Why do atheists exist?

Apparently, one of the side effects of the Affordable Health Care Act could be a rise in atheism:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/12/why-do-atheists-exist

another reason for fox news to demonize the aca!

from the article: "What this line of thinking suggests is that passing a major US policy change like Obamacare could, in the long run, produce more atheism by making people's lives more secure. When life is good, stable, and unthreatening, it seems that you don't need religion so much to give you hope for a better future in the afterlife. You already have that hope—for this life."

Too frequently, Fox News and The Onion are indistinguishable.

> 1

Or, as nat would complain, atheists think religionists are stupid.

Well, I think if one compared the average I.Q. and educational level of the one-half billion of the world's non-religious with the same of the six and a half billion of the religious ........ well, let's just say I'm fairly sure there would be a positive correlation between atheism and higher I.Q. and educational level.

So, yeah, in general terms, if you are religious you would be more likely to be stupid than if you were an atheist - not necessarily, just more likely. Like a probability thing.

The correlation is not causation argument can begin here, I suppose.

I think a more interesting subject is WHY the eff did religion originate in the first place, how it did, and why it persists and seems like it will always be around, like red ants or herpes, no matter what the eff else happens in the world.

So, in an attempt to explain this detestable but quite real and persistent social reality, at the same website we have this:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/11/seven-evolutionary-reasons-people-de...

It sort of boils down to (most) people being religious for about the same reason that dogs are scared of thunder and lightning.

To state the obvious, this does not say anything about existence of God. In fact, it appears to make atheist shallower than they are. "If I am happy, there must not be a god."

Most atheists I know are smarter than that.

Atheist: One who denies the existence of God.
or one who do not believe that there is God.

There must be "God" out there to believe it or not.

That "God" surely do exists that one have to make a choice " to believe it" or "not to believe it".

Meh. That reeks of Descartes. Or Anselm. Logically in one sense, but not convincing.

Personally I think it is best to meet the guy.

Atheists exist for the same reason that religious people exist. People look at the reality in which we live and come to different conclusions to explain it.

>6 razzamajazz: The ontological argument:

Which is more powerful

A god who exists and who created the universe and listens to your prayers and forgives your sins,

or

a god who created the universe and listens to your prayers and forgives your sins, and can do it without existing?

Clearly the second. Therefore god does not exist.

The correlation between atheism and security (economic and physical) seems solid. But the "why" involves different narratives.

It might be because, if your life is secure and happy, you don't need an afterlife to throw your hopes on. Prosperity has made the consolations of religion obsolete.

Or it might be that economic security distracts us from important things, lulling us into consumerism and idle pleasure. The societies which give us more atheists also gives us TV-watching as a virtual second job (thirty four hours per week in the US!), a culture obsessed with acquiring junk and following celebrities, and the US spending more on its pets than the entire GDP of all but 68 countries. The consolations of your X-box and the latest reality-TV star's sex tape have made the meagre satisfaction of gathering with real people to sing and pray about the deepest yearnings of the heart obsolete.

Put another way, to the secular American, the people in Congo are wasting their lives at church. To the people there, we're wasting our lives on the TV, on our phones and at the mall.

Who can say who's right. And who can say which narrative is right.

#5: In fact, it appears to make atheist shallower than they are. "If I am happy, there must not be a god." Most atheists I know are smarter than that.

Studies have shown that people's decisions are not as rational as they make them out to be. It shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that one's religion has a lot more going on then just what they articulate.

#10: Put another way, to the secular American, the people in Congo are wasting their lives at church. To the people there, we're wasting our lives on the TV, on our phones and at the mall.

Who can say who's right. And who can say which narrative is right.

Looking at their neighbors, the Democratic Republic of Congo which has produced an alleged 900,000 Christian martyrs in the Second Congo War between groups of Christians*... I'm going to go with the people watching TV. Maybe Calvin and Hobbes is right, and TV is the real opiate of the masses, but if it takes that opiate to stop people from killing each other, let's go to it. (Given that this war killed more then any war since WWII, no, the wars of the TV watchers aren't really comparable.)

* http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24864587

>12 prosfilaes: Actually I don't really think that article says what you imply.

But Tim may only have been using Congo as a name that springs to mind readily. Try Botswana, Tanzania, Zambia, Malawi, South Africa, Kenya...

>10 timspalding: It might be because, if your life is secure and happy, you don't need an afterlife to throw your hopes on. Prosperity has made the consolations of religion obsolete.

Or it might be that economic security distracts us from important things, lulling us into consumerism and idle pleasure

I'm always wary of articles like the one I cited, if only because I think people -- including me -- tend to spend time trying to fit themselves to its conclusions or deny them, rather than taking such things as observational evidence among a sea of other evidence, all in want of a comprehensive theory. I read the article and thought yes, I am more analytic than intuitive and yes, anthropomorphizing the world around me--which I take is an aspect of what the article calls "mentalizing" -- is a very alien and uncomfortable idea that I tend to resist. And yes, a sense of existential security is something I would say I possess...although I took the term in a non-materialistic way: I feel better living with the idea that there is no god or ultimate meaning to existence because the alternative---that all the suffering is intentional -- is too horrific to be borne. At least if it is all down to me and what I think, I can live what I deem to be a good life secure in the knowledge that I alone am responsible for whatever good or evil I cause, whereas others are responsible for the good or evil they cause. (I'm told that I have control issues :))

But all these things have built up in my mind over a lifetime --a life filled with a myriad of ups and downs and doubts and certainties, loves and losses and as thus, I think I would describe atheism as a conclusion rather than an effect.

In any case, I'm doubtful of the idea that the emotional drive towards atheism is a kind of hubris that settles on us when we feel secure (economically or otherwise). If that were the case, the development of secular ethics would be stunted, and I don't think you can claim that. Moreover, it implies that the tendency to religiosity is borne of the opposite motivation, a feeling of profound insecurity, which implies a fear-based existence. And I'm willing to bet that most believers do not think of their faith in this way.

>14 southernbooklady: the alternative---that all the suffering is intentional

This is not the only nor the necessary alternative.

I can live what I deem to be a good life secure in the knowledge that I alone am responsible for whatever good or evil I cause, whereas others are responsible for the good or evil they cause.

I can do the same.

>15 John5918: This is not the only nor the necessary alternative.

Indeed. From what I can tell, most religion is founded in attempts to find other alternatives.

> 14

"...I think I would describe atheism as a conclusion rather than an effect..."

And you would be correct, madam.

"...I feel better living with the idea that there is no god or ultimate meaning to existence because the alternative---that all the suffering is intentional -- is too horrific to be borne..."

And this would be part of the rational process leading one to atheism - as there is no evidence WHATSOEVER of intent beyond the (naturally) evolved kind. We only have the religionists' SAY SO - based on alleged "revelation" - or their feelings/fears/hopes/voices in their heads. Uh, that is not evidence.

And the utter insanity of the concept of hell is another part of the rational process leading to atheism, many times. - Even the "moderate" religionists belong to religious traditions wherein the majority of their co-religionists believe quite (sin)cerely in hell - eternal punishment for the individual person (immortal soul) - Stupid. Sick. Absurd. Disgusting.

Ditto the extreme sexism - of nearly all religion.

