.  I place the break at about Kindergarten, where children begin to be exposed to those outside the tribe.  At that point BS about "them" enters the socialization process and depending on the BS reinforced in Religious Education, and BS group formation in school, bad habits and prejudice may come into play in the social conditioning process. 

Human Worth

beliefnet

If you have one, what is your standard for measuring human worth?
OFS

How well a person embraces the UU First Principle: The inherent worth and dignity of every person.

Not every white male; not every Christian (almost an oxymoron, as Christian theology teaches all are sinners;) not every Buddhist; not every civilized person;  but every person.  

Note that this principle does not embrace bad behavior just that the bad behavior is not a result of being a bad person.  That rogue cop, or despot, or exploitive capitalist is not a bad person, hesh has just embraced a bad belief system that leads them to ignore the first principle.  If somehow one could change the belief system the inherent worth would emerge and the conscience (since this is OFS' thread) would repair the bad behavior. 

Changing belief systems is an extremely difficult task.  The brain builds blocks to information contrary to strongly held beliefs, so that contrary data is not even processed by the brain.  Not impossible, Andrew Carnegie and Bill Gates come to mind as examples from the capitalist belief system.  Possibly, it is early yet, but some have even attacked their own belief systems to bring them more in line with the First Principle, Pope Francis and Bishop Spong come to mind

In order to embrace the first principle it is necessary to be aware of and resist the brain's inherent tendency to create beliefs about other people.  That is to generalize from behavior to the person.  Currently, all Muslims are terrorists is a common belief that leads to terms like Islamist which reinforces the belief system to make it for practical purposes unassailable.

Even atheists can fall victim to beliefs based on belief systems: All Christians are bigots.  Theists aren't reasonable. 

Hillel, Jesus and the Decalogue

beliefnet

christine3 wrote:

"These are our highest most honesty-keeping rules and should be considered sacred. If you follow these rules you will not be cut off, you will live in the world to come." For the Commandments were written with the foreknowledge that there was going to be a world to come.

Neither the Hebrew nor the OT Commandments were written with salvation or a world to come.  There was a hint of a world to come in Isaiah but the life after death, sin, and salvation were all invented by Paul. The Decalogue is simply a sacred rulebook as you note.  
I do find it interesting that in the Hebrew Decalogue the social rules are mashed into 2 verses.  In your version the 10 could be contained in 3.  1 through 8 condensed into ""These are our highest most honesty-keeping rules and should be considered sacred."  I can see where Hillel the Elder got his one foot Torah.  And Jesus found his Two Commandments: 1-8 condensed into Love the Lord thy God, and the rules condensed into Love thy neighbor as thyself.

I know why my Jewish friends liked to talk about Hillel the Elder.  I didn't really notice that God was missing from our discussions.  I have no doubt that God was assumed by Hillel and my friends as the originator of the social rules, but the overemphasis on worship and obedience to "I am the Lord Thy God" was clearly missing.  No wonder atheism is compatible with Judaism.  If the rules, all 613 of them were the result of a tradition that worked there is no reason to add God to the tradition except to establish a supernatural cop that would punish transgressors. Moses was for some reason having trouble governing his tribe, and perhaps thought that a supernatural supercop was just the thing he needed. It sure did work.  A few thousand years of working.

The Church Across the Street

In the UU RE Curriculum there is a unit called the Church Across the Street.  A Sunday School class and teacher from a neighbor church, synagogue, or mosque if available is invited for the children's part of the service and join their cohort in RE to discuss, comment and compare.  The next weekend the roles are reversed with the neighboring church, synagogue or mosque hosting the UUs.  When an exchange cannot be arranged the class discusses what they have learned in the previous exchanges.  I can't speak for the exchange RE programs but the tolerance, respect, and humanism learned by the UU kids is incredible.  "They are just like us!"

Critical Thinking in Religion

In some religious traditions, Jews and Jesuits come immediately to mind, critical thinking about religion is encouraged post puberty.  But by that time the belief mental blocks are firmly in place.  Even the critically thinking Jesuits seem to understand this: Give me the child, and I will give you the adult.  OK the quote is boy and man, but it works with girls and women as well. 
As Michael Shermer discusses in The Believing Brain belief blocks even skeptical belief blocks are unassailable.  Contrary information isn't even processed by the brain.  The la, la, la, la, I can't hear you! is real, not metaphorical.   

