Fellow Atheists/Agnostic Atheists - Let's Chat: Do you feel it is risky being "out" these days?

MilkmanDanimal wrote:
Grubber788 wrote:

I suspect I might be too agnostic for my own good, asking pointed questions like:

Why not kill?
Why not steal?
Why love your own children more than a random stranger?
Why do we exist?

It's not that I walk around wanting to kill or steal or that I don't understand the rationale behind having strong feeling towards ones own offspring or that I would spend my sanity dwelling on questions that may or may not have answers, but I guess so long as I am troubled philosophically by my own existence, I will just have to keep on asking why to even the simplest of questions.

The pretty basic answer is we don't get morality from religion, we get religion from morality. Morality exists to confirm and codify the social mores and standards that currently exist in the society. We don't frown upon killing because the Ten Commandments say "Thou Shalt Not Kill": the commandments say that because society frowns upon killing.

Religion definitely follows society. Once society decided that shrimp were delicious the religions dropped that like hotcakes.

My view to a lot of these questions(Why not Kill? etc) was shaped pretty strongly when I read the selfish gene. It explained a lot of things about how biology and evolution work to alter behavior and it seems completely consistent to how society in general treats these questions.

For example when asking the question "In an uncaring Universe why do we not kill?" I think the answer is really just that we don't want to. Why don't we want to? I think it is because we are social animals and wanton killing would destroy that society and probably result in the deaths of those who were in it. Basically, I think biology or evolution answers those questions. I think the same answers are also found in questions like "Why do we help others?" "Why do we protect the weak?" etc.

I don't think it needs to be any deeper than that to explain it.

I've observed before that our morality is species based. If we were obligate predators, killing would be just another part of daily life. Morality is not only not given to us by a perfect god, but it's oddly tied to the way our species operates socially. Well, odd if you think there's one universal standard for morality that every creature "should" follow.

I guess if you consider morality tied to the way our species operates socially, that could help to explain the prejudice against atheists this thread is about: atheism would be, after all, the rejection of a social institution. It would make evolutionary sense for members of a society to have an issue with people who reject the idea of belonging to a church if the impulse to be social animals is written into us at a genetic level.

Could the selfish gene also be a...religious gene?

There have been studies done on the genetic component of beliefs. There seems to be one - some people are more likely to be religious than others, so even within families there are differences. It's pretty small, though, compared to environment, as I recall. But the really interesting stuff is that you get most of your beliefs not from the family, but rather from the other families around you that you interact with. If you're religious, and in a social setting with worship groups (churches, synagogues, etc) which regularly meet, you are more likely to adopt their beliefs than those of your parents, or those you see on tv or read about.

What happens then is that you take your set of beliefs and go and find evidence for them in the world around you. That's by far the most common way to come to belief - you learn it from your friends and social circle, sometimes from your family, and rarely from books - then you start looking for evidence to support it.

It has also been suggested that the pattern seeking behavior that is so often useful in daily life, particularly as we were evolving contributes in the creation or of gods and the attribution of things to them.

I think it is all fascinating but it is worth pointing out that even with a God gene the argument for Gods is not strengthened.

There was a recent study published in Science that found a negative correlation between religious belief and an analytic thought process.

http://www.latimes.com/news/science/...

abstract from the article wrote:

Analytic Thinking Promotes Religious Disbelief

Scientific interest in the cognitive underpinnings of religious belief has grown in recent years. However, to date, little experimental research has focused on the cognitive processes that may promote religious disbelief. The present studies apply a dual-process model of cognitive processing to this problem, testing the hypothesis that analytic processing promotes religious disbelief. Individual differences in the tendency to analytically override initially flawed intuitions in reasoning were associated with increased religious disbelief. Four additional experiments provided evidence of causation, as subtle manipulations known to trigger analytic processing also encouraged religious disbelief. Combined, these studies indicate that analytic processing is one factor (presumably among several) that promotes religious disbelief. Although these findings do not speak directly to conversations about the inherent rationality, value, or truth of religious beliefs, they illuminate one cognitive factor that may influence such discussions.