And the attempts to justify (an assumed existing) god as NOT necessarily being uncaring or a sadist.

And the utter incoherence and rational disconnect of the concept of mind(spirit) - body (material) dualism.

And the thousands of religions with their contradictory ideas of a god.

And the knowledge nowadays of religious evolution as being part of (natural) human cultural evolution.

And the established (verified beyond a reasonable doubt) scientific theories (understandings) of the nature of reality produced over the millennia through scientific discovery, especially the last few hundred years, that make ALL supernatural concepts superfluous to ontological understandings.

And....

Well, this is not an exhaustive list by any means. This is just off the top of my head before I've even had my second cup of tea.

> 15

>14 southernbooklady: "...the alternative---that all the suffering is intentional..."

jtf - 'This is not the only nor the necessary alternative.'

By all means please to elucidate and expatiate. Please.

I was most struck by the first factor listed in the article -- what they call "mentalizing":

"This is the idea that we have a basic social cognitive capacity to infer and read the minds of other people," explains Norenzayan. On a social level, mentalizing helps you connect with and relate to others; the surprise is that it also predisposes one to religiosity. Religious believers the world over seem to relate personally to a God whose mind they feel they can understand, almost as if that God is a friend or neighbor.

As for atheists? Norenzayan's research suggests they tend toward less mentalizing, which makes religious beliefs less intuitive to them.

I find interesting that nobody has raised the crucial implication of this: that atheists are less empathetic.

(For what it's worth: I've found that atheists run the same gamut from less to more empathetic as do religious believers. That is, I know very empathetic atheists and very non-empathetic atheists; I know very empathetic religious believers and I know very non-empathetic religious believers.)

I find interesting that nobody has raised the crucial implication of this: that atheists are less empathetic.

Yeah, and nobody has pointed out that the exact obverse of that coin is
I find interesting that nobody has raised the crucial implication of this: that believers are less 'intellectual'.

As Nathaniel says at #19, people run a gamut. The problems arise when we insist on imposing our own values on the various human attributes.

Are "mentalization" and "empathy" synonymous?

In this article, it seems so. To quote from above mentalizing is: a basic social cognitive capacity to infer and read the minds of other people," explains Norenzayan. On a social level, mentalizing helps you connect with and relate to others;

The author is not discussing it as if it were a bad thing. In fact he says it helps to connect and relate to others. If that is not empathy, it is pretty darn close.

Oh, bull. Psychopaths and con men of any variety are good at "inferring and reading minds" too.

A quick search on Google suggests that "mentalizing" is a cognitive process, whereas empathy is an instinctual one. There's overlap, but the two seem to have different clinical definitions--to whit, the wiki definition of "mentalization" does not even mention the term "empathy."

Presumably, a psychologist mentalizes their patient more than he or she tries to empathize with them.

#19

Don't confuse empathy and mentalizing. Mentalizing can just as easily be projection.

And "empathy" itself is a pretty hotly contested topic in most forms of neuroscience at the moment.

This, from the OP's article, caught my attention:

"In addition to mentalizing, a number of other basic cognitive traits have also been shown to promote religiosity. One very important one is having an intuitive style of thinking, as opposed to an analytic, contemplative style that favors in-depth, effortful thought. Thus, one much-discussed paper by Norenzayan and a colleague in the journal Science last year found that people who were more naturally disposed to challenge their basic intuitions—many of which favor religion—were more likely to be atheists."

It is not advisable to make generalizations about billions of people based on a few case studies. This is especially true with regard to psychological research because social psychological "experiments" face two significant internal problems of validity: small sample size (e.g., the study purporting to show a negative correlation between "religiosity" and "analytical thinking" involved "179 Canadian undergraduates"*) and external validity (i.e., experimental conditions are not replicable outside the controlled experimental situation).

Moreover, an external problem of validity arises because the "social conditions" of behavior are not replicated in "social psychological" experimental circumstances. In other words, because experiments extract individuals from a group context, they tend by necessity to attribute dispositions to individual personality rather than viewing these dispositions as attributes of social conditions. Thus, in reading the findings of such studies there is an interpretive tendency to naturalize dispositions; "empathy" and "analytical thinking," which are social constructions, are treated as "innate" qualities, which are then associated with other constructions (religiosity and atheism). A high probability of error (i.e., bias) is introduced at all levels: from the level of the experiment to the level of the interpretation of the experimental findings.

* http://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~ara/Manuscripts/Science-2012-Gervais-493-6.pdf

>10 timspalding:

34 hours per week in the usa is the average amount of tv a person watches????

>24 southernbooklady:: "A quick search on Google suggests that "mentalizing" is a cognitive process, whereas empathy is an instinctual one. "

Perhaps it's just the imprecision of an article written for a general audience, but the MotherJones piece from the OP seemed to mention "mentalizing" within the context of instinctual processes that predispose towards religiosity.

If you'd like, I can ask Chris (the author) if he'd like to come in and clarify. Not sure if he'd have the time, but...

My opinion is this is another case of Neuromania, but did anyone notice the "articles which cite this article" list on the Science website.

"Happy Tweets: Christians Are Happier, More Socially Connected, and Less Analytical Than Atheists on Twitter" We analyze data from nearly 2 million text messages (tweets) across over 16,000 users on Twitter to examine differences between Christians and atheists in natural language. Analyses reveal that Christians use more positive emotion words and less negative emotion words than atheists. Moreover, two independent paths predict differences in expressions of happiness: frequency of words related to an intuitive (vs. analytic) thinking style and frequency of words related to social relationships. These findings provide the first evidence that the relationship between religion and happiness is partially mediated by thinking style. This research also provides support for previous laboratory studies and self-report data, suggesting that social connection partially mediates the relationship between religiosity and happiness. Implications for theory and the future of social science using computational methods to analyze social media are discussed.Would you rather be happier or more analytical? Do you have a choice, or is it all in your genes?

Well, but for the fact that you've already indicated that you think "faking it" is a perfectly acceptable mode of interaction and expression...

That sort of shit kind of calls expressed emotion into question.

I may just be being too analytical here, though.

And yet you wonder why you have a credibility problem.

I find the distinction between "intuitive" and "analytical" thinking types to be a bit fuzzy...

I find the whole subject of psychology, and the categories it tries to work with, a bit fuzzy.

I think the article, and the cited studies, are still in the realm of correlation, rather than causation. It's as if we all have access to the same mental tool box, but we each grab different tools when faced with the same problem (in this case, the "why are we here?" problem).

But analytic = atheist and intuitive = religious is probably as deceptive a correlation as left-brain = intellectual and right-brain = artistic.

Consider the different ways Tim and I interpreted the phrase "existential security" -- he in a materialistic sense, me in an abstract sense. Or his observation that " and the US spending more on its pets than the entire GDP of all but 68 countries"* as a sign of our inherent materialism, whereas I see it as evidence of our capacity for empathy.

The studies cited in the article aren't fined-tuned enough to catch such distinctions in interpretation. So their use as a predictive tool are suspect, to say the least.

I do think, though, that a material security does lend itself to complacency--which is what Tim might have been getting at when he talks about our disinclination to explore deep questions when we could be watching television.

*full disclosure: I think I may spend more on my pets than the entire GDP of some countries. They are expensive little critters.

