Atheist Spirituality

Beliefnet - Article from Science Daily

I don't see how any idea that contradicts reality can be considered spiritual. To my mind spirituality MUST conform to reality, otherwise it creates inner and external conflict.
F1fan

My spirituality, which is independent of any deity supernatural or otherwise, frequently contradicts reality. There is no conflict. A rainbow or a sunrise has no meaning in reality. Both are easily explainable expressions of optical phenomenon. But sunrises and rainbows are reasons for me to get out of bed to appreciate the challenges and rewards of living yet another day, to do what I can to make it as meaningful as a sunrise or a rainbow. Rainbows especially as it takes both sun and rain to make one. Although a great sunrise will have both sun and clouds. But then clouds are just a meteorological phenomenon with no meaning and the sun is just a large thermonuclear reaction with even less meaning. It takes spirituality not reality to give meaning to either.

Of course in reality I am just another animal getting up every morning to eat and avoid being eaten, perhaps to live long enough to breed, and insure that the resulting children also get up every morning to eat. Perhaps I can help them avoid being eaten, and maybe I can even give them a reason to get up every morning. But of course none of that has anything to do with reality.

Tonehammer Demo

A teaser for our project can be found at "Requiem"

Six minutes out of maybe 24 hours of work by the singers. Good stuff.

Monogamy Genetic?

Theist responsible... - Discuss Atheism - Beliefnet #88

Isn't there enough evidence to suggest that some people are genetically hardwired for monogamy and some for infidelity? Among other variations in the middle of the road that are often overlooked by our Christianized society.
Yavanna

I don't see monogamy as genetic. I see it as a strongly reinforced social value. In other words nurture rather than nature. The fact that historically and prehistorically a two parent family seemed to be the only way most of the people could succeed in producing a replacement quota of adults strongly insured that the leaders who could afford to play around would preach monogamy, and believers would buy it, but as soon as the man can afford it he will play around in one way or another. They don't call prostitution the oldest profession for nothing. Or if you are rich enough you can hire massage therapists of one sex or another to accomplish the same purpose.

I am one of those preaching and practicing monogamy as long as dependent children are involved as I think that is still produces the best results as measured by high functioning adults. There are exceptions, but for every bootstrap street kid that makes it there are hundreds and maybe thousands that don't. If I were writing the laws marriage would be a commitment to any resulting children, natural or adopted, and in a divorce the only lawyer allowed would be an advocate for the children. Unfortunately the churches write the laws for both and the current disaster is the result.

Modern Villages.

Genetic Origins of Human Morality - Beliefnet #5

Still, it's more very good news for professional sport.
Blü

Modern humans haven't moved much beyond the village or parish. The only difference is that we now have the means and incentive to choose our own village or occasionally more than one. As churches have lost their village status, other groups take up the slack, and as you point out sport teams provide the same religious fervor (and bigotry and violence) that churches once provided. The pub crawl is another. Arts groups can be another. I notice that SF Symphony has its own web2.0 social networking site. Every University has its social site, with the line between alumni and students blurring drastically.

I see this as an interim step to Appiah's Cosmopolitanism which I expect will be the next step in human moral evolution. I am not sure where the social village will be found, but I expect the university communities will end up as the choice for the well educated.

I don't see work as satisfying community social needs, with a few exceptions. Here in silicon valley Google and Apple seem to be viable communities, but that does not seem to be the norm. Most work experiences are devoid of moral value unless one views raping the world for personal gain as a moral value.

Sexuality Education in Schools

Theist responsible... - Beliefnet

I believe that your Assertion is not Fact-based, but instead reflects your Anti-Church Feelings ...
teilhard

My assertion is fact based and is responsible for my anti-church feelings on this issue. Unplanned pregnancies and abortions are some of the most serious issues facing the US today. The “Just say No!” campaign and the prevention of meaningful sexuality education in the public schools which should be isolated from toxic religious influences has been led by a few religious organizations headed by the Catholic Church.

I say toxic purposely as these policies kill people and fetuses, and result in the tragedy of way too many single parent families. Sure most of the moms (it is always the mom) make the best of a bad situation, but an unplanned pregnancy is a preventable tragedy encouraged, and in fact mandated by church doctrine. The Pope could solve this problem simply by issuing a Bull that the UU OWL curriculum or the equivalent be taught in all schools Catholic and public. The Baptists can go to Hell in their own way by pulling their kids out of the public schools.