Outside the belief blocks critical thinking can be encouraged and taught, although it is generally considered dangerous by the more dogmatic religions for fear that it will spill into faith thinking.  

Belief Genetics

I doubt that the belief gene has been identified. (And probably won't be, people have been burned at the stake for less.)  But according to Shermer it exists in a large segment of the population.  Not always religious, but politics and religion are the most common expressions.  Probably tribe membership or authority related from an evolutionary viewpoint. 
But look around you.  Believers beget believers.  It would be hard to separate out nature vs nurture, but believers occasionally beget people who can actually read the Bible and the newspapers, or actually think about what they watch on the boob tube (for them.) One might think of them as deficient in the belief gene as the occasional green-eyed redhead is deficient in the melanin gene. 

But non-believers also beget non-believers.  I come from a family that goes back to the earliest colonists for which "He would have been mayor except he pissed off the preacher." was their characterization of most of the famous members.  "He" was usually run out of town as the original settler was run out of England. An ancestor was a General in Washington's army, but was run out of Virginia (and America) to Ohio.  

They also perhaps necessarily marry non-believers weeding out the belief gene.  My great grandmother married into the family but was an atheist, free thinker and feminist.  (late 19th Cen.)

Pure Thought

beliefnet Jun 21, 2015 -- 10:54AM, Blü wrote: And can you offer a testable (hence falsifiable) hypothesis about the manner in which thought on its own could exist, could be informed, could change, could remember, could reason, could formulate and articulate (or otherwise communicate) information (&c)? If so I'd be delighted to pursue your question. Another way to detect thought is through EEG. The thoughts produced and measured by MRI admittedly a physical process can be observed to be synchronized by mirror neurons, musical expression, and synchrony of movements in animals and people.  These thought patterns can control computers, prosthetics, etc. and the computer interface can process the information to incorporate feedback to refine control like being able to pick up a raw egg.   Is it not possible that another brain can process, change, remember and reason on, and store the information of this synchronized information?   The information must be physically created originally by a brain, but is the result not observably "pure thought?"   My observation is that God is nothing more than repeated and memorized fictional reality data created over time by people and incorporated into religious ritual and dogma.

Catholic Experience of God through the Eyes of an Atheist.

Beliefnet
In my experience, mainly with Catholics, I have found that for them God is a real construct of the historical collective consciousness of the parishioners of the particular church or cathedral.  When several very good friends genuflect to acknowledging the presence of God, they get a clear and real image of God as present in the space that is unique to the space.  That is raiment and ethnicity is different in each space.  The overall concept is in accord with the Credo, but the dominant Jesus expression is local.  The blond, straight nosed palefaced Jesus depicted in all the traditional images is pretty much what they "see" except in ethnic spaces.   A very good friend is Italian and is somewhat put off by the image he gets at St. Pats.

I have actually tried myself but all I get is a vague "presence" feeling as described in the God Helmet experiment.  But the genuflect does trigger it.  The human mind is a weird and wonderful thing. 