But all these things have built up in my mind over a lifetime --a life filled with a myriad of ups and downs and doubts and certainties, loves and losses and as thus, I think I would describe atheism as a conclusion rather than an effect.

In any case, I'm doubtful of the idea that the emotional drive towards atheism is a kind of hubris that settles on us when we feel secure (economically or otherwise).

My apologies for the implication you caught. I should have hedged better, so my meaning was clear.

I am trying to answer the question "Why are more prosperous societies generally less religious?" I am not taking pot shots at people, but making a longer-term argument about the development of culture. I am not talking about your situation, and indeed that of many or most of the atheists on LibraryThing. Someone who arrives at atheism (or any position) "on their own steam," by strong rational or emotional grappling, is not succumbing to the comforts of the X-box, the consolations of the Kardashians, and a life bled of immediacy and intimacy. I am talking about the sort of slow cultural drift toward secularism, with atheism the last step of that. Only that sort of drift is correlated with economic prosperity, which is similarly a slow, generation-by-generation effect.

If that were the case, the development of secular ethics would be stunted, and I don't think you can claim that.

Can you explain more what you mean?

FWIW, I would argue that secular ethics are stunted--not on an individual but a societal level. I am nothing but happy with all the progress that's been made in gradually-secularizing societies--the gradual extension of tolerance and political rights to the margins. But we've also lost something when young people today display an inability to reason morally about anything other than tolerance and equality, and follow that up by unprecedented levels of cheating.

But Tim may only have been using Congo as a name that springs to mind readily. Try Botswana, Tanzania, Zambia, Malawi, South Africa, Kenya...

Actually, I used it because some other survey found it to be the most religious country in the world. But John is correct to point out that high rates of religious belief and observance are common throughout Africa, and the third world generally.

34 hours per week in the usa is the average amount of tv a person watches????

Yes. See http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv-movies/americans-spend-34-hours-week... . It's actually worse than that:

"The average American over the age of 2 spends more than 34 hours a week watching live television, says a new Nielsen report — plus another three to six hours watching taped programs."

US "reading" appears to be around five hours per week, but I beleive that includes all reading, not just books.

Happy Tweets: Christians Are Happier, More Socially Connected, and Less Analytical Than Atheists on Twitter

Since rrp didn't link to it, here it is: http://news.illinois.edu/news/13/0626twitter_JessePreston_RyanRitter.html

Studies have long shown religious people to be both happier and more socially connected, but I don't lay much stock in Twitter analysis either way.

FWIW, I would argue that secular ethics are stunted--not on an individual but a societal level. I am nothing but happy with all the progress that's been made in gradually-secularizing societies--the gradual extension of tolerance and political rights to the margins. But we've also lost something when young people today display an inability to reason morally about anything other than tolerance and equality, and follow that up by unprecedented levels of cheating.

Have you seen this?

as a sign of our inherent materialism, whereas I see it as evidence of our capacity for empathy

I think it's empathy, but somehow misplaced. I'm reminded of the world of Children of Men, where, deprived of children, pets are treated more and more like children. The fact is that we could have the same number of pets, and as much love would be exchanged, if we cared for them like our parents and grandparents did. And there is something obscene about spending $61b on pets, when the entire, exploding food stamps program--now covering $47 million Americans--costs $76b. Pets give us a lot, but those numbers strike me as evidence of a sick society.

I don't shrink from blame here myself. The dog Lisa had when I married her was a very special dog, and falling in love with Lisa was coextensive with falling in love with her dog. Lisa's feelings were even deeper. In his last week we paid about $1,000 for medical treatment, despite only moderate chance of success and the certainty he would die of old age in a few years anyway. I made sense to us at the time--we were childless, in love with our dog and could afford it--but, well, we passed a lot of ragged shelters and half-full food banks on the way to the animal hospital.

>37 timspalding: I am trying to answer the question "Why are more prosperous societies generally less religious?"

But is that the case?

And no, I didn't think you were taking pot shots at people...I thought you were linking the materialism of American culture to its secularism. Although, that does prompt me to ask, again, if that's really the case.

But we've also lost something when young people today display an inability to reason morally about anything other than tolerance and equality, and follow that up by unprecedented levels of cheating.

See, now, I find that a curious statement. Partly because of the qualification of "young people" since the most visible "cheaters" in our society at the moment are not young people at all, and they are generally rewarded. As a culture we seem to value winning over playing fair, but I don't think you can put that on young people. (You should hear my Mom, who attended Johns Hopkins, on the prevalence of cheating in the med school-- having gone to class with them, she's had a life-long mistrust of doctors ever since.)

But I also wonder if "reasoning morally" about tolerance and equality isn't where we'll ultimately find the foundation of all other moral positions. It's a short step from tolerance to equality and then to compassion, don't you think?

>39 timspalding: And there is something obscene about spending $61b on pets, when the entire, exploding food stamps program--now covering $47 million Americans--costs $76b. Pets give us a lot, but those numbers strike me as evidence of a sick society.

I don't disagree, exactly, and I've never personally been the kind of pet owner who would spend more money on their medical care than I would on my own. My expenditures tend to be limited to things like shots, food, and the occasional session with a trainer if I've got a problem animal in my care.

But I think you can also ascribe a more generous interpretation to it. On some level it is also about making your immediate world a better place. And it is possible that caring for a dog--even a sick dog---might be a better way to do that than sending a check to Save the Children.

I dunno. I tend to side with Tim on this one. I mean, animal shelters and all are nice, but I'd probably call the soup kitchens more important.

But I also wonder if "reasoning morally" about tolerance and equality isn't where we'll ultimately find the foundation of all other moral positions. It's a short step from tolerance to equality and then to compassion, don't you think?

Well, I hazard that this is exactly wrong. It seems to me the mark of today's morality is its political or social nature. Ask college kids today what's wrong and I suspect their first reactions would all be political- or social-scale issues—not allowing gays to marry is wrong, etc. I do not, of course, disagree with the wrongness. But I think we err in having that impetus at the source of our morality. Earlier generations' conception of the thing was more internal, more about personal integrity and non-negotiable moral boundaries--not "society shouldn't be like that" but I shouldn't do that thing.

It seems that personal morality gave us compassion, compassion gave us tolerance, and tolerance gave us equality. But I'm not convinced things work as well in the other direction--that we move as naturally from social to personal conscience as we do from personal to social. That is, I don't think a morality grounded in a sociopolitical impetus to make sure everyone is treated equally easily produces the sorts of scripted moral boundaries that keeps a student from cheating or a test, or pushing sex on a drunk date.

I tend to side with Tim on this one.

Victory dance!

>42 Jesse_wiedinmyer: Sure they are. But that doesn't mean that kindness to animals is unimportant.

(Says the person with a life-time's worth of experience in asking for funding for the arts when others are asking for donations to help sick kids with cancer).

Earlier generations' conception of the thing was more internal, more about personal integrity and non-negotiable moral boundaries--not "society shouldn't be like that" but I shouldn't do that thing.

And I'm not so sure about this, either. There's a reason that Moliere said "To sin in private is no sin at all." That's not precisely a modern take on such things.

It seems that personal morality gave us compassion,

Are you sure you don't have this one backwards?

