[gwnn]

You are drawing a very common and transparent false equivalence here. In contrast to most religious believers, atheists do not have a centralised notion of blind faith as a virtue. In contrast to most religious believers, atheists do not believe that there is a real possibility that changing their mind result in eternal suffering. Similarly, they do not believe that people who disagree with them are subject to (indeed, worth!) eternal damnation and converting them is the only way out. Of course, there is a certain pride involved on both sides since you are going to look weak whenever you change your mind on any topic that is remotely important, so there will always be people who proudly announce that they are a "committed ...", but do you see why it is much less common for atheists than theists?

[32519]

32519, on 2014-March-05, 02:59, said:

Major report reveals extensive abuse of women in EU

What do you think is the underlying reason for this? These are supposed to be intelligent, sophisticated, modern free thinking Europeans who have progressed via evolution to the top of the food chain? This is the region where the LHC was built to take us to the "next level of science." We are talking here about (mostly) highly educated Europeans, not the uneducated from Africa.

So what's going on here?

mike777, on 2014-March-06, 02:41, said:

Likewise all those who only accept a rational world with no gods, no spiritual world a world where avoiding pain and maximizing pleasure becomes the only valid measure of right and wrong.I would argue that it is the irreconcilable difference between these ideals that creates tension and renewal in our world.

That is a good thing.

A good thing? What gives anyone the right to "maximize pleasure" at the pain and suffering of the women in these numbers?

[Vampyr]

32519, on 2014-March-06, 04:05, said:

A good thing? What gives anyone the right to "maximize pleasure" at the pain and suffering of the women in these numbers?

No, the point is to avoid pain for those around you. Do unto others, etc.

[billw55]

Vampyr, on 2014-March-05, 21:20, said:

You misunderstand. I did not mean to imply that Christianity is the only religion that institutionalises the subjugation of women. All major modern religions do it. Probably not Buddhism, but Buddhism lags way behind the Big Four in number of adherents.

I thought Buddhism was the fourth of the big four. Certainly it has far more followers than Judaism, if you were including that.

Or are you counting Catholics and Protestants separately? I generally lump them together as Christians.

[mikeh]

Scarabin, on 2014-March-06, 03:53, said:

Otoh I seem to recall your believing Adolf Hitler was a good Christian, so perhaps your suspicion of Clinton lacks conviction?

Reading the rest of your post I concluded the great truth you accuse me of failing to get is your belief that atheists can never be fanatics while all believers are potential fanatics.

While such a view may be theoretically possible it does not seem to be related to reality. May I suggest you re-read some of the BBF religious topics?

I wonder why I bother..you either do not have a good memory or you like to lie in an effort to 'prove' a point. I did post and will repeat that there is solid evidence that Hitler professed Christian beliefs. Did I ever refer to him as a 'good' Christian? I don't believe I did. Nor do I think that his beliefs would have accorded with what I suspect you see as 'real' Christianity. may I suggest you look up the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy?

As for the rest of your post, I suppose it depends on how you define fanaticism. Can atheists be outspoken? Yes. Can atheists express contempt and disdain for those who don't see how correct atheism is? Yes

Do atheists blow themselves and others up in the name of non-belief? Not to my knowledge. Do atheists threaten to kill those who draw cartoons depicting atheists or their favoured images? No. Do atheists urge the killing or shunning of people who deci to adopt a religion, having been an atheist? No.


I am outspoken and I suspect you think of me as a fanatic. Does that mean you think I am the moral equivalent of the Taliban? Or of those fundie Xians who kill abortion providers? really?

Shame on you for your insufferable smugness if so. Shame on you for your false equivalencies and lies if not.

[Trinidad]

Vampyr, on 2014-March-06, 03:39, said:

Isn't this the "Golden Rule" that is the basis of many religions? So there's no big difference, is there.

I wouldn't say the Golden Rule is the basis for any religion. Many religions have adopted it, but so have non religious moral systems. The Golden Rule is something for humans (is it?!?) and has nothing to do with religion. Or do you have any experience that suggests that non-believers do unto others what they don't want to be done to them, at least at higher rates than religious people?

There is no positive correlation between "Golden-Rulism" and religion. In fact, I believe (i.e. I have no data to back it up, but I can reason in a way that might make some sense) there may well be a negative correlation due to all the dogma involved in religion that is sitting in the way. Look at what is currently happening in the Roman-Catholic church: Pope Frances is putting more emphasis on "Golden-Rulism" than his predecessors. I (as non-religious) like that. It seems that for his predecessors "Golden-Rulism" wasn't as important. Dogmatism was. Perhaps someone should have told them "Do not unto homosexuals (or women) what you don't want them to do to you". Oops, I forgot, lots of people did tell them, but they didn't listen, they didn't care.