God and BS - Is there a Distinction

beliefnet

Ancient history but worth preserving

	jcarlinbn 2/2/2004 1:52 AM	1 out of 26
	Tr1nity, TheRaUch, Mas, and other advocates of BS (Belief System(s), thanks Acira and TheRaUch.). First. I have no doubt that God exists for you. I have no doubt that for tr1nity Christ lives. Second. When I open a mass I have no doubt that Kyrie is there to Eleison and that Christe is right behind Herm to help. Indeed it is proven each time it happens, as neither will strike dead the soprano with the atrocious vibrato that is destroying the beauty of the music. They are also able to make the believers in the audience, and yes, even the believers singing, not hear it. Just as they help believers not see the atrocious art in some of the crucifixes they have on their walls and around their necks. Belief in God can be empowering. However, many threads on this board have been presenting a powerful demonstration of one of the greatest dangers of belief. They are trying to convince a rather skeptical group that a belief in God can be transferred to a BS that defies all reason, and then circularly use the BS to find God. Mediators for God have exhorted people that if they believe, God will be real for them. Even though they must ignore the evidence of their senses, and must not expect rational evidence to believe. So far, so good. If one stops with God advising and helping to manage one's life, and one trusts only God to sort out which parts of the BS that are being thrown at them are true, the chances are excellent that they will have a spiritually rewarding life. Then the trouble starts. The mediator says God inspires ME, Believe Me. This is easy to do, especially if God does inspire the mediator. Unfortunately, this is also semantically equivalent to the classic con man's "trust me." At this point it is critical to understand that it is the mediator's interpretation of God's inspiration that hesh is preaching. A believer must check that interpretation with God directly before transferring belief to the mediator. By the way this is where most atheists and agnostics part company with believers. It may be reasonable to ignore sensual and rational evidence for an omnipotent, omniscient entity, especially when the entity cares about everyone. It is definitely not reasonable to ignore sensual and rational evidence to believe a guy in a fancy dress, no matter how impressive the pulpit is. Ultimately the balcony of the Vatican is no more persuasive if God (or the evidence) says bad BS than the dirty top of the cardboard box with three bent cards on it. Please note that neither is necessarily unpersuasive for some who wish to believe. But once belief in an omnipotent, omniscient entity that cares about everyone is transferred to real people whose BS may have personal agendas that conflict the best interests of others, a BS can and does get real ugly. Some threads here are advocating some really ugly BS. No God I have ever had occasion to believe in would approve anything about them. It is clear to me that some mediators behind them are pushing extremely antisocial BS. I find the motives to be pretty transparent: To acquire political power and bling-bling to impress the flock. The three-card monte dealer is at least honest about herm scam. J'Carlin AciraZade 2/2/2004 12:44 PM 3 out of 26 In regards to BS, this needs to be credited to Robert Anton Wilson, who was the first I ever read use it in regards to Belief Systems. It's SUPPOSED to register in your mind as bullsh**... :P Actually, I could go on and on for many posts explaining the mindset and perspective behind BS and why RAW uses that acronym, and why I happily adopted it, but it would be easier to just refer you to any RAW works. If you're interested, let me know, and I'll get you a title.

Ritual, Belief, and Understanding

beliefnet
I use ritual as a shorthand for important belief sets for any religion.  If you learn them early enough and repeat them offen enough they become part of your identity as a member of the "tribe" (the general sense of the term.) The Pledge of Allegiance is an identity ritual of the Tribe of Ammerruhcuns.

Understanding is quite different from belief.  I understand the Credo as fundamental to Catholicism, and can respect and interpret it musically in my case to reinforce it in the minds of believers even though I do not believe any of it myself.  The Church paid big money to composers to create memorable Masses to indoctrinate believers in an enjoyable format.  Part of the compensation was for setting the Mass to reinforce the dogma.

J neat.

beliefnet

Argumentative Jew wrote:

I don't know of a 'Jahwist' faith community - so I'm not sure at all what you're talking about there.

As far as I know Scripture is recognized as having many authors one of which was the Yahwist, Jahwist, or J even by Jewish scholarship.  Hesh wrote all of the memorable stories that many people in many faiths who have adopted the Pentateuch as fundamental, whatever they call it, think of as "Scripture."  Adam and Eve, Noah, Abram, Lot, Moses, of course God or YHWH from whom hesh derives the moniker and many other protagonists male and female. The stories about them attributed to J are what people remember.

When I say J "neat" I am referring to reading those stories as a coherent whole without all of the Priestly context. I first read them that way in a new translation from the Hebrew by David Rosenbloom.  I have no way of criticizing the translation as I know nothing of Hebrew but the collection was a great read, and sent me back to the other Bibles on the shelf to reread those stories as a coherent whole.  I must admit that I knew most of them well.  And very little of what I skipped. 

The Whiite, Male, Middle Class, MBA Perspective

beliefnet

Jun 7, 2015 -- 7:01PM, LDS wrote:

My thing is that too many people - including certain posters - are so caught up in their pet projects that they're starting to lose perspective.

I lost the white, male, middle class, MBA perspective long before I even got the MBA. Despite the fact that I am white, male, middle class and have an MBA.  I lost it so long before I entered an elite university, that it was glaringly obvious in most of my classmates and somewhat uncomfortable for me although I could not avoid it or combat it and still participate as a student.  It was kind of like being an atheist in a Christian culture.  One had to find an unobtrusive way to remain true to your values without offensive behavior.

