SSG Heirarchy

beliefnet
There is no real hierarchy.  At whatever level the threat is presented the moral human will react to minimize or eliminate the threat.   Ideally the God/secular leader will never threaten the community, but the history of both religious and secular nations is local revolution against the oppressive/corrupt leadership.  The Lutherans against the Church, the Americans against the King, etc.  Occasionally, actually frequently these days the face group will withdraw from the denomination or city to create a de-facto separate community with a different moral paradigm.  Gated communities on one side of the aisle and rainbow congregations on the other.  In most cases the larger moral entity will ignore the smaller, but revolutions are made of active repression of different moral paradigms.

The Fundamental SSG

beliefnet 

The facegroup, the tribe, parish, village appears to be the fundamental social unit.  Perhaps because the indoctrination of the conscience is strongly influenced by this group.  Also this is the group where reciprocity and trust is up close and personal.  Mrs. Grundy is always watching and gossiping, so no facegroup activity is unnoticed.

And yet, morally, people will go against this fundamental social unit at times.  Therefore, morality is something outside of these social units.

I have yet to hear of a serious breach of facegroup morality that was not met with disfellowshipping, shunning, expulsion, incarceration,  or worse.  Think about gays in most communities especially religious ones or dark skinned people in hoodies in a gated community.

Relationships and Getting Fucked

beliefnet
I think that far too many women hold grudges when personal relationships fail. They, in a sense, remain emotionally attached to the failed relationship. I also think that far too many atheists hold grudges against religion. Even after years of separation, many seem permanently attached to the failed relationship.

What else can one expect from religious misogyny and misanthropy?  God and the man demand a relationship, when in reality all God and the man care about is dominance.  Is it any wonder that one promised a relationship and discovers that all that is happening is that hesh is getting fucked holds a long lasting grudge against the fucker?  And then tells the world to beware of fuckers?

Morality might be defined as warning the world about fuckers.

Moral Reconditioning

beliefnet

Don't get me started on the Harvard Moral Sense Shit.  Trollies have nothing to do with morality they have to do with killing people. 

The older one gets the harder it is to change moral precepts. It is not impossible, and it seems that moral reevaluation is a natural stage of development past puberty.  But it does take intensive conscious effort to affect an adult conscience. 

The stages of moral development are more cultural than individual.  See Cruz père and Cruz fils.  If mom and dad are at a higher stage of moral development their children are likely to be as high or higher. 

Conditioning the Conscience

beliefnet

We certainly make moral judgments immediately by necessity.  Many moral decisions are made under extreme stress.  There is no time to reason out a moral response.  

However, it does not follow that conscience is an intuitive function of the mind/brain.  The conscience is almost certainly conditioned over time most strongly influenced by family and preschool caregivers.  And, per Robert Fulghum, the kindergarten teacher.  It is ultimately a subconscious conditioning which can be consciously reconditioned later in life if necessary by training and indoctrination.  As an example military training is retraining the conscience to view "the enemy" as less than human and therefore not subject to the conscience's morality toward others in the tribe.  

The conscience cannot be ignored.  You can consciously override it but it will feel wrong if you do.  It will also take time and effort that may not be available under stress.  This is why the conscience can be reconditioned with difficulty as an adult. 

Moral Evolution

beliefnet
I am not jumping to conclusions.  I have presented on many threads and on this one clear evidence that morality coevolved with modern humans.  That social moral nuance is taught like language is clear, but like basic grammar, basic morality is an evolutionary, that is genetic property of the mind/brain.  One might argue with one of Blü's moral imperatives, but in general they are the source of absolute morality, not some sky god.  Sky gods can and do influence the social moral nuances for believers, in some cases quite strongly, as the follow the leader basic imperative is strongly reinforced by vuvuzelas in fancy dresses in over decorated balconies telling believers what God wants as to morality, but it is moral only for believers whether it is hate fags or love your neighbor.    

