Atheism

Found this via the NSS web page, which puts forth an interesting series of articles from around the British Isles. It's on the web page of one our less reputable papers, though not the worst, but worth reading none the less.



It's about a Christian teacher in a school where most of the students were from Ethnic Minorities, mostly Muslim it would seem, and several in his class would praise the 9/11 highjackers as 'heroes' and use discriminatory language about various other religions and not in a 'I don't much like it or what it stands for because it's nonsense' kind of way. Apparently any time he tried to raise the issue the head teacher would dismiss it so on so forth. Worth reading the article HERE.

Now, that's just his side of the story and this IS a the Daily Mail. I'd be interested to see what any investigation might find and what's actually going on. It could be him blowing things up and doing a bit of creative story telling. Or it could be completely true.

What thinks you lot?



ETA: For the record, I don't trust that paper as far as I could throw Big Ben, especially given the limited range of PoVs in the article. But still interested on what people would make of it, be it true or untrue.

1. Atheists 'just as ethical as churchgoers'

People who have no religion know right from wrong just as well as regular worshippers, according to the study.
...
Dr Marc Hauser, from Harvard University, one of the co-authors of the research, said that he and his colleagues were interested in the roots of religion and morality.
...
"The research suggests that intuitive judgments of right and wrong seem to operate independently of explicit religious commitments."
...
[However] "It seems that in many cultures religious concepts and beliefs have become the standard way of conceptualising moral intuitions,” he said.

ETA: Article from Trends in Cognitive Science: The origins of religion : evolved adaptation or by-product?

Uh oh.


( Unwanted Godhood )

( Read more... )

Totally going to win the World Cup, bitches.
So deal, 'cause that's the way it is.

Church authorities not to discipline Dutch 'atheist' pastor

Two regional church authorities in the Netherlands are reported to have decided to take no disciplinary action against a self-proclaimed atheist pastor, Klaas Hendrikse.
...
The church authorities said disciplinary proceedings against Hendrikse, who is a pastor of the Protestant Church in the Netherlands, would be likely to lead to, "a protracted discussion about the meanings of words that in the end will produce little clarity". The letter also noted that people have debated the issue of "God's existence" throughout time.

Hendrikse gained attention with his book..."Believing in a God who does not exist: manifesto of an atheist pastor".

"The non-existence of God is for me not an obstacle but a precondition to believing in God. I am an atheist believer," Hendrikse writes in the book. "God is for me not a being but a word for what can happen between people. Someone says to you, for example, 'I will not abandon you', and then makes those words come true. It would be perfectly alright to call that [relationship] God."

The Kingdom of Heaven is a state of the heart
(of children it is written, " for theirs is the
Kingdom of Heaven ") : it has nothing to do with
superterrestrial things. The Kingdom of God
" cometh," not chronologically or historically, not
on a certain day in the calendar ; it is not something
which one day appears and was not previously
there ; it is a " change of feeling in the individual,"
it is something which may come at any time and
which may be absent at any time. . . .Nietzsche, TWTP:161

As was posted a bit back, there's been some fuss over a British judge whose work name is Cherie Booth, though she's more commonly known as Mrs. Cherie Blair - the wife of our former Prime Minister. The both of whom recently converted to the Catholic faith and are known to be devout. Which is fine in and of itself and I don't usually care in the least but when it ends up in something like this....

She basically let off a bloke who had been found guilty of assault because he was religious and, ergo, knew right from wrong.


Well, one of our papers known as 'The Independent' has an article on if this is the right sort of thing to do. Arguing for 'No' is the British Humanist Association and for 'Yes' is a think tank for public theology. Guess which side I'm agreeing with?


In any case, it can be found HERE and because it's the Independent and they have a partnership with LJ going on you can leave comments under your username! Comes out with your default icon but if you click 'thread' it goes to LJ where you can edit the post including changing your icon.



And valar damnit! Just when I get all proud at how my country isn't nuts with stuff like this someone goes and pulls of some crap.



And for something completely different.....

If no one has posted it already there's a petition on the National Secular Society (Britain's main atheist group along with the BHA) to try and get the Pope to pay for his own visit to the UK. Rather than the tax payer. So for any Brits on here who don't know about it already you can find it HERE.