Science, Religionm and the Theory of Everything

Just to be clear:  Science says nothing at all about how the universe(s) came to be.  Science observes the fact that the universe(s) exist and things in them behave in observable ways.  Science also observes than humans are the ultimate top predator, and can even affect the planet which supports them.
  
Many humans have attempted to explain these facts.  Science drops back 15 yards and punts.  Some of the attempted explanations have been shown to be inadequate; others are sloppy enough that they cannot be shown to be inadequate.  One explanation of the facts is that God created everything that exists with many puzzles to keep humans busy not destroying the planet which supports them.  Believers, non-believers, and anti-theists can and are studying this theory to falsify it or prove it to be the correct explanation of all that exists.  None have succeeded and science doesn't care.   

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. 

On Death - Henry Scott Holland

Death Is Nothing At All - Poem by Henry Scott Holland

Death is nothing at all.

I have only slipped away to the next room.
I am I and you are you.
Whatever we were to each other,
That, we still are.

Call me by my old familiar name.
Speak to me in the easy way
which you always used.
Put no difference into your tone.
Wear no forced air of solemnity or sorrow.

Laugh as we always laughed
at the little jokes we enjoyed together.
Play, smile, think of me. Pray for me.
Let my name be ever the household word
that it always was.
Let it be spoken without effect.
Without the trace of a shadow on it.

Life means all that it ever meant.
It is the same that it ever was.
There is absolute unbroken continuity.Why should I be out of mind
because I am out of sight?

I am but waiting for you.
For an interval.
Somewhere. Very near.
Just around the corner.

All is well.

Nothing is past; nothing is lost. One brief moment and all will be as it was before only better, infinitely happier and forever we will all be one together with Christ.

Henry Scott Holland

Skeptical Conceptual Blocks

beliefnet

christine3:It seems most atheists here get a reaction when they read the words paranormal, supernormal, superconscious, supernatural.

Skeptical atheists are believers just like most people.  Their conceptual blocks are as impermeable as a fundamentalist Christian or a Republican.  The only real difference is their BS do not involve God. They are as capable of sticking their fingers in their ears and singing la, la, la I can't hear you when confronted with evidence of things like esp and other paranormal abilities as any Christian. 

May 20, 2015 -- 7:32PM, Blü wrote:

JCarlin

See #44

Okay, I've re-read #44.
No evidence of esp confronted me.
What did I miss?

May 21, 2015 -- 2:46AM, Trollish wrote:

Same here. Read #44 and encountered no evidence for paranormal phenomenon.

#44 says that you have never and never will encounter evidence for paranormal phenomena.  Your brain is incapable of processing evidence you may have encountered in the past or will encounter in the future.  It will always concoct an apologetic that certain things cannot happen in reality and if they appear to have happened that must be the result of something else.  Delusion, falsehood, or misinterpretation of the data. 

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.

Spirituality

I don't bother to use "spiritual" much, since like many other useful words in English, its meaning has been so corrupted by usage that it is essentially meaningless.  I used to argue that spiritual was the numinous with or without God:  That which cannot be formulated in language but which the mind can comprehend as that combination of thoughts, myths, and ideas which make all of us uniquely "me".

Christian Atheists

beliefnet

YEC:  I would think almost all of the Atheist living in a free society are to one degree or another.

 It is hard to be a Christian if not a theist.  The entire dogma of Christianity is centered around groveling at the feet of God whether it is Jesus, the Trinity, or "Thy God" of Jesus.  Atheists do not grovel at anything or anybody. Nice try at the Great Commission, but abject failure. 

YEC: For a Godless society there is no moral rule.  Natural evolutionism is the rule.  Survival of the fittest.  There is no absolute law in which a standard can be erected.

In a Godless society moral rules are derived from evolutionary necessity and its corollary tribal living necessities expanded to larger societies as required.  While there is no absolute law governing morality, humanistic empathy is a firm foundation.

YEC: You are born, live and die and "puff"...it's all over.

Yep.  In the words of Forrest Church one had best live a life worth dying for.  It is all anybody has. Theist or atheist. 

