Muslims calling for the Death of all Athiests.

[djolds1]

If the fear of eternal torture or the reward of everlasting life are the only things keeping religious people from being savages, maybe they should re-examine their reasons for being moral.

Humans are what they ARE. Wishing for a better human is futile and stupid. You don't get a choice between "re-examining their reasons for being moral" and "being savages." The fact of the matter is, we ARE savages.

Genetic engineering eugenics might redefine the human animal, but short of that you are correct.

Religion works because it appeals to a savage mind. Intellectualism is only a surface veneer. When you make an argument from an intellectual basis which contradicts emotional instinct, the emotional instinct always wins. Religion works because it appeals to a fundamental characteristic that is inherent in all people. The Alpha Dog instinct.

A bit bare-bones as an overview, but basically correct. Religion is far more useful and pro-social than radical rationalists/ High Church Atheists want to admit. Purge the more benign variety, and you do not open the door to creating the atheist utopia of pure reason (aka The United Federation of Planets) - you merely clear out the niche so that it may be colonized by more aggressive and virulent strains.

You can bitch that you don't like this, but it is the timber from which human society is built. There is a REASON why all past governments were monarchies.

Bloodline monarchy is the basin-state attractor of human societies, but not the perpetual standard. The kyklos is a decent study of the cyclicality of human social forms.

Don't you think you could have figured out on your own that murder is bad?

No. Murder is not bad. Murder is often very good in fact. Much of human history is all about how certain people need to be murdered. In fact, humans are so fond of the idea of murdering other humans and taking their stuff that it requires a great deal of conditioning to convince them not to do it, and even then, some of them do it anyway.

Revenge is one of the most profoundly satisfying of emotions.

I am an agnostic. I have come to regard the notion of there being a deity which oversees the past the future and the afterlife as being pretty much a story people made up to make their children behave. I call it the "Santa Claus effect". I see the "Santa Claus effect" has having a beneficial influence, the results of which are not dependent upon the stories being true. In simple terms, it is a highly useful lie.

Yes, but you're forgetting the part where children are expected to grow up and stop believing in Santa. That part is useful, too.

A nice ideal - very rational and enlightened. Doesn't work in practice because 93% of the human species isn't interested in pursuing enlightenment for enlightenment's sake alone.

It is a jungle of memes out there. The Atheist meme is like a malarial mosquito. It might be able to kill the Christian religion, but the violent ones are immune to it. It is in the Atheist Mosquito's best interest to persist in it's feeding off the benign host, because the other one will swat it. Not too clever are these mosquitoes though.

Except atheism is nothing like a mosquito. It obviously clashes with theistic memes (which most "Western/Christian" memes aren't), but it's not defenseless against those. That said, atheism may have to develop stronger group bonding (the "atheistic religions" I mentioned above) to be successful long-term.

Been tried. The Papal States of the New Faith collapsed 22 years ago. Religions without a transcendent aspect just don't work, and the High Church Atheists just can't accept anything that includes a transcendent aspect.

[Diogenes]

Define: kill, to take a life
Define : murder the unlawful taking of life.
useage is NOT interchangeable or confusion will rule.

"Law" is based on morality. As I often point out, the question is never WHETHER Morality is being imposed, the only question is who's?


"Murder" boils down to unlawful killing from the framework of a subjective observer. (Unless you postulate an Objective "Creator." ) Subjectively "Murder" is in the eye of the beholder.

[Diogenes]

I am an agnostic. I have come to regard the notion of there being a deity which oversees the past the future and the afterlife as being pretty much a story people made up to make their children behave. I call it the "Santa Claus effect". I see the "Santa Claus effect" has having a beneficial influence, the results of which are not dependent upon the stories being true. In simple terms, it is a highly useful lie.

Yes, but you're forgetting the part where children are expected to grow up and stop believing in Santa. That part is useful, too.

And you are failing to realize that "Santa" is only analogous to the concept. We don't WANT humans to stop believing in a future punishment, because that's when they turn back into savages.

It is a jungle of memes out there. The Atheist meme is like a malarial mosquito. It might be able to kill the Christian religion, but the violent ones are immune to it. It is in the Atheist Mosquito's best interest to persist in it's feeding off the benign host, because the other one will swat it. Not too clever are these mosquitoes though.

Except atheism is nothing like a mosquito. It obviously clashes with theistic memes (which most "Western/Christian" memes aren't), but it's not defenseless against those.

It's not defenseless against "Western/Christian" memes, but I argue it is quite defenseless against the Islamist meme. If you can suggest a means by which Atheism can protect itself from this, I would certainly find it interesting.