ETA:  FRELL! One of our other papers, the Telegraph (also known as the Torygraph by some, meaning it's towards the right of British politics) has gone and posted THIS. Stating, firmly, that Mrs. Blair/Ms. Booth was right. No argument, she is absolutely right. *headbangs*

Nothing says Enlightened Religious Tolerance like planting your religious symbol in the middle of someone else's church!


http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-wicca3-2010feb03,0,3367750.story

Tangental to charlycrash's post...does the nature of the ministry that the lost soul seeks out matter?

Flock Is Now a Fight Team in Some Ministries

Recruitment efforts at the churches, which are predominantly white, involve fight night television viewing parties and lecture series that use ultimate fighting to explain how Christ fought for what he believed in. Other ministers go further, hosting or participating in live events.

The goal, these pastors say, is to inject some machismo into their ministries — and into the image of Jesus — in the hope of making Christianity more appealing.
...
The outreach is part of a larger and more longstanding effort on the part of some ministers who fear that their churches have become too feminized, promoting kindness and compassion at the expense of strength and responsibility.

“The man should be the overall leader of the household,” said Ryan Dobson, 39, a pastor and fan of mixed martial arts who is the son of James C. Dobson, the founder of Focus on the Family, a prominent evangelical group. “We’ve raised a generation of little boys.”

emphasis mine
I see that Dobson Jr. is a chip off the ole block there!

Nondenominational evangelical churches have a long history of using popular culture — rock music, skateboarding and even yoga — to reach new followers. Yet even among more experimental sects, mixed martial arts has critics.

“What you attract people to Christ with is also what you need to get people to stay,” said Eugene Cho, 39, a pastor at Quest Church, an evangelical congregation in Seattle. “I don’t live for the Jesus who eats red meat, drinks beer and beats on other men.”

I am reminded of a page from Ellul's awesome book Propaganda where he talks about attempts to spread the gospel using modern means ultimately subverts the message and meaning of Xtianity. I can't find the passage online, so I'll just include a blurb from another one of his books..."Successive generations have reinterpreted Scripture and modeled it after their own cultures, thus moving society further from the truth of the original gospel...The heart of the problem, he says, is that we have not accepted the fact that Christianity is a scandal; we attempt to make it acceptable and easy — and thus pervert its true message."

I'll close with a link that can also be found in the absolute_jesus community, because IT IS AWESOME...http://www.amazingsuperpowers.com/2010/01/versus/ Click it!!!

Sorry, multiple posting.

I imagine most of you are against anyone becoming religious, but how do you feel about people adopting religion when they're in fairly dire straits and need something to make them feel better? If they're recovering from a substance abuse problem, or if they're about to die, or something.

I used to think it was horrible and exploitative that God is such a central part of the 12-step program (although according to people I've known who've done AA, your "higher power" doesn't actually have to be God, but I can't help but feel the whole thing doesn't work nearly as well or makes nearly as much sense if it's something other than God), but recently I've been feeling more like "if it's what it takes for them to patch their lives together again and gather a bit of happiness, then I guess it's okay". You have to take a pragmatic stance with these things, I think: truth is all very well and good, but if you're bloody miserable with it, what's the point?

I'm not sure that an atheist point of view, which is quite likely to be fairly nihilistic, can give the same degree of comfort; neither am I sure developing a sort of sense of pantheistic universal oneness is really for everyone, as pleasant as it is when you manage to do it. Even with said pantheistic hippie-dippieness, you're still left with "The world is a brutal and meaningless place with no guarantee of happiness or justice" (even if you do feel more able to append "But it's okay, because it's still beautiful" on the end). Not exactly the sort of thinking that's most conducive to putting a bottle down.

That said.. without meaning to get too dramatic I've had some pretty rough times in my life and I don't think religion would have eased them. But then, I don't think I have the capacity to be able to overlook my countless logical and philosophical problems with religious ontology for long enough to be able to believe in it, even briefly. Other people work differently.

edit this made sf_drama. Oh dear.

i.imgur.com/kpb5A.png

If you follow the link you can see a graph that lists each state by:

Religiosity
Average IQ
Percent of Population that is impoverished
Divorce Rate
Murder Rate
Theft
Generosity
How many rate themselves as politically conservative
Contentment

  I'm not sure how some of these were derived (for instance, was 'contentment' self-reported or derived by other means?) but the results are about what you'd expect. The more religious a state is, the more likely it is to be poor, uneducated, criminal. But what I found surprising is that these states also have a higher divorce rate and a lower incidence of giving to charity. Obviously, there is a correlation between being impoverished and being less likely to give to charities and certainly correlation doesn't prove causation. But, it's interesting nonetheless.

