In The Beginning?

beliefnet

... give an example of something with a beginning that has no cause.

Since you have provided no example of something with a beginning that had a cause why should anyone bother.  Other than a few quantum events that may or may not have had a beginning everything that happens is the result of a chemical or physical recombination of existing things. 

A few billion years ago a galaxy of main sequence stars seeded itself with dust clouds composed of oxygen, nitrogen, carbon, hydrogen, iron and other low molecular weight elements via the well-defined carbon sequence of fusion events.  A few were in a configuration to produce novae where higher molecular weight elements could form.  These dust clouds in the galaxy www.youtube.com/watch?v=m06aoq3qw7k formed more stars and inertial and gravity effects formed planets around them.  Some of those planets were at the right distance from their star to have liquid water in abundance (hydrogen and oxygen are common in the universe) and carbon does its promiscuous chemistry to generate organic compounds that clump together to make things like lipid membranes and large clumps of goo.  Some of those large clumps of goo replicate inside a lipid bubble, and make more bits of replicating goo.  Some replicators are more successful at gathering resources than others and dominate the ecosystem they are in and life goes on. 

Perhaps you can find a beginning in all of that and we can discuss whether or not it had a cause. 

Fundy Atheists

It is impossible to be a fundy atheist, as there is no belief system to follow.  Atheists don't even agree on what sort of existence God doesn't have.  God may be an imaginary thing in the mind of theists, may not exist at all, or be a vague focus of belief.  In any event for an atheist whatever God is it is useless. 

On any behavioral scale atheists can be found anywhere as they are human, but generally they fall closer to the normal regions as they don't have vuvuzelas in fancy dresses in over decorated balconies ranting at them constantly that they are worthless sinners.  Deconverted theists, especially deconverted Christians, may retain some of this negative self image, a childhood of self-loathing is not easily forgotten, but even the deconverts have managed to lose most of the adverse behavioral effects.

Unlike theists, especially Christians, atheists don't need someone to tell us how to behave, we generally take the day we are given and "rejoice and be glad in it" per Forrest Church, and make it great without help.   

Here is a question, what would a gender equal society look like?

beliefnet 

Almost any Heinlien novel including the Juveniles.  The women characters are almost always more equal in brains and competence than the men.  The only problem feminists have with Heinlein is that the women generally are interested in contributing their more than equal genes to the gene pool.  Nothing unusual, most of the women I know about who are in the feminist trenches being more competent than the average man in their chosen work are interested in contributing their more than equal genes to the gene pool as well.  They generally choose men who have been brought up to be partners rather than "husbands" and who use their male privilege to support their partner. 

Case in point: A well educated, extremely intelligent and broadly competent man (brought up by a dual career couple) did odd jobs throughout his partner's US military supported medical training, required service in a base ER, and residency; fathering and parenting 2 children in the process.  The doctor took over a small metropolitan area family practice, which needed a practice manager as well so that odd job fell to the partner.  Those of you from the yellow boards on this forum will appreciate knowing what gooddogma-sit and Tarakyan have been doing since they got too busy to post here.  Yep.  True story.

What is Reality

beliefnet et al
I find it useful to distinguish between

1. Mythical reality (including religions) which is a widely recognized group of mythical characters and situations that are generally accepted as being real and useful by a culture.  It is not necessary to have read the Brothers Grimm to know about Little Red Riding hood.
2. Fictional reality which is a group of fictional characters and situations which those wishing to suspend disbelief for the duration of the fictional events, or the discussion of them are treated as real. 
3. Observable reality which are characters and situations that can be shown to be real to all rational observers.  Note that truth values are not a given in observable reality.  

Feb 9, 2015 -- 7:09AM, Blü wrote:

That Christianity's propositions accord with reality.

Ah. So when you say Christianity is 'true', you mean it accords with imaginary reality, not objective reality.

Further thanks for clearing that up.

I think a better word per Shermer would be accord with belief reality. 

The brain has objectively observable belief centers that interpret reality in ways that enhance survivability.  On the savannah interpreting certain patterns in the windblown grass as a tiger, may have survival benefits even though the reality is that they are only wind effects. 

In a society controlled by vuvuzelas mediating for a vicious, vengeful God it may be a survival benefit to believe in a vicious, vengeful God even though reality is that it is vicious, vengeful vuvuzelas that should be feared. 