That said, atheism may have to develop stronger group bonding (the "atheistic religions" I mentioned above) to be successful long-term.

You will have to better explain the theoretical basis for this claimed phenomena because I just do not see it.

Interesting claim, but if it seems that way to you then what kind of signal are you looking for as indication that it does occur to them?

Men in the confidence game don't give it away. Boobs do that.

Are you saying that the reason you're not answering my question is that you're "in the confidence game"?

I'm saying that it is in the interest of sensible people to support "the confidence game", and I thought I answered your question.

[Diogenes]

Religion works because it appeals to a savage mind. Intellectualism is only a surface veneer. When you make an argument from an intellectual basis which contradicts emotional instinct, the emotional instinct always wins.

Yet instinct and intuition can be overcome and replaced with new intuitions derived from rational thought. It doesn't happen frequently, and it's a drawn-out process with high barriers, which is probably a good thing. But our ability to reason serves a real purpose, too. It's more than a surface veneer.

Humanity is a bell curve. Rationality is a characteristic of the higher end.

[Diogenes]

Djolds1, I think you and I are pretty much consulting the same human instruction manual.

[paperburn1]

Define: kill, to take a life
Define : murder the unlawful taking of life.
useage is NOT interchangeable or confusion will rule.

"Law" is based on morality. As I often point out, the question is never WHETHER Morality is being imposed, the only question is who's?


"Murder" boils down to unlawful killing from the framework of a subjective observer. (Unless you postulate an Objective "Creator." ) Subjectively "Murder" is in the eye of the beholder.

Sorry I just based the definitions on webster, no moral framework implied. Philosophy was not intended. you know, common frame of reference.

[Teahive]

I am an agnostic. I have come to regard the notion of there being a deity which oversees the past the future and the afterlife as being pretty much a story people made up to make their children behave. I call it the "Santa Claus effect". I see the "Santa Claus effect" has having a beneficial influence, the results of which are not dependent upon the stories being true. In simple terms, it is a highly useful lie.

Yes, but you're forgetting the part where children are expected to grow up and stop believing in Santa. That part is useful, too.

A nice ideal - very rational and enlightened. Doesn't work in practice because 93% of the human species isn't interested in pursuing enlightenment for enlightenment's sake alone.

They don't have to be. If you did a survey among atheists you'd probably find that only a minority came to be non-believers due to some quest for enlightenment.

How many children are interested in growing up for the sake of growing up? And do they have a real choice in the matter?

Except atheism is nothing like a mosquito. It obviously clashes with theistic memes (which most "Western/Christian" memes aren't), but it's not defenseless against those. That said, atheism may have to develop stronger group bonding (the "atheistic religions" I mentioned above) to be successful long-term.

Been tried. The Papal States of the New Faith collapsed 22 years ago. Religions without a transcendent aspect just don't work, and the High Church Atheists just can't accept anything that includes a transcendent aspect.

And there I thought Diogenes' mosquito had already taken the spot for worst analogy in this thread.
They "just don't work"? Insufficient data.

And of course there are different kinds of atheists. It's not sensible to lump them all together.

[Teahive]

And you are failing to realize that "Santa" is only analogous to the concept. We don't WANT humans to stop believing in a future punishment, because that's when they turn back into savages.

There's more to good life than low crime rates, but apparently you DO want people to stop believing in a forgiving god. In any case, "more research is needed".

It's not defenseless against "Western/Christian" memes, but I argue it is quite defenseless against the Islamist meme. If you can suggest a means by which Atheism can protect itself from this, I would certainly find it interesting.

I know a few Muslims (second/third generation immigrants) who have given up practicing the faith they've been taught by their parents. They've essentially become Western atheists/agnostics. I have no data on how common this is but it does happen.

By what means do you expect Islam to squash atheism (means which apparently aren't particularly effective against Christianity)? Faster breeding? War? Terrorism?

That said, atheism may have to develop stronger group bonding (the "atheistic religions" I mentioned above) to be successful long-term.

You will have to better explain the theoretical basis for this claimed phenomena because I just do not see it.

Which "claimed phenomena"? Religions are ultimately about creating a community, an aspect that is often ignored by atheist critique. That does not, however, mean that atheism is incapable of creating communities. Most atheists just haven't focused much on that aspect yet because they find a satisfactory sense of belonging in other structures beyond faith.

[djolds1]

Yes, but you're forgetting the part where children are expected to grow up and stop believing in Santa. That part is useful, too.