YEC: In a free society the Atheist follow the moral teachings of Jesus and I might add, the bible.  They know the morals work.  They are tried and proven.   If Jesus never appeared, if the bible never existed....if our laws didn't reflect those morals, where would we be?  

Your remarks about Jesus are pretty close to the mark.  The rest of the Bible morality is either obsolete or dysfunctional in a modern society.

YEC: You said, "They're Out There, I Just Haven't Found Any Yet"...the truth is, you are one of them.

Sorry.  There are many atheist Christians, Jews, Muslims, and members of other theistic religions, that enjoy the traditions, rituals and tribal gatherings associated with the faith, but without the faith in God.  Atheists without a religion are not among them.  In general we (I include myself among them) have developed our own meaning and purpose for being alive and having to die.  But in the words of johnbigboote on the old boards it is a One Person Religion.

Jesuism 2015

Interesting that Christian atheists redirects to a rather useful article on Jesuism.  When I was looking for a title for a thread on atheistic studies of Jesus in Jan 2007 "Jesuism" showed up on Google and other search engines only as an obscure Eastern Cult, and some obscure literary references.  Jesuit was already taken and Jesusism and Jesuanism weren't on target for what I was looking for.

I have since seen it on other blogs, and of course Wiki but it always refers to the sudy of Jesus as a human not a God.  At the time I was thinking about the Christian return to Jesus focusing on the Sermon on the Mount and the Two Great Commandments as an atheist movement in Christianity, but they made an end run around atheism by returning to the personal God of the Jews "Love the Lord Thy God ..."  in effect remaining theists, but repudiating all of John and Paul.  How they warped their minds around The Christ as Jesus remains a mystery to me, but somehow they still think of themselves as Christians focusing on the teachings of Jesus. 

It doesn't matter to me as Jesus was the first radical humanist in the Judeo-Christian tradition, and "Thy God" viewed through the teachings of Jesus may eliminate most of the excesses of the Abrahamic monstrosity.

A Female Jahwist?

According to Harold Bloom in the Book of J the Jahwist was a high class educated women in Solomon's or Rehoboam's court tasked with preserving the traditional lore, and instead wrote ironic tales highlighting the misogyny and ineptness of God.  After reading Rosenbloom's modern translation and going back to my favorite Bibles to reread the stories there, I have concluded that J was indeed female and some of the stories are downright satirical.  But for believers too much is never enough and they turned this inept misogynist into God to be worshiped as without fault.   Then the Christians came along and turned those stories into the literal word of God.  Oh. My. God.

Atheists are Funnier than Christians.

beliefnet

 Mormon wrote:

And once again, you cherry-pick in order to try and make a point.

Atheist Now, that is a joke! 

Is there another religion whose members cherry-pick the scripture to the extent the LDS do? I very much doubt it.

The entire Book of Mormon is a joke perpetrated on an annoyingly pious young man in New England by his gay, atheist friend Walt Whitman.  The Mormons suppress literary analysis like work count and stylistic and content parallels but they cannot suppress any literate person from comparing the Book of Mormon with Leaves of Grass on a boring few day stay in a Salt Lake City hotel. 

I read the Book of Mormon on the first night of that boring stay (no booze, no friends) and could not miss the resemblance to a satire of the Bible I wrote in High School.  I gave myself 20 lashes with the monster's noodly appendages for not naming my angel Moroni, but chalked it up to a lack of literary genius.  The next day I got my copy of Leaves of Grass out of my suitcase and read it side by side with the Book of Mormon.  No brainer - same author.  I would not put it past Whitman to have given his friend "magic glasses" and told him where in the woods to dig.  I am sure Whitman kept a copy or revision of his satire and cleaned up parts of it for his future writings.  I still have mine.  You may have seen parts of it here. 

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?

What is Humanism

beliefnet
The UU First Principle is about as good a definition as I can find:  

The inherent worth and dignity of every person.

I go a bit farther to the concept of: 

Radical respect for every person, until by their actions they prove to be unworthy of respect. 

This is merely a gloss on the first principle that admits the fact that not all humans are decent people. 

The Second Commandment of Jesus is, in context of his treatment by Samaritans and his parable of the Good Samaritan, another statement of humanism, and in conjunction with the first is an example of theistic humanism.   

