Atheist support, discussion, and information sharing thread

[tapu]

I don't understand. I was responding to where Jar said that about "not playing nice."

And with some of the things I've seen in here (!)--I can't believe that what I said was a problem.

I'll try to do better at mastering the culture, but on that one I guess I'll still need to study it out.

[Medusa]

I found this interesting!

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/0...ign/?hpt=hp_t2

Does anyone know if all the firefighters that this sign pertains to were, indeed, Christians?

[JustJo]

In keeping with the OP, I found this blog post interesting....and am looking forward to reading the book that he's discussing.

Absent Belief in a Cosmic Enforcer, Are People Likely to be Kind, Fair, Caring, Contented and Good?by Don on July 4th, 2011

The answer to the title question, above, is likely to be "no" if you listen to right-wing Christian conservatives, particularly media commentators Bill O'Reilly and Laura Schlessinger. Both have expressed the opinion that individuals and societies cannot be "good" or moral without belief in an enforcer god. O' Reilly said a society that fails to live "under God" will be a society of anarchy and crime; Schlessinger that "it's impossible for people to be moral without a belief in God. The fear of God is what keeps people on the straight and narrow." (Source: Robyn E. Blumner, "Goodness without God," St. Petersburg Times, July 3, 2011.) There is quite an audience for this kind of thinking in America. None fewer than 64 percent of Americans agree with the statement, "Politicians who don't believe in God are unfit for public office." By contrast, only 8 percent of Danes and 15 percent of Swedes hold such a view. In this country, 75 percent of the population believe in hell, whereas a slim 10 percent of Danes and Swedes believe such a thing.

The O'Reilly/Schlessinger message can be summarized as follows: "Unless God scares the bejabbers out of you, you and society will go to hell - society first."

Kind of makes one wonder: Is this true? Is there evidence for what O'Reilly and Schlessinger are telling their audience?

Just in time to answer this question comes a book entitled, "Society without God: What the Least Religious Nations Can Tell Us About Contentment." Written by a sociology professor named Phil Zuckerman, "Society Without God" supports the opposite perspective. It seems the message of these arrogant Christian fundamentalists, that non-belief in a cosmic enforcer is associated with cultures less likely to be kind, fair, caring, contented and good, is false. Societies where people overwhelmingly believe in and presumably are scared to death of a god are, in fact, the ones where citizens are more likely to endure lives that are "Leviathan" in nature, that is, as Thomas Hobbes put it, "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."

In "Society Without God," Zuckerman presents evidence on both individual and societal levels that the associations between non-goodness and non-belief by the likes of O'Reilly and Schlessinger are false. In fact, quite the opposite seems true. Countries with the lowest levels of religious belief seem the most well-behaved!

"Society Without God" shows that belief in a god, not disbelief, is associated with individuals and whole societies acting badly. What sweet irony.

Zuckerman aggregated data using multiple indicators and also conducted interviews in Denmark and Sweden. Both countries are as irreligious as the U.S. and Iran, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are religious. Rather than being a social menace, the absence of fear of being smited by a sky god is not correlated in any way with bad behavior. If a person has no fear of a Santa-like god who knows who's been naughty and who's been nice, he/she is no more likely to plunder and pillage with cruel abandon than one professes to fear a god.

Zuckerman found that by almost any measure the least religious societies "are among the healthiest and least corrupt." His findings are corroborated by a Quality of Life report by the Economist Magazine. This study is based on a range of wellness-related factors, such as income, health, freedom, unemployment, climate, political stability, life-satisfaction, and gender equality. When applied in a survey of 111 countries to order to identify the "best" places in the world to live, it was found that Sweden ranked fifth, Denmark ninth. Most of the top 20 "quality of life nations" are irreligious. (The U.S. was ranked 13th.)

Zuckerman writes in "Society Without God" that it is ironic that "the moral imperatives" of religions (e.g., caring for the sick, elderly poor and infirm; practicing mercy, charity and goodwill toward others; and fostering generosity, honesty and communal concern) are practiced more often in the most irreligious nations. In America, a fifth of children live in poverty, at least a quarter lack health insurance and the mentally ill are often homelessness and untreated.

In "Godless Morality," Peter Singer and Marc Hauser condemn religious intrusion into politics and scientific research: "If anyone ever tries to tell you that, for all its quirks and irrationality, religion is harmless or even beneficial for society, remember those 128 million Americans — and hundreds of millions more citizens of other nations — who might be helped by research that is being restricted by religious beliefs" (Free Inquiry, "The Harm That Religion Does," by Peter Singer, June/July 2004, p. 17). In a letter to the editor appearing in the New York Times (Nov. 8, 2004), Singer wrote: "Paul Krugman says Democrats need to make it clear they value faith. Is everyone caving in to this religious nonsense? What is faith but believing in something without any evidence? Why should Democrats value that? Formidable as the task may seem at present, the long-term need is to persuade Americans that having evidence for your beliefs is a good idea."

