Non believers who love Brokeback Mountain

[Jer009]

Are we sure it wasn't about Sarah Palin?

Caribou Barbie is too busy grooming her protege Christine O'Donnell (Hint: they should both rent All About Eve to see a peek into the future.).

Latest thing about O' Donnell is she practiced witchcraft. I guess her fans are puzzled by her comments on masturbation, but it's a real test of their faith when they hear about the witchcraft. The most peaceful pagan get-together will get distorted: Satanists are sacrificing babies to Lucifer! 

[chuckyv]

I was thinking about some of the misconceptions that I keep hearing about non-believers. 

a.) They have no morality.

This is absolutely not true, the difference is their morality is based upon reason rather than laws handed down by authority.  The golden rule is a very biggie for atheists, as is not harming others.  Non initiation of force is another.

b.) They do not believe in anything, as the common misuse of this word means.

Again, not true, we believe in reality, we believe that existence exists, and all else flows from strictly from cause and effect.  Here "belief" is know.  Nothing magical, nothing outside of nature.  Contradiction does not exist, anything perceived as contradictory has one or more of three causes.  1.) Too little information  2.) A premise is wrong or 3.) the least likely, something is perceived wrong.  Reality can only be known by resolving the contradictions.  It is ok to not know and say so, instead of making up something to explain it.

c.)  Atheists can not love.

So wrong, atheist are capable of the highest love, because they know that love is the highest value, just under one's consciousness.  They can see the reality, and either accept it or pass on it.  There is much less chance of them being deluded into a poor relationship.   However, one also has to be prepared for the hate, pain, and destruction placed onto one constantly from the outside world of believers.  Most well meaning, but deluded into to believing things that if they were conscious would shock them to their very foundations.   

As I think of other things I will put them up... sleep well

This comment makes some great points. A lot of people think that if you are not an obviously "religious" person ,that you are a nihilist or something like that. A person with no hopes, a person with an overly negative view of the world. Nonsense. I am not an atheist, but then  nor am I a religious person. In my personal opinion, it is often those people who wear a "Jesus Saves" button , who are the most pessimistic , judgemental  and unhappy of all.

[Jer009]

Atheist Group Demands Military End Its Proselytizing Christian Concerts

(snip)

The “Rock the Fort” event at Fort Bragg this weekend targets both military personnel and adults and children in the surrounding community for conversion to Christianity. This clearly violates the separation of church and state, attorneys with Americans United informed Army officials in a letter today. “It’s not the Army’s job to convert Americans to Christianity,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United.

http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2010/09/atheist-group-demands-military-end-its.html

[Sandy]

Readers might find the following article and survey in the NYT interesting.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/28/us/28religion.html?_r=1&hp

One conclusion of the Pew survey was that atheists often knew more about religion that professed believers; among believers, Jews and Mormons ranked highest for their knowledge.

The NYT article is accompanied by an abbreviated (six-question) quiz. Enjoy

[Jer009]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Thanks, Sandy!

[oilgun]

Here's the full Quiz:

Are you smarter than an atheist?  A religious quiz

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/0928/Are-you-smarter-than-an-atheist-A-religious-quiz/

My score: 27/32

[desertrat]

i already found it sad that apparently, they couldn't find a programmer who was able to program a quiz where pne can click on the right answer  

29 of 32 -> i got 2 of the constitution questions wrong, i actually thought that the US constitution gives religion even less space in public school that it actually does... 

[brokebacktom]

I got 27/32. Missed up on some of the questions on Buddism and Hindu. Not bad.

[Sandy]

I tied with Martina!

[oilgun]

Sam Harris (aka The Sexiest Atheist) ha out has a new book coming!

exerpt from article:http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-10-02/sam-harris-on-the-moral-landscape/

The framework of a moral landscape guarantees that many people will have flawed conceptions of morality, just as many people have flawed conceptions of physics. Consider the Catholic Church: an organization that advertises itself as greatest force for good and as the only true bulwark against evil in the universe. Even among non-Catholics, its doctrines are widely associated with the concepts of “morality” and “human values.”

However, the church is an organization that excommunicates women for attempting to become priests but does not excommunicate male priests for raping children. It excommunicates doctors who perform abortions to save a mother’s life—even if the mother is a 9-year-old girl raped by her stepfather and pregnant with twins—but it did not excommunicate a single member of the Third Reich for committing genocide. (It excommunicated Joseph Goebbels, but this was for the high crime of marrying a Protestant.) This is an organization that is more concerned about stopping contraception than stopping genocide. It is more worried about gay marriage than about nuclear proliferation.