The problem I have with most gods and God is that I have yet to find one that complies with the first principle.  There are always people that are of lesser worth in the eye of God, usually but not limited to women, and always those that do not grovel in worship to God. 

The Science of God's Creation

beliefnet

May 12, 2015 -- 2:14AM, Roymond wrote:

I wish you could have visited our Intelligent Design club in college.  It was all people who had come to religion not by any assumptions, but via science.

At this point I think it would be better referred to as God Design to avoid the Dover crowd, and to leave undefined where God entered the picture.  

I have been in or assocciated with hard science both academic and commercial most of my life.  Without believers doing the bulk of the science both would come to a screeching halt.  As long as believers are using hard science to "Discover God's Creation" and not trying to prop up preconcieved notions of what that creation is, I see no reason to assume that my science of trying to figure out how things work is necessarily better science.

"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. 

Theistic Humanism

I am convinced by long studies of Jefferson and Jesus the preacher man that both were theistic humanists.  When I was a kid in the UU tradition both Jefferson and Jesus were revered forbears.  UU was theistic although I was not, but nonethe less the "Credo" I recited with everybody else was

Unitarians believe in the Fatherhood of God,

The brotherhood of Jesus,

Salvation by character,

And the progress of mankind (now humans) onward and upward forever. 

Theist humanism at its best:  God as a Father/mentor, Jesus as wise probably elder sibling, and humans as the driver of progress.  As most here know I resonated early with the Two Great Commandments struggling mightily to reconcile the first with my atheism.  The answer I came up with was "Thy God" was a reference for those who needed divine guidance, which is why I have no problem with celebrating any God with a believer.  It is not my God, but if Hesh works for them God bless them.

Commination

I was raised Pisco, and when Christians are fighting each other, I usually regard the Piscos/Anglicans as my team (though on occasions their choice of view makes this impossible).

I know the words of their hymns and can and do sing them at services, which these days are largely funerals.

I admire the poetry of much of the old funeral service, but they often use some other form these days.

If you're ever drunk and feeling full of energy, you might enjoy grabbing yourself a pulpit and thundering the Commination at those assembled (starting at the second large block, "Now seeing that all they are accursed ..."). Those long rolling phrases are like ocean waves heading shorewards to become breakers - very satisfying.

So I'd find it hard to deny that I was to some extent a cultural Pisco.

(But when it comes to Christmas, I'm of the Charles Dickens / Coca Cola school.)

Thanks Blü for the commination.  I had forgotten about that delight.  We used to drag that out at UU Youth gatherings complete with the amens just to remind ourselves of what we were missing. 

I had read most of Dickens before I got to High School, and frequently read aloud to my mother when I found a great passage.  Maybe why she got me an adult library card when I was 8.  I didn't associate it with either the KJB or BCP, I hadn't gotten to the KJB yet, just the parts mocked in the youth group.  
I still consider the KJB my reference bible, despite its inaccuracies, since its cultural influence is pervasive both for good and for evil and everything in between.   

Back to Jesus Christians

The back to Jesus the preacher man movement in Christianity, in essence back to the synoptic Gospels, while not blessed by the hierarchy except maybe Pope Francis, is becoming a very powerful movement within Christianity.  WWJD has become love the poor, the homeless, indeed all neighbors. The hate the sinner, er sin Christians are still powerful particularly in US politics, and in the Christian hierarchy, but even Pope Francis seems to understand that Christianity is not working and must change to survive.  They will probably keep Christ as savior and God so that all the prayers and rituals will work, but morality will revert to the Sermon on the Mount and the Beatitudes.  Salvation will no longer be by belief but by emulation of Jesus the preacher man. 
Perhaps whistling past the graveyard but Christianity must change or will end up in that graveyard.  I for one would miss Christianity.

Winter Holidays

Christmas for me has always been defined by the music. I never much cared for either the religious or the secular hoopla, although the yule traditions were fun, but so secularized that it wasn't until I began to study "other" religions that I came to appreciate the community centric nature of Yuletide.  I celebrated Hannukah with Jewish friends, but as a holiday gathering not as a religious celebration, but they seemed to treat it the same way so I fit right in. 