Non-religious people have fewer dogmas. (I won't say they don't have any, but it is a fraction of what religious people have.) They can focus on what is important in this life - e.g. the Golden Rule - instead of on what might be important for a next life.

For me, the Golden Rule is a consequence of elementary human behavior, as described in behavior theory: If you are nice to other people, they will be nice to you. You like that, so be nice to other people. If you are nasty to other people, they will be nasty to you. Ouch, you don't like that, so don't be nasty to others. The only thing that the Golden Rule adds, is that -if you don't know what "others" think is nice- you can use yourself as a decent "model" for "others".
You can teach the Golden Rule to Skinner's rat. Oh, wait, I think it already knows it.

Rik

[Vampyr]

Trinidad, on 2014-March-06, 11:22, said:

There is no positive correlation between "Golden-Rulism" and religion.

That was my point. Mike 777 was saying that religious people engage in magical thinking while atheists follow the "Golden Rule" and seemed to imply that the latter was less significant. Please read more carefully.

It's true that religions are not formally based on the GR, but many seem to promote it as the most important thing.

[Vampyr]

billw55, on 2014-March-06, 07:22, said:

I thought Buddhism was the fourth of the big four. Certainly it has far more followers than Judaism, if you were including that.

Or are you counting Catholics and Protestants separately? I generally lump them together as Christians.

Judaism is pretty big in terms of cultural influence and sectarian violence; that is why I included it. Because of the preceding, I had also thought that Buddhism had fewer followers. I see now that this was very wrong. It is arguable, of course, whether Buddhism is a 'religion'; I suppose it depends how you define religion.

[Scarabin]

mikeh, on 2014-March-06, 09:25, said:

I wonder why I bother..you either do not have a good memory or you like to lie in an effort to 'prove' a point. I did post and will repeat that there is solid evidence that Hitler professed Christian beliefs. Did I ever refer to him as a 'good' Christian? I don't believe I did. Nor do I think that his beliefs would have accorded with what I suspect you see as 'real' Christianity. may I suggest you look up the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy?

As for the rest of your post, I suppose it depends on how you define fanaticism. Can atheists be outspoken? Yes. Can atheists express contempt and disdain for those who don't see how correct atheism is? Yes

Do atheists blow themselves and others up in the name of non-belief? Not to my knowledge. Do atheists threaten to kill those who draw cartoons depicting atheists or their favoured images? No. Do atheists urge the killing or shunning of people who deci to adopt a religion, having been an atheist? No.


I am outspoken and I suspect you think of me as a fanatic. Does that mean you think I am the moral equivalent of the Taliban? Or of those fundie Xians who kill abortion providers? really?

Shame on you for your insufferable smugness if so. Shame on you for your false equivalencies and lies if not.

This post seems to be based on twin fallacies: (1) all terrorists are fanatics, and (2) all fanatics are terrorists.

Still, as you say, why do we bother? I persevered because I judge you intelligent and I hope, vainly no doubt, to have a debate without tricks, intellectual dishonesty, or abuse.

I am probably naive and if you wish I will enter into an agreement that in the water cooler we will not answer each others posts or even refer to each other.

[mike777]

32519, on 2014-March-06, 04:05, said:

A good thing? What gives anyone the right to "maximize pleasure" at the pain and suffering of the women in these numbers?

Right?

I did not use this word...this is your word...
God I hope I did not say " a good thing"

Well better you describe what is a right and where it comes from...

I mean the upper class Greeks clearly thought is was right to have sex with very young boys to maximize pleasure. Clearly the Greeks used women to maximize pleasure if the young boys were busy.

In my life time it was right to kill someone robbing your house...yes just robbing....

Clearly women had something close to zero rights in the time of Plato or the Romans.

hitler thought it was right and divine to treat slavs and jews and travelers as something less than human so do anything as you would a cockroach.

To be fair so did Japan in china..to my step grandmother in the Phil. islands and many other places.

[mike777]

Vampyr, on 2014-March-06, 03:39, said:

Isn't this the "Golden Rule" that is the basis of many religions? So there's no big difference, is there.

NO

This is not the "golden rule"

I don't mean it as any kind of rule rather than a logical outcome of a philosophy carried with little to no disagrement.

--------------

If you or other posters have a rational philosophy/ethics without the spiritual that you can:

1) define
2) measure and compare

I look forward to reading it.
--------------

As for the golden rule many forget:
self destruction
suicide

[32519]

Arab countries ban Hollywood blockbuster, Noah.

[hrothgar]

32519, on 2014-March-09, 06:46, said:

Arab countries ban Hollywood blockbuster, Noah.

not overly surprising...

Many branches of Islam forbid pictoral representations of prophets and Noah is considered one of the great prophets.
Releasing this movie within a number of countries could very easily lead to riots.