>45 Jesse_wiedinmyer:

No, I think the larger movement has been from rules to compassion, from "thou shall not murder" to "a new command I give you: Love one another." Besides, the second is still a rule. Starting from universal compassion has always been rare and tough.

Christians often say--and I think it is about the truest thing a Christian has said--that if you don't feel love towards someone, go ahead and follow the rule: act with love toward them. Acting with love toward people changes your heart. In time, you will find you love them.

Starting from universal compassion has always been rare.


Starting from? We haven't even approached the boundaries for the most part.

>38 Jesse_wiedinmyer: That's a hoot.

If there is no existence of God or gods, there will be no atheism, you have to nothing "not to believe" .

Look at the wonderful nature, beautiful ,sweet smelling roses, fresh fruits, fresh vegetables, nice friends and some "horrible" friends, this is the work of "someone" who is all greatest and mightier, and what can be more greater than God ,the Creator.

The atheists are the "carefree" people, and what concrete evidences are based that God or "something" do not existed at all. God made us in His image, the children of God, maybe by at brink of our life on earth to the start of our death, when God will be "visible" to us but we are not able to be an eye- witness at that moment to those we are still living.

At present, God is not visible to me but I can feel 24/7 the presence of God in the breath of life , He have given to me. God have made human more superior than the animals who can't talk,speak,write,comprehend and converse.There is "someone" really responsible for these greatest creations on Earth and beyond, the Universe.

>50 razzamajazz: Your opening statement follows your #6 where you say There must be "God" out there to believe it or not. That "God" surely do exists that one have to make a choice " to believe it" or "not to believe it".

You make a good case also for the existence of all the gods ever created whether Greek, Norse, Egyptian, Judaic or the multitude of others, together with myriads of mythical supernatural beings and spirits such as elves, fairies, leprechauns, changelings, goblins, pixies, imps, devils, mermaids, satyrs, gremlins, angels, nephelim, naiads, dryads, dragons, unicorns, all the various varieties of ghouls, ghosts etc., etc., and for the validity ouiji boards.

Just substitute your "God" with any from this list.
Have fun.

#44: Ask college kids today what's wrong and I suspect their first reactions would all be political- or social-scale issues—not allowing gays to marry is wrong, etc.

I suspect their first reactions would be to talk about girlfriends and tests and family and money or just say "what's wrong? Nothing's wrong. Everything's fine". I think minor variations of wording would produce huge differences.

Earlier generations' conception of the thing was more internal, more about personal integrity and non-negotiable moral boundaries--not "society shouldn't be like that" but I shouldn't do that thing.

At best that's a pretty huge generalization; reading any abolitionist or feminist work published back to the dawn of those movements would argue against that, as well as arguing against the concept that if that is true, it's so much better.

I don't think a morality grounded in a sociopolitical impetus to make sure everyone is treated equally easily produces the sorts of scripted moral boundaries that keeps a student from cheating or a test, or pushing sex on a drunk date.

I mentioned the concept of "enthusiastic concept" here recently, a concept you considered risible. The concept that women are people just like men, one not common to older generations, do seem to produce the type of moral boundaries that keep guys from pushing sex on a drunk date; and I see absolutely no evidence that date rape has increased generationally, quite the contrary. The phrase "date rape" only seems to date back to the 1970s; if you can find me a source that that discusses the idea prior to that, I'd be interested to see it, but I see absolutely no evidence that the average college student in 1960 who would have slept with a girl sober would have hesitated to take advantage of her drunk.

>52 prosfilaes: I mentioned the concept of "enthusiastic concept" here recently, a concept you considered risible. The concept that women are people just like men, one not common to older generations, do seem to produce the type of moral boundaries that keep guys from pushing sex on a drunk date

I think you meant to type "enthusiastic consent."

But it does suggest that the morality of personal integrity that Tim says has been lost has really just shifted to other priorities: instead of religious directives for behavior we now have politically correct rules. (A fun illustration of this is the television show Life on Mars --the British version! -- which does a brilliant job of spotlighting the differences between a 70s culture and a 90s one)

But Tim may be correct that we have lost something in the trade, even as we have gained something else. The notion of "honor," for example, seems all but defunct. Although once again, I would suggest that the temptation to cheat, or flout any particular rule of morality "because everyone does it," is not generational. It's a constant.

>40 southernbooklady: (SBL, speaking of Tim's position): "I thought you were linking the materialism of American culture to its secularism."

I think we need to unpack this, because I think we're talking about two different types of movements toward "less religious".

I think that most of the secularists and atheists on LT (e.g.) embrace that position out of at least some type of positive choice, i.e. they have chosen to eschew religion in favor of either an agnostic secularism or a full-fledged atheism (or something in between). They have done so with much thought and care.

But I think what Tim is talking about--a move towards "less religion" as a result of a materialistic stupor--reflects a general religious apathy amongst the crowd that would still identify as "culturally" Christian or Jewish (e.g.). This latter group may not really believe in God nor keep up much of a religious practice, but they don't also actively reject religious belief or practice -- they simply don't care enough about the question to bother with it.

No, the choice for moral guidance isn't between "religious directives" and "political correctness", at least not for anyone who isn't a dumb sheep or a scheming hypocrite.

Can we also not smirk about "political correctness" as if it is more contemptible than what it tries to combat? Perhaps a dose of living in one of many places utterly without a trace of "political correctness" might put things in perspective.

Otoh, I don't know how to put things in perspective for anyone, especially an American, who can genuinely, even for a second, imagine that things were "better" and people "more moral" at some time in the past, or who dismisses the oppression of half the humanity, or two-thirds of humanity, or nine-tenths of humanity, as lesser concerns than spending less time kneeling in church.

Overdosed on Norman Rockwell idylls, anyone? 'Tis sure the season.

>55 LolaWalser: Can we also not smirk about "political correctness" as if it is more contemptible than what it tries to combat?

If that's directed at me, I really wasn't smirking. Just the opposite--I'm one of those people who doesn't think "politically correct" is a bad thing. It's just the way a morality built out of tolerance and equality tends to manifest itself--it identifies a series of practices that hurt people, and brings the weight of disapprobation against them.

People should note the New Zealand experience in the article.

People (sometimes) turn to religion when faced with disaster. Fewer disasters mean less impetus to look for answers, not because the questions don't exist, but because the answers aren't important. The atheist answers ("You were just unlucky; there's no real meaning to what happened to you and thousands of others." "What happened was to be expected; you set up the conditions for your own misfortune.") aren't satisfying to people who tend to think of themselves as the center of their own universes, and that if something bad has happened to them, there must be a reason (other than their choices). Someone must be responsible, and/or there must be a deeper meaning, a reason, why all this happened to them.

Living in a safe country, and/or having a social safety net when bad things happen (and they always will) gives people a sense of control over what happens to them; they are 'captains of their fate, masters of their souls' and don't need outside influences to explain their success and safety.

"(Atheists)...They are notorious for loving to debate and argue, but perhaps they should focus less on trying to convince people that God doesn't exist, and more on bettering people's lives all around them. "Strong safety nets is going to be a much more powerful incentive in the long run that will lead to the decline of religion," says Norenzayan. Libertarian atheists like Penn Jilette may not like that conclusion, but the evidence suggests that if atheists want to give a gift of irreligion this Christmas, they should think about how they're going to vote."