There is no evidence that Bill O'Reilly and Laura Schlessinger and other Christians have a special claim on goodness; there is ample reason to think just the opposite.

[CherryFemme]

Originally Posted by Medusa

I found this interesting!

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/0...ign/?hpt=hp_t2

Does anyone know if all the firefighters that this sign pertains to were, indeed, Christians?

Fascinating. I enjoyed this reading this article, especially the quote from Kenneth Bronstein.
"We’re supposed to be a secular nation - there really should not be any religious symbolism or signage in public places,”
Said Kenneth Bronstein, President of New York City Atheists.

I'll answer Medusa's inquiry with another, Are we a secular nation? I mean, really? Come on now-- In God We Trust is on our money, we have watched Presidents of the USA pray or reference their past prayers publically on the TV, etc. etc... Personally speaking, I think of the US as a Theocracy, and not as a “secular nation”. Oh don't get me wrong-- I am sure John Calvin would not be pleased at how secular we really are in 2011, but~~ There is a but.

I can find atheism and secularism in threads of our nation, but I find that the tapestry is mainly one where God is present—even if god is spelled with a small g.

On a more personal note, I'm siding with Max Planck

Pascal’s gambit, anyone?
~CF

[tapu]

Yes, it's quite non-secular at present. But that's the problem, not the excuse. Separation of church and state, established as an ideal, is not upheld. No argument there.

[Dominique]

Originally Posted by tapu

Yes, it's quite non-secular at present. But that's the problem, not the excuse. Separation of church and state, established as an ideal, is not upheld. No argument there.

Selectively, it is.

[tapu]

Originally Posted by Yellow band

Selectively, it is.

Of course it is. I'm responding to Cherryfemme's pointed examples of ways it is not.

[tapu]

Pascal's wager is often used tongue-in-cheek and that feels apt to me. The idea of making like God exists because I'd be more likely to go to heaven if indeed God (and heaven) exists is not a viable way of living for me. Pascal based his theoretical proposition on mathematical probability--and not on the probability of God's existence, but on the probabilities that apply if we posit God's existence.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by CherryFemme

Fascinating. I enjoyed this reading this article, especially the quote from Kenneth Bronstein.
"We’re supposed to be a secular nation - there really should not be any religious symbolism or signage in public places,”
Said Kenneth Bronstein, President of New York City Atheists.

I'll answer Medusa's inquiry with another, Are we a secular nation? I mean, really? Come on now-- In God We Trust is on our money, we have watched Presidents of the USA pray or reference their past prayers publically on the TV, etc. etc... Personally speaking, I think of the US as a Theocracy, and not as a “secular nation”. Oh don't get me wrong-- I am sure John Calvin would not be pleased at how secular we really are in 2011, but~~ There is a but.

I can find atheism and secularism in threads of our nation, but I find that the tapestry is mainly one where God is present—even if god is spelled with a small g.

On a more personal note, I'm siding with Max Planck

Pascal’s gambit, anyone?
~CF

A couple of points here:

"In God We Trust" did not begin appearing on US coins until 1864 and did not appear on paper currency until 1957. That means that the republic managed to get along quite well for the first 70 years of its existence without any mention of a divine being on the currency and managed through most of its first 200 years without it being the official motto of the USA until that was adopted in 1956.

What's more if we look at the Constitution and how the federal courts have handled the issue of the First Amendment *after* the 14th Amendment was passed (which, more or less, made the Bill of Rights apply to the states) I think we detect a decidedly *anti-theocratic* strain. Along with First Amendment there is Article VI of the Constitution which states:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Now, it's instructive to note here that it's no religious test. Not 'no denominational test'. Since the Founders were well aware of Jews, Muslims and Hindus we can, at least provisionally, presume that had they meant to limit that protection to Christians they would have said so. Many in the United States may wish that we *were* a theocracy or treat the nation 'as if' it were a theocracy but, at least at present, our laws protect us from being as theocratic as it appears a lot of Americans would like us to be.

Cheers
Aj

[nycfem]

Why Atheists need to come out:

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast....=Yahoo%21+Mail

[imperfect_cupcake]

I think this is very key:

But it isn’t enough that religious people know atheists-the quality of the relationships that exist between atheists and the religious makes a significant difference in undoing anti-atheist attitudes.

there has to be some kind of mutual respect and not baiting people on both sides. That means I have to do my bit in not calling people stupid, silly, illogical or deluded or say things to them like "my moral compass is better than yours because it's based on rational thought"

I know people get battered by people in religions, but there's no need to bring out the guns before they open their mouths, imo, if atheism wants to be understood and respected. If I act like a dick and I am the only one they know, guess what people are going to think?