I can see how authorities wouldn't consider this to be a prudent move.

[32519]

American atheists currently has 2,200 members, not a hellava lot considering it was founded in 1963. How may of you guys belong to this organisation?

[gwnn]

Maybe they should also introduce baptism of unwilling infants to soop up their membership numbers. Shame on them for having only members who have thought about it before defining their position. I won't even mention the fact that atheism is a single position on a single question, not the acceptance of countless points of dogma. Oops, I guess I did (so now it's here for the tenth time in this thread).

[Trinidad]

I am a member of a bridge club, because I like bridge.
I am a member of the home owner's union, because I own a home.

...

I am a member of several organizations, for a positive reason.

I eat meat. I am not a vegetarian. Nevertheless, I am NOT a member of "The organization of people who are NOT vegetarians".
I do not own an airplane. Despite this remarkable fact, I am NOT a member of "The organization of people who are NOT air plane owners".
I do not play the accordeon. I know it is hard to believe, but I am NOT a member of "The organization of people who don't play the accordeon".

If you see a pattern emerging, you see that it is not at all strange that "The organization of people who don't believe in a god" has very few members.

Or are you, 32519, a member of "The organization of people who don't have origami as a hobby"?

Rik

[ArtK78]

Trinidad, on 2014-March-10, 08:38, said:

I do not play the accordeon. I know it is hard to believe, but I am NOT a member of "The organization of people who don't play the accordeon".Rik

Just to add a little levity to this thread (and it certainly needs some), this comment brought to mind something that I experienced about 15 years ago.

I was attending "International Night" at my daughter's elementary school. One of the presentations was an all-accordion orchestra. I thought I had died and gone to hell.

[helene_t]

ArtK78, on 2014-March-10, 08:54, said:

I thought I had died and gone to hell.

You should be careful with such testimonies when using an account that can be identified. A friend of mine who is a psychiatrist once told that she met a colleague at a conference who told her about a patient who believed he was dead. This is a well-known syndrome but the special thing about this patient was that he thought he had arrived in hell. My friend joked (maybe not in so good taste, but w/e) that it was maybe understandable given that the colleague was working in South Africa during apartheid.

[mikeh]

helene_t, on 2014-March-10, 09:04, said:

You should be careful with such testimonies when using an account that can be identified. A friend of mine who is a psychiatrist once told that she met a colleague at a conference who told her about a patient who believed he was dead. This is a well-known syndrome but the special thing about this patient was that he thought he had arrived in hell. My friend joked (maybe not in so good taste, but w/e) that it was maybe understandable given that the colleague was working in South Africa during apartheid.

By coincidence I was listening to the radio yesterday and a guest was a neuropsychologist from the UK, who was talking about a book he had written. One of his chapters dealt with an ordinary, middle-class, educated woman who told him that she was pretty sure that she was dead. She wasn't positive, but she could sense that many of the objects around here weren't real and that she was, as I say, reasonably convinced that she wasn't either...that she was dead. I don't recall the name of the condition but it is a recognized, tho rare, syndrome. My understanding of a syndrome is that it is a term used to describe a set of symptoms for which there is no real understanding of the underlying cause...no disease process has been identified. The speaker's idea was that our brains do two different things. One is to mediate and interpret the signals from our sensory apparatus....to perceive and process the external world. This is 'feeling'. The other is internal...to 'think'. This is 'thought'. The two aspects usually work harmoniously but his idea was the these people who feel themselves to be dead are suffering in some way from a disconnect between the two roles.

I find this sort of thing fascinating. FWIW, I also think that the more one reads about how our minds/brains actually work (to the currently limited state of knowledge) the less convincing religious and 'spiritual' ideas become. It isn't the normal mind that gives us insight...it is the abnormal. Reading about what weird things happen makes one realize how precarious and fragile we are as sort of conscious entities.

[helene_t]

Trinidad, on 2014-March-10, 08:38, said:

I eat meat. I am not a vegetarian. Nevertheless, I am NOT a member of "The organization of people who are NOT vegetarians".

Well there are organisations for people who do not wear clothes when swimming or camping. And for people who do not eat meat.

I can imagine that in certain countries, not believing in a god causes some social issues and it can be a good thing having peers to discuss them with. Maybe an organisation for non-car-owners would not be totally ridiculous in a place like Atlanta.

Where I grew up, the idea of an atheist society would be equally ridicolous as a non-accordeon-player society. But there have been times in my life where I would consider joining a non-alcohol-drinker or non-Freud-and-Marx-worshipper or non-union-member society if a such had existed.

Maybe simpler: Atheists are not usually a group but can grow a (limited) group identity as a reaction against social pressure. A little bit similar to (although generally a lot less dramatic than) the phenomena of the Palestinian and Bosnian nationalities - both emerged in response to external threads.