#56

But who cares that fighting injustice brings disapprobation? It is to be expected, and it's the least that can be expected.

> 54
"...I think that most of the secularists and atheists on LT (e.g.) embrace that position out of at least some type of positive choice, i.e. they have chosen to eschew religion in favor of either an agnostic secularism or a full-fledged atheism (or something in between). They have done so with much thought and care.... a move towards "less religion" ...reflects a general religious apathy amongst the crowd that would still identify as "culturally" Christian or Jewish (e.g.). This latter group may not really believe in God nor keep up much of a religious practice, but they don't also actively reject religious belief or practice -- they simply don't care enough about the question to bother with it."

Well, my psychic sense told me this was bound to happen sooner or later: a quite sensible, intelligent even, post from nathanielcampbell.

The sun has finally come out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yop62wQH498

And God bless us, everyone.

>58 LolaWalser: I was describing the process, not critiquing it.

"Branding" of any kind-- sneering over "politically correct" or "liberal elitist" or "feminazi" (just to name a few that have consistently been leveled at me), is just name-calling. An intellectually moribund response to whatever it is you don't like. It actually lends credibility to your opposition, because you've been reduced to such a weak response.

That's "you" in the generic sense, by the way. Not "you" specifically Lola)

I mentioned the concept of "enthusiastic concept" here recently, a concept you considered risible.

Not at all. I made a joke that "enthusiastic consent is a 20-something without a job or kids." I still think, as Homer Simpson says, that's funny because it's true. I'm sorry you think a joke about sex between exhausted married people makes you think I'm pro-date-rape.

As for the numbers, we simply don't know whether college date rape is more common now than it was in 1960. You apparently think it's less common. I suspect it's more common. But it's hard to screen out all the contributing elements.

#61: I'll remember that; if my only response to mentions of Catholicism in the future is a dismissive joke, I'm sorry if you think will make me anti-Catholic.

As for the numbers, we simply don't know whether college date rape is more common now than it was in 1960. You apparently think it's less common. I suspect it's more common. But it's hard to screen out all the contributing elements.

Can you find any sources from 1960 condemning that behavior? Anything? Studies have said that a lot of guys will admit to date rape if it's not phrased as rape; you're honestly going to tell me where nobody in society seemed to think that date rape was any different from date sex had as high a level of date rape as a society where there's open awareness of the problem?

>62 prosfilaes:

I'm sorry you put the concept of "enthusiastic consent" on the level of a world-view. It seems to me a catch phrase corresponding to a "sex positive" way of saying "don't rape people."

It's an interesting problem. It would be interesting to look at "Male Sex Aggression on a University Campus" (1957) ( see http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2088765?uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&... and http://books.google.com/books?id=K7Jh_LotPtkC&lpg=PA49&ots=16CyT7GES9&am... ) and try to compare it to contemporary data. I found it interesting that the study concludes that sexual aggression was associated particularly with engaged and pinned relationships.

#63: I'm sorry you put the concept of "enthusiastic consent" on the level of a world-view.

I wish you wouldn't use those fake apologies. The point is, if your only response to something is a joke, people aren't going to think you're taking it seriously.

It seems to me a catch phrase corresponding to a "sex positive" way of saying "don't rape people."

It goes beyond don't rape people to avoiding all sorts of sexual pressure. (Edit: E.g. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2012/09/the-purity-culture-and-sex-... , where the author was taught that a woman should service her husband, interested or not.)

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2012/08/rape-thats-a-kind-of-premar... is a discussion of "sex negative" people often consider rape a form of extramarital sex. In an environment filled with that idea, I would expect that guys who sleep with girls they consider sluts would consider getting them drunk no big deal; it's extramarital sex either way, and she's a slut, so she obviously doesn't care.

I have one very simple question. Tell me if you can, where and how does some-thing come from nothing? If there is no God as you say, there must be a beginning of some-thing, so we must state that there was a first cause. Without a first cause there is no action or even an atom or notably fermions, hadrons and bosons "Cause-and-effect relationship: the relationship between a cause and its effect, without a cause there is no effect!!!!!!!!!!! The cause must always be greater than its effect. I declare unto all that God Almighty is the first and only cause of all things! You cannot bring some-thing out of nothing it's theoretically and scientifically impossible. So I address your big bang theory, the answer is "God Spoke it and it was so". Only an eternal self existing, all powerful creator can cause such an effect as to create a universe and a earth with all its various life forms that seem to be in such harmony as it is. So we know not even the half of it! Oh, what a great God! HALLEUJAH!

>65 dgbsr: So I address your big bang theory, the answer is "God Spoke it and it was so".

Of course, it is entirely possible that God is a last generation Multivac computer.

Not possible at all. There is no God but one. He did not come from anywhere nor is he going anywhere, He is the eternal God. Eternal not in time for there is no time with God. He is eternal, not in time but in space, eternal space. There is no eternal space where God is not, he filleth all an all. There is no yesterday nor is there a tomorrow with God it's all now! Plus, the cause must be greater than it's effect. God is also the creator of all laws, and all things consists by Him.Without him it would all fall apart. You can't make a mountain out of a mole hill! HALLEUJAH!

May I suggest: http://www.librarything.com/topic/158332

and a happy Christmas to you.

> 67

Doing my work for me.

Thanks, genius.

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful."

Lucius Annaeus Seneca

> 70

I assume he meant

common people = the ignorant uneducated masses who will buy any pig in a poke if you dress it in pink bows and ribbons,

wise = those educated people of an analytical and philosophical bent who are nobody's fool, and

rulers = the sociopaths and psychopaths among us.

If so, then I agree.

>65 dgbsr: Tell me if you can, where and how does some-thing come from nothing?

You could start by reading A Universe from Nothing by Lawrence Krauss, and then report back.

>72 jbbarret:

No need to refer to a book, just state the 'something from nothing' thought as your firmly held belief and what follows from that is fact, axiomatically.
People who don't believe in Saint Krauss are simply people who have not been enlightened. Works for many religions, so should cut mustard for Saint Krauss, me thinks.

Let's not even delve into the ins and outs of whether we can prove it or not. It's a question of belief, and if ye seek ye shall find. If you still don't believe in Saint Krauss's teaching, well, it's simply because you are not yet ready to receive the truth.

I kinda like this, it's fun. Why, almost anything can be postulated, it's cool.

Are the laws of conservation being used to prove the existence of a god? Did a god pick off parts of itself to make the natural world?

Are we saying that the natural world is far too complicated to have not been designed? Are we not going to ask about what created an entity that is purported to be more complicated than its work? How much did that parent entity break off of itself? Are the turtles larger farther down?

Where are the related scientific observations that indicate any of this has happened?

>72 jbbarret:
reporting back!

Waste of time, He's nothing more than a God hater as most of you are. Alludes to "science so called" just the imaginations of deceitful men. He forms expressions of an opinion or theory without sufficient evidence for proof and takes the basic understandings of the principles of quantum mechanics for granted. So I think I'm finished with this thread, I don't think it's worthy of my time.