A nice ideal - very rational and enlightened. Doesn't work in practice because 93% of the human species isn't interested in pursuing enlightenment for enlightenment's sake alone.

They don't have to be. If you did a survey among atheists you'd probably find that only a minority came to be non-believers due to some quest for enlightenment.

How many children are interested in growing up for the sake of growing up? And do they have a real choice in the matter?

I have yet to see how adult human beings are forced to "grow up" and be forced to reject "Santa Claus" dreams by circumstances. If anything far more often adult human beings refuse to reject or reconsider their irrational dreams, especially if no external influences (such as religious opprobrium) are heaped upon them.

Been tried. The Papal States of the New Faith collapsed 22 years ago. Religions without a transcendent aspect just don't work, and the High Church Atheists just can't accept anything that includes a transcendent aspect.

And there I thought Diogenes' mosquito had already taken the spot for worst analogy in this thread.

They "just don't work"? Insufficient data.

The experiment was run for 69 years by the most militant and enthusiastic of atheist materialist evangelical sects, and took its shot at world domination. Data is more than sufficient. Seventy years at best for the Atheist Faith Militant, vs thousands for the actual religions. Evangelical creeds do not endure absent a transcendent aspect.

[Stubby]

The year was 1954. World War II had ended, but the Cold War was entering into its most intense period. The United States was deeply hostile to communism, and the “Red Scare” pervaded society. Senator Joseph McCarthy spearheaded what is now recognized as one of the most shameful epochs of our history. Citizens afraid to speak. Neighbors constantly eyeing one another. Jobs lost based on hearsay. Persons jailed for espousing unpopular views. The Hollywood blacklist. And, behind it all, the abandonment of the First Amendment.

Within this politically-charged environment, Congress simply ignored the commands of the Constitution and focused on what it perceived as one of the darkest aspects of the communist system: atheism. Casting aside its responsibility to protect all religious views in this country, it honed in on that characteristic of Soviet society. At the urging of the Knights of Columbus, a proselytizing Catholic organization, “under God” was added to the Pledge of Allegiance, with Congress, in its own words, writing:

At this moment of our history the principles underlying our American Government and the American way of life are under attack by a system whose philosophy is at direct odds with our own. Our American Government is founded on the concept of the individuality and the dignity of the human being. Underlying this concept is the belief that the human person is important because he was created by God and endowed by Him with certain inalienable rights which no civil authority may usurp.The inclusion of God in our pledge therefore would further acknowledge the dependence of our people and our Government upon the moral directions of the Creator. At the same time it would serve to deny the atheistic and materialistic concepts of communism with its attendant subservience of the individual.

H.R. 1693, 83rd Cong., 2nd Sess. (1954).

Signed into law by President Eisenhower, the Pledge of this Nation – with its Bill of Rights assuring its citizens that the government will never engage in the purveyance of religious dogma – now had God incorporated into its fabric. The following year, “In God we Trust” would be required for all United States coins and currency, and the year after that, the same phrase would become our National Motto.

[Teahive]

They don't have to be. If you did a survey among atheists you'd probably find that only a minority came to be non-believers due to some quest for enlightenment.

How many children are interested in growing up for the sake of growing up? And do they have a real choice in the matter?

I have yet to see how adult human beings are forced to "grow up" and be forced to reject "Santa Claus" dreams by circumstances. If anything far more often adult human beings refuse to reject or reconsider their irrational dreams, especially if no external influences (such as religious opprobrium) are heaped upon them.

Why do children stop believing in Santa? Because they're "forced to"?

The experiment was run for 69 years by the most militant and enthusiastic of atheist materialist evangelical sects, and took its shot at world domination. Data is more than sufficient. Seventy years at best for the Atheist Faith Militant, vs thousands for the actual religions. Evangelical creeds do not endure absent a transcendent aspect.

Even if you consider soviet communism an atheist religion, the claim that it collapsed for a lack of transcendent aspects is weak at best. There are more obvious and credible reasons.

And it's still only one religion. Lots of religions disappeared throughout history. You can't extrapolate from one data point.

[djolds1]

I have yet to see how adult human beings are forced to "grow up" and be forced to reject "Santa Claus" dreams by circumstances. If anything far more often adult human beings refuse to reject or reconsider their irrational dreams, especially if no external influences (such as religious opprobrium) are heaped upon them.

Why do children stop believing in Santa? Because they're "forced to"?