I'm not saying I'm a martyr, I do let my opinions be known if someone is giving me shit - and real shit, not just slightly ignorant (read: not knowing, not ignorant as in asshole) but maybe not going in with "BLAH BLAH BLAH" gun blazing or making flippant comments might be an idea. I personally find it pretty damn helpful.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by honeybarbara

I think this is very key:



there has to be some kind of mutual respect and not baiting people on both sides. That means I have to do my bit in not calling people stupid, silly, illogical or deluded or say things to them like "my moral compass is better than yours because it's based on rational thought"

I know people get battered by people in religions, but there's no need to bring out the guns before they open their mouths, imo, if atheism wants to be understood and respected. If I act like a dick and I am the only one they know, guess what people are going to think?

I'm not saying I'm a martyr, I do let my opinions be known if someone is giving me shit - and real shit, not just slightly ignorant (read: not knowing, not ignorant as in asshole) but maybe not going in with "BLAH BLAH BLAH" gun blazing or making flippant comments might be an idea. I personally find it pretty damn helpful.

This is one of the hardest bits about being a minority (of pretty much any stripe) is that we *must* hold ourselves to a higher standard. I understand that this kind of sentiment doesn't have much cache these days when the last thing anyone wants to hear is that they have to go above and beyond but there it is. This is a problem well-known to the various ethnic, religious or racial minorities living in the West. Whether I like it or not (and I don't), I have to uphold a standard that my wife, my colleagues at work, or the vast majority of the people reading these words don't. Why? Because I'm a black woman and therefore, if *I* lose my temper it means something different than if my buddy at work, whom we call The Ogre, loses his. I'm the "angry black woman" and he's, well, The Ogre. Ogre can keep his job while losing his cool but if I lose mine, my days are numbered.

Something similar applies with atheists. As tempting as it might be to call names, we can't. It is simply not an option. The reason is straightforward. If I say "only a flipping idiot could believe in creationism" I've not just spoken for myself but in the eyes of nontrivial numbers of your fellow citizens (whatever Western nation you live in) I have spoken for *every* atheist that has *ever* lived or will ever live. From that moment on, ALL atheists think that people who are creationists are idiots. Now, does that street go both ways? No. If every third Christian said that atheists are low-down dirty dogs who should be shot on sight, that is simply those individuals expressing their opinions and the rest of us have to treat each incident as isolated. Even if you had a thousand Christians in a room and one out of three felt that atheists should be exterminated, we would *still* be required to treat all 333 of them as isolated from one another. If they then sallied forth and actually took their ideas to the streets and started killing atheists willy-nilly it would not be 333 people in a 'gang' (or, dare I say, terrorist group?) but 333 individual bad apples*.

No, it's not right and no, it's not fair but that does not change the facts on the ground one bit.

What's more, I maintain (and here I may be wrong) that if you think you're right, you can afford to be magnanimous. I have no reason to say that someone who is a creationist is deluded or illogical because I am just this side of certain that creationism is wrong. Not just mildly off or has a digit on the wrong side of the decimal point but is really, truly, catastrophically wrong. Now, I'm going to point out where creationism fails to deal with relevant questions in biology but I don't need to insult someone by calling them stupid to do so. The facts are on the side of evolution, the data is on the side of evolution and all of the experimental and observational evidence is on the side of evolution. Now, I *will* point out that the only way someone can maintain that nature shows 'perfect design' is to ignore very large swaths of how animals bodies are built and how they function--but that's not calling someone stupid, it is simply pointing out that anyone who thinks that building an eye with the light sensitive cells pointing *away* from the source of light (as the primate eye is built) is ignoring something very important. Evolution has an answer for why that is the case but creationism has *no* answer for it (and by the way, just as an aside, it doesn't have to be that way. The cephalopods (squids, etc.) have their eyes built the right-way-round so it's not like it's *impossible* it's just not something that happened on the evolutionary branch that led to us and it did happen on the branch that led to squids. Yet, none of that is calling someone stupid it is simply marshaling the facts.

We can make the case for ethics and morality without saying that our morality is 'better'. In the post I did last week about morality, I was not saying that my morality is better because I'm an atheist (something I don't believe) but that there's no reason to believe that religion proceeds morality. In fact, I would argue that it is the moral horse that pulls the religious cart, as opposed to what many sectarians state they believe that the religious cart pulls the moral horse.

Cheers
Aj

*Bad apples are *always* white. If it were, say, 333 Native American Christians then that's ALL Native Americans (not just Native American Christians). If it were every other white Christian in America that would still be a large number of isolated, 'one bad apples'.

[dreadgeek]

So since morality has come up a couple of times now, I thought I would try to stimulate some conversation about how human beings are moral.