 

The whole season came together for me at the Peter, Paul, and Mary Holiday concert in Carnegie Hall complete with a Kosher and not so Kosher wonderful chopped liver provided for all by Mary.  The concert was a wonderful mix of newly composed Hannukah songs arranged for trio and chorus by PP&M's long time arranger Bob DeCormier, Christmas standards, and the Hallelujah Chorus where PP&M joined in with the chorus.  This became a perennial PBS Fundraiser you may have seen almost any holiday if you indulge in PBS.  It really had it all, Hannukah, Christmas, Yule, and Hallelujah.

Gender in Language

beliefnet

 Roymond wrote:

Good point about the Hebrew.  It's worth noting that the same point essentially extends to all language; anything perceived of as personal is going to get either the masculine or feminine, because that's how we conceive of persons.  So deities end up with gender tags even though they may not be actually understood as having gender, at least not in any way we humans would understand.

...

And that applies whether God is real or not; it's a linguistic/philosophical problem.  So in actuality, the case is stronger that patriarchy or matriarchy were imposed on religion by the concepts and worldviews of the socities in question, not the other way around.

Languages differ.  Some languages do not even have a gender neutral term for any object let alone a person.  But one must understand that language is our understanding of the world and we must be aware of the more pernicious biases built into the language gender being the most important. 

One of the first things that offended me when I found out that other people believed in God was that Lord (masculine) and He/His were interchangeable with God.  I was still in the scatological humor stage at the time and gleefully referred to God as Sheheit.  Making myself unpopular in some circles, but most of my friends were at the most religious agnostics, so I didn't catch much flack.  And when I did I would always correct myself to She/he/it.  I outgrew the scatology but still refused to even think of God as He.  I invented the gender inclusive pronouns some of you have seen here Hesh and Herm very early in life, and discovered that they really helped me think about a supernatural power in a sympathetic way that was impossible with the testosterone poisoned "He."  Even trying to insert God in place of the male pronoun every time didn't work too well.  As I found out while working on the first gender neutral hymnal revision for the UUA.

By college I had learned to think of everyone as hesh rather than he or she even when it was important to tell the difference.  It was the first step to radical humanism as once I began to think of people as hesh it was hard to create differences along any lines since the major pervasive division on gender lines carried over from the patriarchal social system we inherited from God was obliterated in my mind. 

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.     

Growing Up Atheist and Feminist

beliefnet
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 get 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.

16 Hours a Day to Support a Family

 Mormon wrote:

It's entirely common for my dad and I to work 12 - 16 hours in a day. ...

We've been awake for days at a time juggling work, family, and other duties. Ever been so sleep-deprived you hallucinated? Been there, done that.

I think people can see how having someone back home helping with the family duties would be quite helpful.

The mother of my children and I both worked 12-16 hours in a day, juggling schedules and sleep to take care of two boys growing up in Manhattan.  Due to rampant sexism in her chosen career field I probably juggled more than she did, properly so, as I was the person of privilege and could get away with leaving a board meeting to attend to an injured child.  (My part was over, but since mom was out of town presenting at a major conference, it wouldn't have mattered.)  True, we paid for high quality help with the children, and frequently argued about who should quit and stay home to save money, but all four of us ended up all right.  I probably took the biggest hit career wise, changing careers a few times to stay with the family, but changing careers was common enough among my MBA peers that it raised no eyebrows.

If it sounds like I don't find the slave you had at home helpful you are right.  Nor do I find working 12-16 hours a day depriving your children of a proper father, who could referee/coach games, teach Sunday school, read stories, and sing along with them in the evenings admirable.

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.  

Working With Theistic Humanists

beliefnet

 christine3 wrote:

... I wouldn't dismiss believers. They have a strong feeling that it is possible a man in first century Jerusalem was doing things that nobody else could, and I don't doubt that at all. .....

  There are many smart people within Christianity that are going back to the man that was doing those things and was a theistic humanist.  They aren't making much progress in changing the institution that depends on keeping people dumb and believing in the God man, but they are becoming a significant minority in both Catholic and Protestant Christianity.  They are still theistic, the meme of something more encompassing than the individual whether it be Gaia or God is well ingrained in the modern psyche. 

Perhaps working with rather than against humanistic theists would be a better strategy for atheists. 

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.