"By circumstances," which include maturation? Yes, children are so forced to drop belief in Santa. On the other hand, are adults forced to continually reevaluate their beliefs for veracity and material reality? Do you prefer "no" or "HELL no" for your answer? Faith keeps people going - whether it is faith in God, or the materialist dialectic of history. But faith in the materialist dialectic of history does not build communities that endure, whereas faith that includes a transcendent idol DOES.

The experiment was run for 69 years by the most militant and enthusiastic of atheist materialist evangelical sects, and took its shot at world domination. Data is more than sufficient. Seventy years at best for the Atheist Faith Militant, vs thousands for the actual religions. Evangelical creeds do not endure absent a transcendent aspect.

Even if you consider soviet communism an atheist religion, the claim that it collapsed for a lack of transcendent aspects is weak at best. There are more obvious and credible reasons.

And it's still only one religion. Lots of religions disappeared throughout history. You can't extrapolate from one data point.

The current and decaying Religion of Juche in North Korea is a good parallel, as is Mauryan India under Ashoka. The Cult of the Supreme Being in Revolutionary France is a third possibility, but did not gel from the charismatic cult phase to the established and institutionalized religion phase, as did the USSR out of Leninist Bolshevism.

Go back and look at some pictures of the Soviet Union from the Brezhnev era and later. The "I have seen the future, AND IT WORKS" brave new experiment for the ages lost FAITH IN ITSELF. In barely two generation. All polities and ecumenes do lose that faith, eventually, but the Proletarian Vanguard did so at the triple-quick. And sure, established faiths disappear in history, but NOT THAT FAST. The Great Religions serve as the moral cores of societies and civilizations for multiple centuries to multiple millenniums - as contrasted with multiple decades for Messianic Marxism, Messianic Ashokism, and the decaying Messianic Kimism. The three great examples of "lapsed faiths" - Zoroastrianism, Greco-Roman Paganism, and Egyptian Pharaonic Religion lasted at least 1900, 1250, and 3000+ years, respectively.

[Diogenes]

Signed into law by President Eisenhower, the Pledge of this Nation – with its Bill of Rights assuring its citizens that the government will never engage in the purveyance of religious dogma – now had God incorporated into its fabric. The following year, “In God we Trust” would be required for all United States coins and currency, and the year after that, the same phrase would become our National Motto.

And this is what I mean by "Evangelical Athiests". Nobody gives a sh*t about this stuff, except anti-religious kooks. Why don't we take a more accurate historical look at things, eh?

[Diogenes]

Even if you consider soviet communism an atheist religion, the claim that it collapsed for a lack of transcendent aspects is weak at best. There are more obvious and credible reasons.

Which are all manifestations of the same flaw. The ideology is incompatible with human instinct. It requires humans to behave differently from the way humans naturally behave.

[Teahive]

Why do children stop believing in Santa? Because they're "forced to"?

"By circumstances," which include maturation? Yes, children are so forced to drop belief in Santa. On the other hand, are adults forced to continually reevaluate their beliefs for veracity and material reality? Do you prefer "no" or "HELL no" for your answer?

Children are forced to stop believing in Santa because of maturation? That's an interesting theory. Maybe they're "forced" to give up beliefs well beyond Santa, too?

Regardless of mechanism, the number of atheists is growing. How do you explain that?
I don't expect most adults to drop their faith. But I expect atheism to continue to grow in numbers.

The current and decaying Religion of Juche in North Korea is a good parallel, as is Mauryan India under Ashoka. The Cult of the Supreme Being in Revolutionary France is a third possibility, but did not gel from the charismatic cult phase to the established and institutionalized religion phase, as did the USSR out of Leninist Bolshevism.

Go back and look at some pictures of the Soviet Union from the Brezhnev era and later. The "I have seen the future, AND IT WORKS" brave new experiment for the ages lost FAITH IN ITSELF. In barely two generation. All polities and ecumenes do lose that faith, eventually, but the Proletarian Vanguard did so at the triple-quick. And sure, established faiths disappear in history, but NOT THAT FAST. The Great Religions serve as the moral cores of societies and civilizations for multiple centuries to multiple millenniums - as contrasted with multiple decades for Messianic Marxism, Messianic Ashokism, and the decaying Messianic Kimism. The three great examples of "lapsed faiths" - Zoroastrianism, Greco-Roman Paganism, and Egyptian Pharaonic Religion lasted at least 1900, 1250, and 3000+ years, respectively.

You might contemplate the idea that under an oppressive regime many people aren't actually "believers".

And even though the Soviet Union collapsed, neither communists nor atheists there have disappeared.