It's a shibboleth that without God or, more generically, some 'spiritual' belief there is no reason to be moral. I have, on numerous occasions, had people express that if not for their belief in God they would probably run amok stealing and making mayhem. These folks say more about themselves and their own view of morality than they do about human nature.

I believe that human beings are *naturally* moral and that our moral sense is not imposed from the top down but grows from the bottom up. What follows is a plausible evolutionary account of morality. I would love to say that I was clever enough to come up with these ideas myself but I'm not so clever. This is based off work of others but the expression of those ideas are mine.

Human beings are social primates. If we look at the other social primates, we see some common themes all of which look like a proto-moral sense. For example, reciprocal grooming is a common feature of gorillas, chimps and bonobos. It is a way of bonding, smoothing over insults, and serves as a form of social cohesion. Given our close proximity to those other great apes it is safe to presume that before we lost our body hair it's likely that the other hominid species that proceeded us also groomed for much the same reasons. Now, this does create a dilemma. If I can get away with it, what I would like is for you to groom me but me not have to groom you in return. The time I take grooming you is time I can't be, for instance, foraging. You, however, have a vested interest in not being exploited by me. Nature's solution was to give social animals a means for telling one another apart and a faculty for detecting cheats. Just that and you have the beginnings of anger--one of our moral emotions.

Think about the moral senses we have. We feel pride when we do something good, we feel even *better* when others acknowledge the good thing we've done. We all feel that. We feel shame or guilt when we do something hurtful. We feel worse when others acknowledge that. We strive to make amends. The person we wronged feels anger or indignation at our behavior and then, hopefully, forgives us. No one has to teach a young child to be angry at being treated unfairly. What is considered worthy of praise or of blame is culturally conditioned but the *capacity* to learn what your particular society thinks is praiseworthy or blameworthy is built-in. No human culture does not have rules of behavior and consequences for breaking those rules and rewards for exemplifying the qualities that society feels should be promoted.

All societies have pretty the same kinds of problems, people have non-identical interests. In such a world cheating or using violence is tempting. But that kind of behavior will quickly tear a society apart. So nature has equipped us with rules that work well enough most of the time. We are moral not because of religion but despite religion. Religion doesn't provide us with morals, our morals are reinforced by religion but even if we didn't have religions we would still have morals. Keep in mind that our moral system evolved in an environment where we lived in very small (~150 people) groups and might have contact with twice that number. We now live in gigantic conglomerations called cities but even with that, we are still a rather moral species. Is everyone always moral? No, we shouldn't expect that to be the case. Cheating is *always* an option but just as a group of all cheaters can't get anything done, a group of entirely honest people will be easily exploited by a cheater. In devising models for how our morality could evolve, biologists have borrowed liberally from game theory. Within that framework cheating all the time is unstable, being a sucker all the time is unstable but tit-for-tat is stable. In other words, I cooperate with those who cooperate with me but I don't cooperate with those who don't cooperate with me. Is it perfect? No, but it is *stable*.

We may have brains that evolved to be open to religion memes but that does not mean that we need those memes in order to be religious. As I said earlier, we're moral first and then we use religion as a post hoc justification for our morality. We don't have religion first and then morality later.

Cheers
Aj

[iamkeri1]

Disclosure: At this point in my life, I am a deist for lack of a better explanation for the existence of "things" I spent many years as an atheist and I am very comfortable with atheists and agnostics.

My personal belief is that atheists have more of an incentive for morality than people who believe in a religion in which a god can forgive them for their misdeeds. Atheists must live with the consequences of their behavior. They can only hope to be forgiven by the person they harm, and/or by themselves. Their morality is inate. It comes from within. They do not need a god to threaten them with damnation or promise them heaven. Also they must be careful with the lives of others because they believe that this is all there is. If their actions result in the ending of the life of another being, they have to face the fact that they have robbed that being of all life. There will be no "better place" for those they harm or kill to move on to in any kind of after life.

They are, I believe more motivated to help others succeed in this life; to cure diseases and repair birth defects because THIS is all that person will have, and they should be helped to have the best life possible.

Up with Atheism ... the true morality of this world.

Smooches,
Keri

[tapu]

When I do good, I feel good. When I do bad, I feel bad. That's my religion. ~Abraham Lincoln

[betenoire]

Atheist Wins Right to Wear Religious Pasta Strainer In His ID Photo

[atomiczombie]

Originally Posted by betenoire

Atheist Wins Right to Wear Religious Pasta Strainer In His ID Photo

Haha!! I love this!! *thumbs up*

[tapu]

“We see that the apparent contradictions and perplexities in every religion mark but different stages of growth. The end of all religions is the realizing of God in the soul. That is the one universal religion.”


~Swami Vivekananda (Indian Spiritual leader of the Hindu religion Vedanta)


I wonder how someone who considers themselves religious in the traditional sense would feel about this; and, how do we atheists view this as applying or not applying to our belief system?