  What do you guys think of the methodology? And where is your state on the graph?

Xposted to antitheism 

Thought you would get a kick out of this:

Baptists say they were trying to do good in Haiti.

Has anyone here had their car vandalized because of liberal/pro choice/atheist(e.g. the Darwin fish) bumper stickers? I'm going to put a sticker that says OMG GOP WTF?! on my car and was curious.
Also, did you catch the person in the act if it happened to you?

ETA: A few posters from a LJ prochoice community I'm on have had damage done to their cars with prochoice/liberal bumper stickers.

ETA II: OTOH: I waited one day to say something cutting to the bigot who had a marriage = one man + one women. I finally left.

ETA:III Anyone every have trouble with the police? (the Fuzz, the Heat, the Man. :D I love those old B biker movies from the 60's )

http://mysistersfarmhouse.com/2010/01/former-christian-apologizes-for-being-such-a-huge-shit-head-for-all-those-years/

A highlight:

" I apologize to everyone on the face of the earth that has not accepted Jesus christ as their personal savior because I believed that you were all going to hell.  This includes Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Pagans, Environmentalists, Democrats, Movie Stars (especially Tom Cruise), Scientologists, University Professors, Physicists, Geneticists, Europeans, Women’s Studies Majors, Feminists, Millionaires, Billionaires, Hippies, Atheists, Agnostics, Astrologers, People who read their horoscopes, People who watch Bay Watch, Vegetarians, J.K Rowling, Bill Gates, All High-School Biology Teachers who teach evolution and P.E .Teachers who teach a yearly unit on sex-ed.."


It takes a lot for someone to publicly acknowledge that her beliefs were not only incorrect, but were harmful and hurtful to others. It's a wonderful read.


(via unreasonable faith)

Discuss...

The "Conservative Syndrome"

The Conservative syndrome describes a person who attaches particular importance to the respect of tradition, humility, devoutness and moderation; as well as to obedience, self-discipline and politeness, social order, family, and national security; and has a sense of belonging to and a pride in a group with which he or she identifies. A Conservative person also subscribes to conventional religious beliefs and accepts the mystical, including paranormal, experiences.

Consider the example of religious belief, which is a major component of the “syndrome.” Let’s say that the bottom half of the IQ distribution never questions the religion of their upbringing, while the top half is skeptical. Now, just among that skeptical top half, let’s say that 80 percent end up affirming their faith and remain religious, while the rest reject faith and become atheists.

Religion would seem to be the clear choice of smart people in this hypothetical example, but there would still be a positive correlation between IQ and atheism. The correlation exists not because smart people have necessarily rejected religion, but because religion is the “default” position for most of our society.

This same principle works in places where the default and iconoclastic beliefs are reversed. Japan, for example, has no tradition of monotheistic religion, but the few Japanese Christians tend to be much more educated than non-Christians in Japan. By the logic of someone who wants to read a lot into the Stankov study, Christianity must be the wave of the future, perhaps even the one true faith! But, of course, the vast majority of educated Japanese are not Christians. Just as with atheism in the West, the correctness of Christianity cannot be inferred from the traits of the minority who subscribe to it in Japan.

A quick read, moderately interesting...though one should note it is an article in a publication of the conservative think tank The American Enterprise Institute, so of course they're going to downplay or diminish the correlation between higher IQ (and ok, lets be honest IQ is a whole 'nother messy ass can of worms on it's own). For example: "They seem unaware that the wider world features plenty of intelligent people who are not professors or movie critics or government bureaucrats. Even among the nation’s smartest people, liberal elites could easily be in the minority politically, but different social circles keep them insulated from finding that out." Yes, because all intellectual liberals are professors or movie critics or government bureaucrats. Also, note the use of the word 'could'...in a debate the guy would be demolished by the simple trick of pointing out that if one thing was deemed possible with the use of the word could, then other outcomes 'could' also be possible.