Mariology Explained.

beliefnet

Matthew 28:18 has the post-mortal Jesus say, ἐδόθη μοι πᾶσα ἐξουσία ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς - "All authority in heaven and earth has been given to me."

So that leaves Yahweh and the Ghost with no authority. Ain't no Trinity notion thar, just a sentimental retrospect for his pa and his uncle, two former board members who've now retired. Blü

Finally an explanation for the importance of Jesus and Mary in Catholicism and the de facto separation of the Trinity in the Mass.  All authority including judgment of those worthy of eternal life is thereby vested in Jesus.  And who would have more influence?  Dad who hung him on the cross or mama who took him down? 

Moral Evolution

beliefnet

In several different ways we are quite different from other hominid species.  One is the huge brain which is too large for the birthing pelvis and therefore must develop significantly after birth.  Probably associated with this is the hidden estrus which makes a single mating by a dominant male unlikely to be successful in continuing his line.  Both make the human social structure much different from other hominids.  If the male wants to insure his paternity he must pair up long term with a female (and make sure no other male has access to the female.)  This obviously has a huge impact on morality which must have evolved with the brain size of the baby.  

The concurrent evolution of the infant totally dependent on parents for everything from wiping herm ass, learning language, and getting from one place to another for nearly a whole gestation period and the hidden estrus had to have a major effect on the moral relationships between men and women especially for the man.  I suspect the traditional cave man dragging the woman to the cave by the hair would have trouble getting enough sex to maintain his line.  The guy who provided dinner and a dance regularly would have a much better chance. 

The other major difference was the evolution from a hunter/gatherer nomadic life style to an agricultural settlement based society. Again it would seem that the moral evolution would be concurrent with the settled social structure.   

The agricultural settlement where the division of labor among women and men, the men doing the muscle work of tillage and clearing, with opportunistic hunting and field and flock depredation prevention, certainly must have had moral evolutionary effects on both genders:  Women with strong social and community development skills would have much better evolutionary success in the critical chore of  getting a child to puberty.  In the absense of breakfast diners, a man who left home with a substantial breakfast, and could look forward to a substantial dinner, would be much better prepared to concentrate on his daily community chores.   

To be continued ...

Music in Religion

beliefnet

I am relatively familiar with Russian Orthodox as well due to my interest in Russian Orthodox music.  The music of religion is particularly useful in understanding the tradition, as it is the major vehicle for the transmission of the emotional basis of the tradition.  One can't really appreciate the terror of the Dies Irae unless one has heard an Italian Requiem.  Either Verdi or Berlioz will impress but many others will do the job.  Then one must go to Mass for the Et Expecto to get back to Jesus.

Bible Studies.

beliefnet

I am qualified to evaluate expertise in biblical studies since I’m a Russian Orthodox seminary graduate. Knowledge of theology appears limited to that of modern evangelical Protestantism. 

I might suggest that a seminary graduate is hardly an impartial evaluator of Biblical analysis.  I suspect you would not have graduated if you didn't have a strong theological bias toward the Russian Orthodox interpretation of Scripture. 

The atheists here have a sophisticated and reasoned interpretation of the stories in the Bible regardless of our milk traditions if only to deal with the incessant proselytization we endure daily.  Certainly modern evangelical Protestantism is the most prevalent.  Other traditions are well represented as well as we try to avoid Fundagelicals when possible. Our associates are well distributed among the other Western Denominations who are not reticent about telling us why we should join them at church. 

As noted I have 8 Bibles on my shelf beside me, and have read all 8 cover to cover at some point in my life.  (Well, I skipped the begats in some of them, but I bet I have read more begats than most Christians.) When interpreting any specific passage I not only compare the eight I am familiar with, but the online comparisons as well. I am also familiar with the belief based interpretations of many of the Western traditions, including Dispensationalism,  (unfortunately) evangelical Protestantism, Catholicism, mainstream Protestantism, Judiasm, UUC and theistic UU.  The last two being the most familiar as they are the churches of choice "when the spirit moves me."