The LA Times story actually does a pretty good job of reporting on the article without sensationlizing or blowing the conclusions out of proportion.

While part of me, as a non-believer, would like to feel pride in being too analytically minded to fall for creeds that are logically inconsistent. I remember being a believer enough to point out that for many, authentic religious or spiritual expereince has precious little to do with truth claims, creeds, or dogma and much more to do with being open to the numinous.

If you have access to a Science subscription, here is the citation:

Analytic Thinking Promotes Religious Disbelief
Will M. Gervais and Ara Norenzayan
Science 27 April 2012: 336 (6080), 493-496. [DOI:10.1126/science.1215647]

Today one of the people that I'm "friends" with on facebook posted this (I really should delete them):

Our pastor at church this morning. He's awesome.

IMAGE(http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg233/scaled.php?server=233&filename=55848642854933048841110.jpg&res=landing)

Apparently many churches are preparing to physically fight against the "evil" non Super-Perfect-Christian churches. Evangelicals are scaring me more than they did when I lived in the bible belt with them (this is a church on the Indiana/KY border).

**Edit**- Apparently the whole peace, love and charity part of Christianity is taking a backseat to the "war on religion" and "preparing to defend against the non-believers-that-love-satan-and-want-to-murder-Christians-in-their-sleep".

Looks like their pastor is ready to take the fight to the Covenant!

Seriously though... absolutely terrifying.

Wait, isn't that just a plastic guitar? He's rocking out, not threatening anyone?

Yeah, do you have any more context for that photo? It's not that I disbelieve you, but that's a very blurry photo of that bigfoot alleged soldier. I don't doubt the possibility of nutjobs like you describe, but I've been caught out in the past assuming the worst of theists, which is really no better than them doing it to us. In fact, we should know better.

Redwing wrote:

Yeah, do you have any more context for that photo? It's not that I disbelieve you, but that's a very blurry photo of that bigfoot alleged soldier. I don't doubt the possibility of nutjobs like you describe, but I've been caught out in the past assuming the worst of theists, which is really no better than them doing it to us. In fact, we should know better.

True, but why would a pastor of an evangelical church be dressing up in body armor and rifle (or pretend rifle) other than preparing for a war?

Could have been laundry day.

I would also assume the worst if an athiest organization had their leader show up with body armor and a weapon (or fake one) is preparing for something that is not going to end well.

Yup, I'm with the "this really needs more context to determine whether it's scary or hokey" crowd.

Farscry wrote:

Yup, I'm with the "this really needs more context to determine whether it's scary or hokey" crowd. :)

Can't it be both?
Also why is everyone else in that picture staring at their shoes? Is the crazy-man trying to make eye-contact or something?

Well yeah, it could be both. But I sat through enough "armor of god" and "soldiers for christ" sermons growing up that I can completely see this being one of those harmless hokey deals instead of something worrying.

Farscry wrote:

Well yeah, it could be both. But I sat through enough "armor of god" and "soldiers for christ" sermons growing up that I can completely see this being one of those harmless hokey deals instead of something worrying. ;)

I saw something in this vein to this last year in the church nursery/day care at a coast guard station near where I grew up. Essentially a poster showing an outfitted Roman legionary and using each piece of equipment as an allegory for dealing with challenges to your faith. The helmet, for instance, was something along reminding you to guard against opposing or contradictory ideas and trust in your beliefs. Or it might have been the shield. I can't remember what the sword was for.

More on the hokey/harmless side, until you remember that it's in the frelling nursery. Certainly not someone dressing in modern combat gear and talking about going to war.

Not to mention the irony of using a Roman legionary as an allegory for strong Christan faith.. more hokey points there.