They are already doing so, dooming their children to non-competitiveness in the modern world. But evolution has never been kind to non-competitive species or subspecies in this case. I suspect that Homo Sapiens Religiosus will be extinct in my grandchildren's lifetime. I just hope it doesn't get too ugly. We already are seeing random killings by the losers, but so far it is other losers that are bearing the brunt of the damage. My hope is that fast food, soda pop and beer will keep them anchored on their couch, and Fox entertainment will be more interesting than getting their asses up even for sex. I will gladly contribute my share of the welfare checks to keep them there.

Religious Wishful Thinking on Sex.

Theist responsible... - Beliefnet

A Guy who keeps his "John Thomas" IN his own Pants ISN'T going become an un-intended DADDY ... It's called Self-Control ... It's called "Abstinence" and/or "Monogamy" ...
teilhard

It is called religious wishful thinking. There may be a few around who keep their penises dry, but even those who claim to do so seem to find ways of succumbing to their natural instincts. Maybe even Ratzinger?

Abstinence absent masturbation is a joke. Abstinence with masturbation is unusual. Monogamy, while certainly a worthy ideal, is an unnatural aberration for males of most species, particularly the human species. Whores, rent-a-boys, and the new wife are so common as to be considered to be the norm. Throw porn into the mix and even regulators do it.

Probably the most disastrous legacy of Paul was his use of sexuality as the universal sin that all needed to be saved from. He knew that celibacy was a joke, and that sexual fun and games with pregnancy as a side effect were universal. So by making all sins he had his need for a Savior, but made sexuality a disaster for the rest of the world. It is time we held Paul and the Pope accountable for the damage they have done.

Behavior or Religion?

Theist responsible... - Beliefnet
The rates of unplanned pregnancy and abortion are the result of religious objections to informing all teens, including those whose parents object for religious reasons, of the options for family planning. The behavior of humans that are past puberty is definitely not the problem. All humans past puberty will engage in sexual activities that are normal and natural instinctive behaviors. The survival of the human species depends on it.

Technological solutions have insured that for practical purposes all pregnancies will result in a pubescent human. Historical fecundity limiters of maternal and child mortality have been eliminated by technology, so it is reasonable that technology should provide the solutions for fecundity limitation to sustainable limits. I know that the Bishop of Rome hopes that AIDS will do the job here as it did in Africa, but I am strongly in favor of more benign methods.

I strongly advocate deferring first pregnancies to the last few years of education, but I am enough of a realist to know that changing instinctive behaviors is not going to work. Every person over the age of 8 should know the benefits and possible risks of all forms of contraception singly and in combination, the Pope be damned. Teens will have sex. This is a given. Very few of them male or female want the responsibility of pregnancy or abortion and will take the necessary steps to prevent it until they are ready for the responsibility of parenting. None of them will "Just say no"

A little bit 'o Neanderthal

A little bit Neanderthal

Did God make Herm Chosen People as sex toys for horny Neandertal hunters. I know God had little respect for human women but this is ridiculous.

No Neandertal mitochondrial DNA in Homo sapiens. Ergo no Neanderthal women bred with Homo Sapiens men. 1-4% Neanderthal DNA in Homo sapiens. This must be from male Neanderthals breeding with Homo sapiens females.

A bit of speculation: It is my understanding that the Neanderthals were a superior apex predator in every way to Homo sapiens, except for adaptability. Neanderthals had no need to adapt. Everything including Homo sapiens stayed out of their way if possible.

Now if a bunch of Neanderthal guys were on an extended hunt far from the caves, and happened upon a Homo sapiens female, a little fun and games involving bestiality (by their standards) might have been more useful than the quantity of food available. If she managed to escape some of those Neanderthal genes might have been advantageous and were conserved.

From the SciAm report:
Researchers sequencing Neandertal DNA have concluded that between 1 and 4 percent of the DNA of people today who live outside Africa came from Neandertals, the result of interbreeding between Neandertals and early modern humans.