Beliefs, Bias, and Atheism

beliefnet

Please clarify. Holding a bias in favor of their own positions is a common human trait. Are you claiming that the atheists in this group are extraordinary in their capacity to be fair and objective?

It is commonly recognized that biases are associated with belief.  See Shermer among many others. Scientists are trained to recognize and compensate for biases, especially belief based biases,  and do so relatively well due to the threat of peer review either formal or informal.

Generally atheists reject beliefs in anything, preferring a search for valid knowledge without belief biases.  In addition atheists generally do not generally have positions to support.  As an example I have found that god beliefs are not useful and frequently dysfunctional.  However, if someone would show me a useful god belief, I might consider using it, although it is unlikely that I would adopt it.  I find the panentheistic belief a useful and functional worldview to study and learn from.  However, I need no deity to focus my study. I do very well with the wonder and awesomeness of the world I live on and the Universe which contains it. One might say I take my spirituality unadulterated by imaginary intermediaries.  

Goo to Zoo to Me

Here are some facts which we each have to interpret.
....wouldn’t you agree that it is also absurd to say that this happened by chance? You might comment that natural selection is a 'non-random process', but going back further you must believe in 'chance' and how did a non-random process evolve from randomness? Is randomness not the right word? Do you think it is reasonable to suggest the universe was always orderly from nothing? Or how would you put it?
Do you just have to shrug your shoulders and say 'existence is weird' and leave it at that?
How do you see the world?  

 I see the world as a scientist, chemist to be precise.

 

Once the plasma of the Big Bang cooled sufficiently for protons and electrons to form, electromagnetics will cause them to form hydrogen.  Gravity clumps up the hydrogen and collapses it eventually getting it hot enough form a star which blows up scattering hydrogen and helium which forms new stars with the carbon – nitrogen - oxygen fusion cycle.  These blow up scattering carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen and oxygen all over the universe.  These are the main building blocks of amino acids which are found everywhere in the universe.  The other extremely stable compound formed from this mess is water.  No chance just chemistry.

Get these all together on a big rock orbiting a star at the right distance that the water is liquid and all sorts of weird chemistry happens.  Carbon in particular is a promiscuous chemical and joins up with almost anything including itself to form all sorts of stuff including  goo and lipid membranes and bubbles which don’t really dissolve in water but mix with it.  Again no chance just chemistry.

Big complicated carbon molecules with amino acids and bases tend to fold up in ways that keep the amino acids and bases out, again chemistry, carbon bonds tightly to itself and other radicals stick out. Acids and bases sticking out tend to attract other carbon compounds with acids and bases sticking out sometimes end to end sometimes side to side.  The side to side match-ups tend to fall apart, but the end to end are fairly stable.  Still just goo, but some of the goo gets trapped in a lipid bubble which concentrates goo stuff.  But after a while, measured in millions of years, give or take a million, one of those folded goo molecules probably a simple RNA molecule attracts goo stuff sideways in a way that matches up with the RNA.  As mentioned the sideways bonds are weak and the matched goo splits off.  Now there are two replicators attracting goo stuff.  In a while one of the replicators adds something that makes it better able to attract goo stuff, and it becomes the most successful and the other replicators disappear.  In a while a matchup containing thiamine instead of uracil proves to be even more stable and DNA becomes the dominant replicator. Still just goo making more goo. 

When the DNA and RNA start working together to manipulate the lipid membrane we begin to move from goo to zoo.  DNA which splits the lipid membrane when it replicates can be called the beginning of the zoo.  The single cell organisms compete for resources and the most successful live to split again.  Some cooperate with other organisms to be even more successful and become more common.  One group develops a way to react to the environment to compete better for resources and again some compete well enough to replicate and the others die off taking their inadequate DNA with them.  The groups get better and smarter about reacting to the environment in each case surviving long enough to replicate.  This continued for countless generations, each generation getting better at filling its niche on the rock until I won. Hat tip to Mary-Ella Holst from her Lottery 

http://jcarlinsv.blogspot.com/2009/07/lottery.html