Reversing the contexts here, I wonder what members of an evangelical church would think of the Gamerswithjobs.com forums from a random screenshot or quoted post?

Would they see nice people building a community of trust, support, respect, and sanity in the middle of the crazy stuff that is on the web? Or would they see finger --> butt, wiener bomb, jewbies, oogaba, and Shalalm Baskur?

I'm biased against Evangelicals because I used to be one. I'm like an ex-smoker who gets all pissy when he smells someone else enjoying a cigarette in public that way. However, the crazy stuff generally ends up just being a *human* trait, not an evangelical trait. People worshipping violence in a house of prayer scares the snot out of me, but that picture is pretty easy to take out of context. Especially when I'm pre-disposed to assume the worst of that particular group.

KrazyTacoFO wrote:

Apparently many churches are preparing to physically fight against the "evil" non Super-Perfect-Christian churches. Evangelicals are scaring me more than they did when I lived in the bible belt with them (this is a church on the Indiana/KY border).

**Edit**- Apparently the whole peace, love and charity part of Christianity is taking a backseat to the "war on religion" and "preparing to defend against the non-believers-that-love-satan-and-want-to-murder-Christians-in-their-sleep".

To me, the first question is whether or not the above quote is an assumption on the part of Krazy, or if this is info he got from his Facebook friend.

As someone formerly involved in those kinds of churches (that is, very evangelical) back in the 80's thru about the mid 90's, I can tell you what that probably is.

It is extremely common in evangelical (fundy) churches to talk about "the armor of God", girding oneself with the "shield of faith", wielding the "sword of the Word", etc. They are not literal ideas of combat, but figurative and are meant to express going to 'battle' in the spiritual realm. Fundies fully believe that evil spirits are flying all around the world, attempting to sway, influence, and steal souls from God. These evangelicals believe themselves to be spiritual "soldiers" for God, and they do battle via prayer, preaching the word, studying the bible, and attempting to convert non-believers to God's side.

I guess God sits back with a bowl of popcorn and enjoys the show.

Ephesians 6:11: Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devil's schemes. (NIV)

1st John 5:19: "...the whole world is under the sway of the evil one."

Also, here's a page that explains the "full armor of God" that is commonly taught in fundy churches: http://www.crossroad.to/Victory/Armo...

Jeff-66 wrote:

As someone formerly involved in those kinds of churches (that is, very evangelical) back in the 80's thru about the mid 90's, I can tell you what that probably is.

It is extremely common in evangelical (fundy) churches to talk about "the armor of God", girding oneself with the "shield of faith", wielding the "sword of the Word", etc. They are not literal ideas of combat, but figurative and are meant to express going to 'battle' in the spiritual realm. Fundies fully believe that evil spirits are flying all around the world, attempting to sway, influence, and steal souls from God. These evangelicals believe themselves to be spiritual "soldiers" for God, and they do battle via prayer, preaching the word, studying the bible, and attempting to convert non-believers to God's side.

And jihad really means "struggle," not a violent religious war...

Seriously, having anyone with an absolute belief system start talking about things in terms of war is how lots of people die. History has shown it's just way too easy for folks to forget about the whole "thou shall not kill" rule, especially when they believe they're saving your immortal soul by killing you.

OG_slinger wrote:
Jeff-66 wrote:

As someone formerly involved in those kinds of churches (that is, very evangelical) back in the 80's thru about the mid 90's, I can tell you what that probably is.

It is extremely common in evangelical (fundy) churches to talk about "the armor of God", girding oneself with the "shield of faith", wielding the "sword of the Word", etc. They are not literal ideas of combat, but figurative and are meant to express going to 'battle' in the spiritual realm. Fundies fully believe that evil spirits are flying all around the world, attempting to sway, influence, and steal souls from God. These evangelicals believe themselves to be spiritual "soldiers" for God, and they do battle via prayer, preaching the word, studying the bible, and attempting to convert non-believers to God's side.

And jihad really means "struggle," not a violent religious war...