Are we really obliged to consider such a diabolical inversion of priorities to be evidence of an alternative “moral” framework? No. I think it is clear that the church is as misguided in speaking about the “moral” peril of contraception, for instance, as it would be in speaking about the “physics” of Transubstantiation. In both domains, it true to say that the church is grotesquely confused about which things in this world are worth paying attention to. The church is not offering an alternative moral framework; it is offering a false one.

[desertrat]

is that the official text offered with the book? i hope it is only written that way to attract attention. i find the title of the book very interesting - finding the scientific base and origin of moral values is a great endeavor for scientists. however, if i would buy that book and it would consist of yet another bashing of christians, offering no other explanation to the question of morale that anything different from the catholic church must be better because of the scandals members of the catholic church produced,  i would be greatly disappointed. i find a big vacuum there - there is rather little literature about non-religious lifestyles that does not consist of bashing of religions. i read a very good book a while ago (not a scientific one, but fiction) that told the story of a person who finds spirituality without ever touching religions but that is a very rare gift.

[oilgun]

is that the official text offered with the book? i hope it is only written that way to attract attention. i find the title of the book very interesting - finding the scientific base and origin of moral values is a great endeavor for scientists. however, if i would buy that book and it would consist of yet another bashing of christians, offering no other explanation to the question of morale that anything different from the catholic church must be better because of the scandals members of the catholic church produced,  i would be greatly disappointed. i find a big vacuum there - there is rather little literature about non-religious lifestyles that does not consist of bashing of religions. i read a very good book a while ago (not a scientific one, but fiction) that told the story of a person who finds spirituality without ever touching religions but that is a very rare gift.

I haven't read the book yet, it only comes out on Tuesday.  I will definitely buy it and report back.  The above quote mostly reflects my bias against the catholic church, a church I despise, having been brought up with it.

These quotes might make the book more interesting to you:

“Reading Sam Harris is like drinking water from a cool stream on a hot day. He has the rare ability to frame arguments that are not only stimulating, they are downright nourishing, even if you don’t always agree with him! In this new book he argues from a philosophical and a neurobiological perspective that science can and should determine morality. His discussions will provoke secular liberals and religious conservatives alike, who jointly argue from different perspectives that there always will be an unbridgeable chasm between merely knowing what is and discerning what should be. As was the case with Harris’ previous books, readers are bound to come away with previously firm convictions about the world challenged, and a vital new awareness about the nature and value of science and reason in our lives.”

—Lawrence M. Krauss, Foundation Professor and Director of the ASU Origins Project at Arizona State University, author of The Physics of Star Trek, and, Quantum Man: Richard Feynman’s Life in Science

“A lively, provocative, and timely new look at one of the deepest problems in the world of ideas. Harris makes a powerful case for a morality that is based on human flourishing and thoroughly enmeshed with science and rationality. It is a tremendously appealing vision, and one that no thinking person can afford to ignore.”

--Steven Pinker, Harvard College Professor of Psychology, Harvard University, and author of How the Mind Works and The Blank Slate.

[desertrat]

In this new book he argues from a philosophical and a neurobiological perspective that science can and should determine morality.

this sounds much more like my cup of tea!  i'm a scientist after all, can't help it 


my opinion about the catholic church tends to get even more differenciated these days. as i might have told, i work for a church-affiliated development organisation since may. before i took this job, i made absolutely sure that the only affiliation of this organisation with the church is that the donation come from there. for the project work, there is no "catholic" aspect - no missioning, it caters to all cultures and religions and even allows (and pays for) things like abortion etc.
now, being very much involved in the development aid scene, i see that many of the development organisations have a christian background, even if you can't see it any more these days in their work. and a great part of the donors are christians. it makes me feel better about christianity. there are some crazy and eveil people there - but also a big number of good and decent people. 

[Sandy]

One recent book on ethics that I read is Susan Neiman's "Moral Clarity: A Guide for Grown-up Realists." It was published by Princeton University Press last year, and is now available in a revised, paperback form.

It tangentially addresses the religion-morality debate, but comes down on the side of having an autonomous moral/ethical system which can, nevertheless, dovetail with religious concerns.

I would love to hear a debate between her and Harris.

[jnov]

the Economist is having a debate right now with the motion being: "This house believes that religion is a force for good."

here's a link:
http://www.economist.com/debate/overview/185&sa_campaign=debateseries/debate62/alert/round/rebuttals