Feb 9, 2015 -- 8:09PM, Blü wrote:

As for all other "realities", while the brain and its functions are part of objective reality, the contents of its concepts do not necessarily have objective counterparts ie don't refer to things with objective reality. Examples are 'unicorn', 'two', 'supernatural being', 'justice', 'Donald Duck', 'some chairs' and so on.

Rationaist BS is no different from other BS.  No matter how many times you explain that 'Donald Duck' is a real fictional character, the realities of which can be discussed by anyone familiar with Disney™ movies, tv shows, comic books, etc. a rationalist will insist that 'Donald Duck' is imaginary with no objective reality. 

As Blü himself has discussed 'Donald Duck' has three fingers and a thumb on each 'wing,' is anthropomorphic, talks English in English speaking countries but is multilingual, generally wears a blue sailor hat, a blue man's shirt, and a red bow tie.  This is factual information that exists independently of any person's mind and can in fact be verified by a search of Donald Duck images.

I might suggest that 'Donald Duck" is real for a majority of the people in the world, whereas something like a benzene ring exists only in the imagination of a few chemists SEMs are fakes, and frequently involves a snake biting its own tail even for chemists. 

'Donald Duck©' is so real that if someone imagines a similar anthropomorphic duck and tries to publish a comic book based on the character hesh would have a major legal battle on herm hands to establish that the imagined duck was sufficiently different in reality to not infringe on the Disney Copyright. 

Feb 11, 2015 -- 9:53AM, Blü wrote:

JCarlin

a rationalist will insist that 'Donald Duck' is imaginary with no objective reality.

We have descriptions and images and impersonations of Donald Duck. However, no real Donald Duck exists outside of imagination. He's a fictitious being.

No one has ever maintained that Donald Duck is a being.  Just that he is a fictitious reality.  A reality that exists and is independently verifiable by any rational person independent of anyone's imagination. 

Please note the working of the conceptual block which changes "reality" into "being."  It doesn't really change anything but provides a mental fig leaf to cover the "reality" of the fictional "being" as "being" can be interpreted as a once or presently living touchable, interacting entity.  All of which is critically important to denying God as a Mythical (religious) reality.   

On Respecting Religious Beliefs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Men and Women are Different

beliefnet

Feb 2, 2015 -- 11:28PM, A Creationist wrote:

Your male-nurse-counterpart, would recognize some other differences, though.  [Women] have body parts which complement [which have different functions from him,] and [women] were designed for reproducing offspring. [Along with most other human activities.] Your body produces eggs, monthly, and you menstruate, monthly, and his produces sperm, continually.  Your breasts were designed to suckle a baby [and women have] in a womb which he doesn't have.

The two brains differ; the types of thought processes differ; the body structures differ; the emotional reactions differ; the topics of conversation differ....

If the designs differ, why fight the roles and functions, associated with them?

[Minor edits in red].

In the ERSSG with which I identify women are generally smarter and more competent at anything they choose to do than the men.  The men are smart and competent as well, the SSG selects for intelligence and competence, but the women seem to be slightly higher on both curves than the men.   Evolution selects for smart, competent women because smart, competent women produce smart, competent children of both genders which are valuable assets in the reproduction of the species. 

It is true that the women gestate the children.  It doesn't seem to slow them down much, as their men pick up the slack.  One scientist I knew was in the lab at 10am went to a scheduled medically indicated induction for her second child at 2, and was back in the lab the next day. Something about a grant application that was inconveniently due about the due date of the child.  Dad picked up the slack at home with the first child, he took a week vacation (before paternity leaves) in anticipation of extra work at home due to the grant and anticipated birth.  He also handled the middle of the night feeding: get up when the baby cried, hang the baby on the teat of the sleeping mom, change the diaper when indicated, and tuck the baby in the crib.

Home chores are usually more equally divided with men taking the more equal half.  The men take the more equal hit on accommodating their careers to the needs of the women as well.  Only proper as they are the privileged ones.  A white male MBA changes jobs and careers like underwear anyway, doing so to stay near the woman's workplace is no problem.  The only racism in that statement is in the larger society, the non-white males have more difficulty changing jobs and careers for any reason.  

Gish Gallop

Beliefnet

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

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

Congregational Patriarchy and Inequality

beliefnet

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

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

How many couples have pre-marital meetings with clergy?

How many couples have traditional wedding services?

How many men are preparing and serving at Coffee Hour?

How many men are teaching Sunday School?

How many men are teaching Sex Ed?

Do you even have Sex Ed?

What age does Sex Ed start?

Are Sex Ed classes mixed?

Are Sex Ed classes parent discretion?

What percentage of the clergy are women?

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