I think one of the devout Christians here on LT (and I'll let it be me this time around) should offer the rebuttal, which is to say, that Krauss is an incredibly intelligent and deeply accomplished physicist, and I have a great amount respect for him as a physicist.

His error is not one of science, but one of category -- he makes the problematic presumption that that the modern natural sciences are the only valid fields of epistemology and ontology.

Within his category of physics, however, his knowledge and ideas are to be respected.

>75 dgbsr:
Yea, I read a review that Krauss makes assumptions for convenience. However, I don't know. I haven't read the book. I'm just waiting for someone to show me why a god isn't an assumption made out of convenience.

I assure you, I'm not a god hater. That would be like a unicorn hater.

Just because it's trendy on LT...

Waste of time, He's nothing more than a science hater as most of you are. Alludes to "God so called" just the imaginations of deceitful men. He forms expressions of an opinion or theory without sufficient evidence for proof and takes the basic understandings of The Bible for granted. So I think I'm finished with this thread, I don't think it's worthy of my time.

>78 androidlove:: "a science hater as most of you are"

It's ridiculous statements like this (which any review of the publicly-expressed views of most of us would show to be false) that make it so difficult to take you at your word when you claim, "I'm not a god hater".

You barge in here from time to time to lecture the poor theists that they are so benighted and unenlightened because they don't face the "evidence" of God's nonexistence -- yet, your prejudiced and faulty presumptions about us are founded on as little evidence as you claim there to be of God.

Most of us are happy to engage in the intellectual challenge of discussing deep questions about the nature of existence with everybody (theist, atheist, agnostic, and whatever else may come upon that complex spectrum) -- but we get very tired of participants like you making such malassumptions about the rest of us.

It's not worth our time to have these conversations if interlocutors like you make such laughably wrong assumptions about us. Most of us DO accept and respect the work of modern science -- hell, I'm married to an evolutionary biologist, for goodness' sake!

But I wouldn't want the reality of the situation to barge in on your carefully-crafted but bile-tinted prejudices.

Wrong thread.

nathanielcampbell, I think you missed the joke. Check out post #75.

>79 nathanielcampbell:

He was demonstrating a point, nathan, not making a serious statement of belief. (well, that's that not primary intent of the example, anyway.). A similar example was used in the "Does Zeus Exist" thread to illustrate how a declaration does not hold any authority as an argument in a debate.

My apologies if I misunderstood (I haven't been following the "Does Zeus Exist" thread).

Since yesterday was @dgbsr's first day at LT and he/she hasn't cataloged any books yet, it's possible he/she is "done with" not just this thread, but LT altogether.

There is God and many gods depending on your faith.

When there is nothing, you can not believe in nothing.

There is something out there, and refuse to believe to be in existence.

>85 razzamajazz: I'm sure that works for you, but it does not make any sense at all to me.

Do atheists believe in nothing?

There is another perspective of an atheist.

Isn't "believing that God or gods doesn't exists" the same thing as "not believing in God or gods?

Note: Some faiths or religions do believe in many gods.

Do you only believe in what you can see,touch,feel,etc ?

Do atheists believe in nothing ?

Do atheists have faith ? What do they believe in ?

What would it take to prove to you that a God exists ?

There are many reasons to be called a atheist. Is atheism some kind of religion, and believe in evolution and faith in science.

>87 razzamajazz:

Do atheists believe in nothing?

Atheists don't believe in something. Specifically, they do not believe in something called "God."

Isn't "believing that God or gods doesn't exists" the same thing as "not believing in God or gods?

Atheists posit there is no reason to believe in the existence of God. You are in the realm of unicorns and Bertrand Russell's teapot there.

Note: Some faiths or religions do believe in many gods.

Sure, but entirely beside the point.

Do you only believe in what you can see,touch,feel,etc ?

How about I accept what I have evidence for. But your idea that it must be something I can "see, touch, feel" is a little facile. Are you asking if the only relevant part of the universe is the observable one? You'd have to show that there is a non-observable aspect to the universe, something that cosmologists and physicists spend a lot of time thinking about. But I don't think it's useful to call dark matter "God."

Do atheists believe in nothing ?

See first question.

Do atheists have faith ? What do they believe in ?

You mean like "I think people are generally good at heart"? I don't have the empirical evidence for that, and mind you I also think people are like lemmings...they'll follow the herd even over a cliff. So I suppose you could call it a kind of belief. It's more like a working hypothesis though.

Is atheism some kind of religion, and believe in evolution and faith in science.

No.

In science we speak of probabilities, not of "faith."

What would it take to prove to you that a God exists ?

Now this is the only pertinent question that you have asked. I can give you an honest answer: I don't know. From an objective standpoint I could be wrong, and there could be a god pulling all the strings in the universe. From an objective standpoint our entire existence could be the induced hallucination caused by evil robots who have been keeping human brains wired up and floating in vats of nutrient fluid. There's no way to disprove such a proposition. But as for what would convince me that it is true...well...I have yet to come up with the kind of positive evidence that would be convincing...or at least raise some doubts.

But turnabout is fair play, so I can equally ask you, what would it take to prove to you that God doesn't exist? I suspect that you wouldn't be able to come up with anything either. If the evil that mankind visits upon each other has not done it, then I can't imagine what would.

So where does that leave us? Only with the acknowledgement that we each view the world in fundamentally different ways.

And your attempt to make my views fit into your world view by insisting that "you can't believe in nothing" (literally true, but not in the sense you meant it, I think) is about as useful and relevant as me suggesting that your faith is a simple but ultimately biologically-based emotional coping mechanism.

I believe in God is to believe in a higher power. My faith is not so simple as you might be thinking at this moment. I was not a Christian by birth but by conversion to this faith many years ago when I was a teenager. It was not an emotional thing to become a believer so easily. God is a good listener , 24/7 you communicate to Him in prayers not only in churches but in any place that is quiet and peaceful where you can feel the "presence" of God by praying.

You decide:

http://www.wikihow.com/Believe-in-God

http://www.ourgodanswers.com/index.html

Do you believe in miracles and spiritual healings?

>89 razzamajazz: Do you believe in miracles and spiritual healings?

Not in the slightest.

And I have decided, so your links aren't at all persuasive. But I gave you an honest answer to your question about what it would take to prove to me that god exists. I'd be interested to hear an honest answer from you about what it would take to prove the opposite.

Read the testaments mentioned in the link. Yes, there is God, He have guided me in my life and showed me the purpose of my life on this earth. It has to be yourself to experience in yourself by yourself alone and not to be persuaded in any way for you to experience it.

Yes, I can feel the presence of God, 24/7.

>91 razzamajazz: I did read them. Well, some of them from the second link. Like all anecdotal evidence they were unpersuasive.

But your inability or reluctance to answer the question "what would it take to prove to you God doesn't exist?" pretty much proves my point that ours is a difference of fundamental starting points: you believe, so you see evidence of your belief. I do not, and so I don't.

A person(atheist) cannot be forced to believe in God. To accept Christianity, a person must do alone by himself/herself with a honest heart. Atheists have their own beliefs and also the believers,but to respect and not mock each other beliefs. This is bad.

God work mysteriously and least expected in the lives of His children, for we are made in His image.

Read Genesis.