The finding contrasts sharply with Pääbo's previous work. In 1997 he and his colleagues sequenced the first Neandertal mitochondrial DNA . Mitochondria are the cell’s energy-generating organelles, and they have their own DNA, which is distinct from the much longer DNA sequence that resides in the cell’s nucleus. Their analysis revealed that Neandertals had not made any contributions to modern mitochondrial DNA.

Color Survey Results « xkcd

Color Survey Results « xkcd

And really, if you’re reading this blog, odds are you probably—like me—spend more time looking at a monitor than at the outdoors anyway.

From a delightful color survey from xkcd. Who ever thought science could be so funny. A very witty write up of the results.

Truths of Physics and Psychology

The Moral Life of Babies - NYTimes.com

The truths of physics and psychology are universal: objects obey the same physical laws everywhere; and people everywhere have minds, goals, desires and beliefs.
Paul Bloom

Thanks Paul, for the laugh of the day. One of these years psychology may find a universal truth, but it needs to find some reality and humility first.

Development of Morality.

The Moral Life of Babies - NYTimes.com

We possess abstract moral notions of equality and freedom for all; we see racism and sexism as evil; we reject slavery and genocide; we try to love our enemies. Of course, our actions typically fall short, often far short, of our moral principles, but these principles do shape, in a substantial way, the world that we live in. It makes sense then to marvel at the extent of our moral insight and to reject the notion that it can be explained in the language of natural selection. If this higher morality or higher altruism were found in babies, the case for divine creation would get just a bit stronger.

But it is not present in babies. In fact, our initial moral sense appears to be biased toward our own kind. There’s plenty of research showing that babies have within-group preferences: 3-month-olds prefer the faces of the race that is most familiar to them to those of other races; 11-month-olds prefer individuals who share their own taste in food and expect these individuals to be nicer than those with different tastes; 12-month-olds prefer to learn from someone who speaks their own language over someone who speaks a foreign language. And studies with young children have found that once they are segregated into different groups — even under the most arbitrary of schemes, like wearing different colored T-shirts — they eagerly favor their own groups in their attitudes and their actions.
Paul Bloom

This for me is the crux of the article. And the Author ignores it. The within-group preferences are the basis of morality. Our school colors are good, yours are bad.

Adult morality is basically the ability to choose ones group and abide by the moral standards it sets up. Particularly the standards for role modeling. As we are seeing daily: If your group is sport you expect your sport heroes to be good role models and woe be to the used to be hero that falls short in the role model behavior. They might redeem their hero status by their talent, but it will always have the asterisk hesh is a great athlete* *but hesh is an asshole.

In politics and religion the role model issues are even more important.

I learned the importance of role modeling early, as one of my favorite musicians was an asshole, and people in my group would judge his music by his behavior. The implicit message was that my society expected every member to be an exemplary role model, and achievements would be judged as much by the role modeling as by the achievement itself. This drastically changes the importance of moral behavior, at least in my society which is self selected to be intelligent, rational, well educated, and achievement oriented. And damn few of us get our moral behavior from God.

Salvation

Owning Your Own Shadow - Beliefnet

It is because I have studied the Bible and understand what is going on in it that I do not accept the Good News of Salvation. It would probably be easier not to work on righteousness and nail my shadow to the cross, but that doesn't work for me. Christ has nothing to do with my behavior or my relationships with other people. He is not responsible for any injury I might inflict on them and neither is Adam. The arrow of responsibility is very short and it points right at me. I think all this work makes me a better member of my chosen society both as an actor and as a role model. It is my effect on my society today, in this life that is important to me. No more, and no less.

Idealism and Atheism

Owning Your Own Shadow - Beliefnet

You seem to have an idealistic streak - that is surprising to me.
newchurchguy

Idealism and optimism seem to me to be necessary for a life without God. There is no salvation that I don't make for myself. This life is all I can expect, so I can't waste it on worthless that is non-ideal activities. And the legacy that I leave for others had better be beautiful, interesting and useful. I can't think of a way to do that without an idealistic outlook on life. I think humans are evolving into a better more idealistic species, not all of us, but I want to insure that those who are important to me are part of that evolution.