Someone recently introduced me to a really awesome online comic called "Joe Loves Crappy Movies":




x-posted to Moviebuffs

A two-fer on the wretched mafia that are Scientologists

1.The 'star' of Scientology's recruitment video, 'Orientation' is leaving Scientology...hilarity of the Kafka-esque kind ensues.

He wants his money back.

"...after 33 years as a Scientologist, the past 13 as the voice extolling the virtues of Scientology and the perils of walking away, Anderson is walking away. He says the church failed to deliver the spiritual gains it promised."
...
[Defining moment:} "I looked around and everybody's in a standing ovation, getting their checkbooks out. I thought, 'Oh, my God, we are sheeple.' Not me. I'm out.'"

It's sorta too bad he wasted 30 years of his life, but better late then never, I guess.

2.Tangentially on the Scientology tip, a high ranking member of the 'church' was charged with murder for shooting his business partner. This case is being followed by ex-members of the church with great interest, to see how it deals with the breakdown of such a high ranking member (OT 7, whatever that means).

Adams County software-firm owner charged in killing of ex-business partner

Police also found a briefcase and a typed note, dated Dec. 30 and signed by Fowler. The note said nothing confidential was in the satchel and that it should be given to his wife, Janet.

When Janet Fowler was interviewed by detectives, she demanded the briefcase.

"It is important to me and my church. It is religious material and I want it now," she said to investigators. "Even if you looked at it, and read it, you would not understand anything in it. Because it is way above a normal person and you would not know what it meant. I want it back right now."

In the comment thread of the preceding story, a commenter stated that Fowler's problems may have had to do with money...specifically getting more of it in order to give it to the church...sad.

Anyone can see the strong correlation that exists between the desert environment and theocratic ideology (we ultimately have the atmospheric hadley cells to thank for this prevalent theocratic ideology). The question is 'why'.

One principle of evolutionary psychology may be called 'the musical chairs effect'. It is the principle that, in areas where food and water are undependable and sporadic, nature selects for people who are self-centered- people who hog resources for themselves at the expense of others. The musical chairs effect causes dominant/egotistical character, but that alone can not explain theocratic ideology. Theocratic ideology is based on the psychological trait of paternalism- the desire to make others dependent upon oneself or some other entity, thus simultaneously dominating people and providing for them. The god is seen as 'the heavenly father'- a dominant being whose accepting leads to eternal reward and whose absence leads to eternal punishment -the sort of position that a paternalist desires to be in.

So, how can deserts select for the psychological trait of paternalism? The answer is in the few oases, wadis (streams that are flowing only part of the year), and rivers in the desert. With water concentrated in such limited areas, it is easy for a gang of people to dominate them, and make the other people subject to their will. The gang that dominates the water sources can use the other people for labor and defense, so it would not want to simply take all the water for themselves and let the other people die; rather, it would manipulate the other people as it pleases, in exchange for water. Such a social arrangement is called 'hydraulic despotism'.

The people who see the water-dominators as gods that are their masters and providers, and consequently blindly serve said dominators, are rewarded with plentiful water, and the plentiful food that they use the water to grow (aka heaven), whereas those people who reject the water-dominators suffer the absence of water, and consequent dehydration, starvation, and death (aka hell).

The Nile river and it's kingdom of Egypt is the clearest case of such theocratic hydraulic despotism. Note that in ancient Egypt, it is well known that the pharaoh was seen as a god of sorts. So great was the symbolic servitude of the Nile's water-dominators that the great pyramids were constructed- giant masses of carefully-cut quarried stones which took countless hours of hard labor to build, and which serve no practical function, but only serve as monuments to the dead human 'gods'.

Hello everyone. As atheists, I and my wife did not anticipate ever joining an organized spiritual community. However, we recently found out that atheists are part of a number of Unitarian Universalist congregations, and are considering this possibility. Does any of you have experience with Unitarian Universalism, either positive or negative, that you are willing to share? I would most like to understand what is the attitude toward and experience of atheists within Unitarian Universalist congregations, and whether you found it worth your time and energy to go there.