>93 razzamajazz: This may surprise you, but I've read Genesis. I've read both the New and Old Testament, along with the various apocrypha, a fair amount of early Christian writing, not to mention several translations of the Koran, and a number of Christian, Islamic, and eastern philosophers. I assure you I am not "unread" on such subjects.

I will not, however, do you the same discourtesy by saying "Read Bertrand Russell."

To accept Christianity, a person must do alone by himself/herself with a honest heart. Atheists have their own beliefs and also the believers,but to respect and not mock each other beliefs. This is bad.


To accept any philosophy one must do so with an honest heart, or there will be no use or satisfaction in the practice.

I think it is possible to object to beliefs, however. The person is where we should be placing our respect.

(edited for typo)

"What would it take to prove to you that a God exists ?"

I would believe. No faffing around with free choice and all that. If god existed and wanted me to believe in her, then wham, I would do so.

If god exists but is indifferent to my belief then a) what's the point, and b) again would be very easy. "Sorry for the inconvenience" written in rock mile high letters across the plain of... well you get the idea. Any form of reproducable event would do. Obvious evidence that one religion is right above all others. eg their prayers are effective, or some such.

>95 reading_fox:: "I would believe. No faffing around with free choice and all that. If god existed and wanted me to believe in her, then wham, I would do so.

If god exists but is indifferent to my belief then a) what's the point, and b) again would be very easy."

If God really were either of the two options you present--a slavemaster who forces us to believe in himself, or an irrelevant and indifferent thing that has no bearing on life whatsoever--then I wouldn't believe in God, either.

But Christians, at least, have a third category for God: a God who very much cares about whether you believe or not, but cares so much and loves so much that God is not willing to enslave you to enforced belief. This goes to the very heart of the Christian message of God's nature as Love: true love is both voluntary and highly desired.*

I'm not demanding that you believe in that God of love. But I hope that you can take the time to consider that such a God does not fit into the two categories that you offered.

----------------
*ETA: By the way: it is that experience of Love that is, in fact, the "reproduced event" that appears time and again in the world around us and in the lives of billions of people past and present and to come.

Again, I'm not demanding that you accept that experience for yourself. I understand that it may not be evidence sufficient to convince you; but it is evidence, an experience, an encounter, that has convinced many, many people.

ETA2: As SBL points out below (97), I made an uncharitable assumption about reading_fox's motives; I have edited this post to remove an unsubstantiated charge of intellectual dishonesty, for which I apologize.

>96 nathanielcampbell: I'm not demanding that you believe in that God of love. But you at least should have the intellectual courage and honesty not to misrepresent that message about God.

Is your response an example of that Christian love in action, Nathan? You can counter reading_fox's ideas about what it means to believe without accusing him/her of being intentionally dishonest. Is it reading_fox's fault that the example included miracles? After all, razzmatazz brought up miracles just a little bit up thread.

>97 southernbooklady:: You are right to point out my unwarranted assumptions against reading_fox; I have edited post 96 to remove them and apologize.

#96: God is not willing to enslave you to enforced belief.

And yet when I stick any number of other people or groups in for God, it becomes absurd or even evil (Keyser Söze or Satan). It feels like a rationalization for why we are waiting for Godot, and not a logical statement.

>99 prosfilaes:: I'm not sure I understand your objection? Of course it's absurd to make the same statement of God and Satan (at least from a Christian perspective), as they are in most respects opposite: what obtains for one does NOT obtain for the other. (The only they have in common is the fact of existence, but even then, from the Christian perspective, there is a vital difference: God is the Creator, while Satan is a creature.)

Is it really an illogical statement to say that part of the definition of Love is that it is voluntary and on coerced?

#100: It is an illogical statement to say that belief in someone's existence is enslavement.

>101 prosfilaes:: Ah, I see what you are saying. However, I was responding to reading_fox's idea that one way they would believe in God was that God forced them to believe in God. In 95: "No faffing around with free choice and all that. If god existed and wanted me to believe in her, then wham, I would do so."

I pointed out that there aren't actually many religious believers who would claim that God is the sort of thing that would force you to believe in God.

#102: At the same time, belief in someone's existence is rarely forced. Except for (fictional) beings like Keyser Söze or Satan, or old-school spook agencies like No Such Agency (NSA), that take advantage of people's non-belief in them, most people just exist, and if their existence is important enough, that's beyond question. Even with someone like Satoshi Nakamoto (pseudonymous inventor of Bitcoin), the question is more about the details then their existence.

> 88. You'd have to show that there is a non-observable aspect to the universe...

The assumption here seems to be that anything in the universe that is observable is observable by us. In other words, there's nothing in the universe that we cannot observe. (By observe, I mean apprehend in any way -- sensing, imagining, intuiting, calculating, etc.)

Is that your position?

>105 southernbooklady: For practical purposes I operate as if the universe is a closed system. I can't prove that it is, though. Certainly the jury is out in the realm of physics and cosmology.

> 105. For practical purposes...

If you mean "for purposes of getting things done in this world of ours", then I'm not sure that's relevant to religion, which isn't necessarily, or even primarily, about successfully navigating the natural world, which is often, to the religiously inclined, viewed with suspicion, either as an illusion or a trap.

as if the universe is a closed system

But doesn't that beg the question somewhat, since a closed system is by definition not subject to any force external to the system? At least some might consider God to be such a force.

But even if the universe is a closed system, do you feel comfortable in saying that all its constituent parts can be accurately apprehended by a single type of observer that also operates as one of the constituent parts of the system?

The assumption here seems to be that anything in the universe that is observable is observable by us. In other words, there's nothing in the universe that we cannot observe. (By observe, I mean apprehend in any way -- sensing, imagining, intuiting, calculating, etc.)The assumption here seems to be that anything in the universe that is observable is observable by us. In other words, there's nothing in the universe that we cannot observe. (By observe, I mean apprehend in any way -- sensing, imagining, intuiting, calculating, etc.)

No, the assumption here is that if you can't apprehend it, it might be best to shut up.

>106 jburlinson: But doesn't that beg the question somewhat, since a closed system is by definition not subject to any force external to the system? At least some might consider God to be such a force.

Exactly. Although even if the universe is not a closed system, if there are, as they say, "worlds elsewhere," that does not appear to me to necessarily be an example of evidence of god. It's also possible our "closed system" is a little bigger than we thought.

do you feel comfortable in saying that all its constituent parts can be accurately apprehended by a single type of observer that also operates as one of the constituent parts of the system?

Eh. I don't trust your wording. ("accurately apprehended"?). Do I think the universe is, for lack of a better term, "knowable"? I do. But then how would we know if it wasn't? Does Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle really strike you as evidence of the existence of God?

The truth is, my perspective is much more prosaic when it comes to discussions of "the divine." The more specific a person's notion of god is, the more unfounded it looks to me. There is not much difference in my mind, for example, in the notion that the world rests on an elephant riding a turtle, or that Quetzalcoatl created the earth and saved it from being devoured by a sea monster, or that Jehovah, exasperated beyond all patience, flooded the earth and only saved whatever could fit into one tiny boat. Or, for that matter, that this same god sent down his son to die in order to "save" all of us.