UU Youth

Owning Your Own Shadow - Beliefnet

What did the UU youth group contribute to your righteousness / no shadow?
iamachildofhis

There were no rules, no belief systems, and yet we had to function as a coherent group in spite of radically different views on everything from God to sexuality. I learned to respect the rules and limits of others without internalizing them. I learned to communicate my rules and limits without projecting them on others. This was fairly easy with respect to God, in spite of my unusual for the time overt atheism, but the sexuality issues as you might expect in a group of horny teens with no rules except respect for your partner made for some interesting times. Further, deponent sayeth not.

Parents

Owning Your Own Shadow - Beliefnet

Your parents must have had a very good, loving relationship. You must have really valued your mother, also.
iamachildofhis

My parents' relationship lasted more than half a century, the usual bumps and frictions, but in general I would agree with your assessment.

My mother was an intelligent, independent, and strong woman, and the iconic ancestor was similar. Not domineering as many such women can be, but not submissive either. She knew she was equal to anybody else. Not better, but no worse. My older sisters who were important in my early life inherited these traits. One might say I had no experience with other types of women or at least didn't notice other types. My father was an equal partner in my parenting and in his marriage, but traditional gender role models were basically ignored.

How No Shadow?

Owning Your Own Shadow - Beliefnet

You grew up in a very polite home, then. Were you the one stealing, or a sibling, or a play mate? Were you encouraged to continually share, or were there toys which were yours, alone, and you, alone could choose whether or not to share them? Were you groomed for an elite society?
iamachildofhis

I am sure siblings and playmates were caught out and instructed on stealing, but as usual my own burning ears were what made me learn. But relevant to the shadow topic, it was always behavior correction. "We" don't do that kind of thing. Never "That is bad," and absolutely never "You are bad." I don't remember "bad" as part of my parents' vocabulary.

As I remember it sharing was a part of playing with toys. Even my teddy bear which for a while was a constant companion was shared. I vaguely remember a kind of a round dance game where the teddy bear danced with everybody.

The "We" in all of it was what "We" considered to be an elite society. One in which each person was expected to be knowledgeable, thoughtful, responsible, mannerly, fun to be with, and to do their chores diligently and without direction or complaint. There were "Others" some of whom were part of a different elite, and some who were definitely less than elite.

Atheism Ridicule - Discuss Atheism - Beliefnet Community

Atheism Ridicule - Beliefnet

I guess the question is what qualifies Abner to judge kodiacman? If we are equal then our authority is equal and we have no basis for calling one action evil or good.
Kodiacman

While you are equal, the societies to which you belong are different. Abner will judge kodiacman by the standards of the educated atheist society of which he is a part. Kodiacman may very well say that God does not approve of the educated atheist society, or at least the atheist part, and in effect say 'Throw Abner to the wolves.' Abner will probably like Brer Rabbit say 'Don't throw me into that briar patch full of atheist chemists.' And you both will walk away feeling virtuous and filled with righteousness for making the correct moral judgment."

Atheism Ridicule - Discuss Atheism - Beliefnet Community

Atheism Ridicule - Beliefnet

By calling Godman 'evil' you are presuming a supreme moral authority...either yourself, society, or God. The first two are arbitrary, and if you can't see that, maybe he's right.
Merlin

No, he is assuming a moral authority. The moral authority is always a segment of the society of which the person is a part. Or depending on your definition of society, it may be the local society, the church, the community, or a self chosen community of peers. None of which have supreme authority, not even the church or God.

By calling another 'evil' a person is basically saying that the behavior is unacceptable for membership in the relevant society. In effect saying that if the behavior continues we, the society, will 'throw you to the wolves' and give no protection or benefits from belonging to the society. The outsider may find a society that tolerates the evil behavior, and may even encourage it, in which case there may be a clash of societies up to and including warfare if the evil is deemed onerous enough. Please note that the 'evil' society probably does not view itself as evil, and may in fact consider all other societies evil. It may even base this on a particular God belief, but even that is not absolute.

As an example many societies consider treating women as property and subjugating them to some relevant male to be evil. There are other societies that say this is requirement of God. I would challenge anyone to show either view is a supreme moral edict."

Common Elements.

Atheism Ridicule - Beliefnet: "“The two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity.” ~Harlan Ellison"
Noted by Kodiakman

Palin Doll Tea Party

Doonesbury Comic Strip on GoComics.com: "Doonesbury by Garry Trudeau * April 27, 2010