Seriously, having anyone with an absolute belief system start talking about things in terms of war is how lots of people die. History has shown it's just way too easy for folks to forget about the whole "thou shall not kill" rule, especially when they believe they're saving your immortal soul by killing you.

Agreed. We also have a War on Poverty, a War on Drugs, and a War on Terror. Only one of these is something I'd consider a good thing. Perhaps as we struggle to re-introduce a generation of people suffering from post-traumatic stress and traumatic brain injury, we'll learn that in politics and in religion, war metaphors are a really bad idea.

War is hell, even for the "good guys" or the "winners".

OG_slinger wrote:
Jeff-66 wrote:

As someone formerly involved in those kinds of churches (that is, very evangelical) back in the 80's thru about the mid 90's, I can tell you what that probably is.

It is extremely common in evangelical (fundy) churches to talk about "the armor of God", girding oneself with the "shield of faith", wielding the "sword of the Word", etc. They are not literal ideas of combat, but figurative and are meant to express going to 'battle' in the spiritual realm. Fundies fully believe that evil spirits are flying all around the world, attempting to sway, influence, and steal souls from God. These evangelicals believe themselves to be spiritual "soldiers" for God, and they do battle via prayer, preaching the word, studying the bible, and attempting to convert non-believers to God's side.

And jihad really means "struggle," not a violent religious war...

Seriously, having anyone with an absolute belief system start talking about things in terms of war is how lots of people die. History has shown it's just way too easy for folks to forget about the whole "thou shall not kill" rule, especially when they believe they're saving your immortal soul by killing you.

And there are Christian sects that store up guns and want to wage war on the government and set up a Christian theocracy. Anything's possible, but I'm just stating what that picture is most likely about, and stating that 98% of these sects are simply getting themselves roused up to pray and read their bibles. They aren't violent. My guess is that if the sh*t did hit the fan, most of them would run and hide like little schoolgirls. These aren't people raised in the Middle East taught violence from childhood. They're you're typical overweight, undereducated, full of bluster Americans who wouldn't know war if it bit them on the ass.

History has shown it's just way too easy for folks to forget about the whole "thou shall not kill" rule,

Hell, I've seen people on this actual board argue that this is a mistranslation -- that they got a commandment wrong in the Bible. Supposedly, it's "thou shalt not murder".

So much for Biblical literalism, eh? If it doesn't say what you want it to say, even if it's a commandment, well, then there's ways around that little problem.

Malor wrote:
History has shown it's just way too easy for folks to forget about the whole "thou shall not kill" rule,

Hell, I've seen people on this actual board argue that this is a mistranslation -- that they got a commandment wrong in the Bible. Supposedly, it's "thou shalt not murder".

So much for Biblical literalism, eh? If it doesn't say what you want it to say, even if it's a commandment, well, then there's ways around that little problem.

There is a good argument to be made for that translation.

It is much (much!) harder to get around Jesus' command to love our enemies and forgive them and that the appropriate response to violence is to turn the other cheek.

Sure, but that puts a stake in the biblical literalist argument... if they can get a commandment wrong, what else is messed up in KJV?

Malor wrote:

Sure, but that puts a stake in the biblical literalist argument... if they can get a commandment wrong, what else is messed up in KJV?

Don't confuse KJV only-ism for biblical literalism. Some people actually believe that the KJV version was more inspired(?) than the original Hebrew and Greek.

Well, if it IS 'more inspired' than the originals, it still says Thou Shalt Not Kill.

Nomad wrote:
Malor wrote:

Sure, but that puts a stake in the biblical literalist argument... if they can get a commandment wrong, what else is messed up in KJV?

Don't confuse KJV only-ism for biblical literalism. Some people actually believe that the KJV version was more inspired(?) than the original Hebrew and Greek.

I cannot even begin to wrap my brain around this one, nor do I want to convince my fingers to Google the reasons for it.