On the other hand, the more vague a person's notion of god, the less point there seems to be in fussing about it. God is nature? God is love? Such statements become watered down platitudes on how to live one's life. But I don't see evidence that "love" or "good" (or for that matter "evil") is a fundamental fact of existence. So...."God is love"? Well, peace out, man.

But if "God" is some entity that is other, but has intention, intelligence, will....and acts upon existence from outside, above, beyond....then no, I don't think that is the case at all.

> 107. it might be best to shut up

It very well might be, and many people have decided to do just that. But humans can be a perverse lot; even when they realize they can't apprehend something, they can't help themselves from trying to. The enquiring minds syndrome, I suppose.

But what the heck? We're all sitting in a car on a train to oblivion, so why not some pleasant conversation on the way? Those who don't like talking can always go to the smoking car.

and many people have decided to do just that. But humans can be a perverse lot; even when they realize they can't apprehend something, they can't help themselves from trying to.

Well, but for the fact that you're not trying to apprehend something. You've already stated that it cannot be apprehended (by definition).

And there's quite a bit of etiquette that governs how people interact in social spaces. I believe that not expecting others to accept your noise or move is generally considered good form.

> 108. I don't trust your wording. ("accurately apprehended"?)

Exactly, trust -- that's the word. Here we are, situated within the universe, with all our flaws and blemishes on abundant display, along with multitudes of other entities that are equally, albeit differently, limited in their operating procedures. And yet we trust ourselves to make accurate observations on our condition and the condition of the rest of the universe as well.

The more specific a person's notion of god is, the more unfounded it looks to me.

On that we agree. Again, I must note the perversity of our species, which is able to posit the existence of a transcendent being that passeth all understanding and yet can't help itself from dragging the transcendent down into a quotidian sphere that we're deluded enough to think we understand.

and the condition of the rest of the universe as well.

Ummm. No.

Some people refrain from having beliefs about some of those conditions of the universe. Hence, atheism not as the belief that there is no god, but the lack of a belief in a god.

And oddly enough, the people that are often most vocal with their guesses about that which cannot be apprehended seem to quite frequently be the ones who display the least humility in those guesses and have no problems with forcing them down other people's throats.

> 110. there's quite a bit of etiquette that governs how people interact in social spaces.

Yes, and you and I seem to be doing a good job of following that etiquette. One person says something, the other responds appositely. And so forth.

I certainly didn't mean to imply that you, or any other specific person, should leave the car. I was merely pointing out that people who don't like amiable conversation don't have to participate. Apparently, considering the thread asking about whether or not this group can survive, a number of people have chosen not to. This is an open car.

I certainly didn't mean to imply that you, or any other specific person, should leave the car.

Well, but for the fact that you suggested they leave the car.

I was merely pointing out that people who don't like amiable conversation don't have to participate.

Quite a bit of narcissism displayed there. You can join our conversation, or you can leave.

> 113. have no problems with forcing them down other people's throats.

Is there anyone on this thread, or in this group, that is forcing anything down your, or anyone else's, throat?

Of course not, because anyone that doesn't want to hear it can just "leave the car" or "choose not to participate."

Again, that's a pretty self-centered approach to interaction.

> 115. you suggested they leave the car.

Absolutely not. I never said anyone "should" leave the car. I said they "can" leave the car. That's just a simple statement of options. Sadly, we've seen all to many of our fellow correspondents exercise that option.

Speaking for myself, I wish nobody would ever leave the car.

> 117. that's a pretty self-centered approach to interaction.

How so? Interaction means two or more people saying something to each other. If I say something, I'm trying to interact. You seem to be telling me that I'm self centered for saying something. Yet all I'm trying to do is interact -- which seems to me to be a very respectful way of going about things.

Speaking for myself, I wish nobody would ever leave the car.

Well, I'd assume that you'd need to make the car more welcoming. So I'd call that a fail on your part.

> 120. I'd call that a fail on your part.

I can only make the car more welcoming one person at a time. At the moment, I'm trying to do that with you. And it seems as if I'm succeeding.

Now, I don't claim that I'm the only one who is trying to make this a welcoming car for the two of us. You certainly are doing so as well, since you continue to thrust and parry with me. (Although, I feel I must point out that you were the one who started out by telling me to shut up -- see post # 107. However, it could well be that telling me to shut up was really an invitation for me to continue speaking my mind -- kind of reverse psychology. So I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on that one.)

Or it could be that your continued speaking of that which, by your own definition, cannot be apprehended is a form of perverse hubris. You might call that god if you wish, but for all your talk of god, I seem to hear of little more than JBurlison.

> 122. for all your talk of god, I seem to hear of little more than JBurlison.

I agree. This is a huge problem that besets anyone who wants to "talk religion." How does a person talk about something that can't be talked about? How can one name the unnameable? Describe the indescribable?

One way that the Bible (and other sacred books) could be considered "true" is that it demonstrates the impossibility of accomplishing this.

To get back to the OP - why do atheists exist?

Well, they would have to exist. The human race is quite diverse. We have all kinds of people. Not ALL human beings are going to be paranoids and/or egomaniacs. In contrast some people are just going to be prejudiced in favor of sanity. Is it just the luck of the draw? Genetics? Environment?

Who knows?

But being an atheist make me feel good all over - like I won the lottery or something.

We're here to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.

We're here to comfort the afflicted

How do you go about doing that?

> 126

Keep letting the afflicted know that there is a better path that tens of millions have found - that they the afflicted don't have to suffer from paranoia and egomania. I.e., the actual good news.

>126 jburlinson:

Well, I'm kind of poor, so I help people laugh and figure out what's bothering them. I also help them figure out how to solve their problems.

I'm working on not being poor by way of self employment. I'm tired of lazy and rude managers who use me and abuse the customers. I have big plans for the money. Yes, it involves getting some permanent help for some people.

You have a big heart, generosity is one of the virtues but it can also be taken for granted as weakness in one's character when we are made by others to be so gullible and taken by their disguised behavior to act as a poor person.

It involve our sharp perception to gauge a person's character, and not to be fooled so easily.

I have been conned by lazy, not responsible individuals/strangers looking the easy way out by asking for alms but not to be responsible for themselves." No one owes anything to anyone". is a proverbial saying so common to everyone.

We can be generous for the genuine call for help, it is good to give than we can spared than to receive for what we can afford for ourselves.

No one owes you - a job,an education,a promotion, a chance to be successful,fairness/fun/facts and a chance to your dreams come true.

When you understand that life is meant to be liked this, it will make us to be more powerful to be self-reliant.We need to work ferociously towards our dreams and not to be handled the things you think you are owed.

Entitlement is the beginning of disaster.It kills our motivation to pursue our goals.

No one else owes you anything, but you owes much to yourself.

I have been living with this axiom to be responsible for any misgivings I may have but to remember that - No one owes anything to anyone. This will make you a stronger person in character.

I can't quite tell from this if you're a believer or a non-believer. Would you care to expand?

This have nothing to do whether you are a believer or a non-believer.

Kindness can be taken for granted as weakness. You need to be tactful and sharp , it has nothing to do with religion or be religious.

A Christian can be worst in character than a non-believer.

Generosity do played a part in character of a believer supposed to have a good heart in helping others.

I am not here to judge others, who am I ?

We live by our own principles to gauge what is right or wrong in the course of communicating and contacts with others.