A discourse on Atheism (not a religious debate)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

I've heard that Buddhist monks are expected to be celibate. So celibacy is not something peculiar to Catholicism if I've got my facts straight.

Although I can sort of see a motivation for celibacy in putting all one's energy into worship or meditation or whatever one practices, having a family offers many more challenges that may even be more useful spiritually. When I see a couple fighting, and they claim to be of a particular religion, I assume that their religion is not very useful or they aren't effectively practicing it.

The same would go for atheists who fight within their family which brings this back to the OP which was about atheism and not religion. Do atheists offer any better practice to make their family lives better?

---

I practice all sorts of things to make my family life better. Of course I do. Why wouldn't I?

"Name me an ethical statement made or an action performed by a believer that could not have been made or performed by a non-believer." - Hitchens

Religion is useless to me. I don't need sanctions and threats to make me behave decently to other people. If a person thinks they need that, there is something wrong with their thinking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Climacus

And you don't mean this hyperbolically? But to draw this conclusion, you need to canvass the religions for truth-claims, quantify them, assign truth values to them, and do the math. Surely you're not saying that you've done something like this?

---

Yes, I've pretty much done that. You have too if you believe in one or none of them. We're all at least vaguely familiar with the truth claims of most religions. All or most of them are faith-based and therefore empirically equivalent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Varenne Rodin

I practice all sorts of things to make my family life better. Of course I do. Why wouldn't I?

"Name me an ethical statement made or an action performed by a believer that could not have been made or performed by a non-believer." - Hitchens

Religion is useless to me. I don't need sanctions and threats to make me behave decently to other people. If a person thinks they need that, there is something wrong with their thinking.

---

Well, when theists say things like "we can't be good without God," they don't mean "we can't be good if we don't believe in God." (Unless they're morons, of course, and we needn't discuss morons.) They mean that if God doesn't exists, then good and evil don't exist either, at least not objectively. And so we can be neither good nor evil. (Maybe they're wrong about this, but that's what they mean.)

The soundness of Hitchens' sentiment, on the other hand, is contingent on whether or not God exists. For if God exists, then there are good actions that atheists cannot perform. In example, if God exists - an all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing being - then it is a good thing to reverence him. But if you don't believe in him, you can't do so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Climacus

Well, when theists say things like "we can't be good without God," they don't mean "we can't be good if we don't believe in God." (Unless they're morons, of course, and we needn't discuss morons.) They mean that if God doesn't exists, then good and evil don't exist either, at least not objectively. And so we can be neither good nor evil. (Maybe they're wrong about this, but that's what they mean.)

The soundness of Hitchens' sentiment, on the other hand, is contingent on whether or not God exists. For if God exists, then there are good actions that atheists cannot perform. In example, if God exists - an all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing being - then it is a good thing to reverence him. But if you don't believe in him, you can't do so.

---

No. I don't agree that it would be a good thing to reverence him. That would be akin to slavery. Is slavery a good thing? A person can decide to be a slave to their god, but even if it is real, they will not convince me that I and my children should be slaves.

If a god created the universe, I would appreciate the enormity of that, but I would wonder at the choices for earthlings to live mortal suffering lives. I would wonder at a deity's complacency to the torture of his "children". I do not agree with sacrificing children. If theists do, there is something wrong with theists.

"If slavery isn't wrong, then nothing is wrong." Abe Lincoln

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

Calidore, while I agree with the overall tenor of your post I must take issue with the part in bold. There are such a high number of pedophile priests because the church forbids them from having sex or marrying. Their natual sex instinct is suppressed and thereby perverted. You do hear of coaches and other persons molesting children but not nearly as often as you hear of priests. The reason behind their not being allowed to marry is really quite sinister. I heard a historian explain that the vatican instituted this ban so that their priests would be left without heirs and their property thus turned over to the church. Much of the church's staggering fortune and land holdings have come about due to this.

---

Way late in responding, sorry, and other people have already weighed in, but here's my thoughts:

I hadn't heard your reason for the marriage ban, but it certainly sounds plausible. I do disagree that priests who were previously normal men become active predators of children because their sex drive is suppressed.

I wonder if the numbers on clerical predation have ever been crunched by anyone without an axe to grind. Are there really proportionally more predators in the priesthood than, say, teachers, coaches, etc.? Or do we simply hear about it more now because 1) decades worth of cases previously suppressed are all coming out at once; 2) people smell money and want some.... Damn, I know I had a 3) when I started, but now it's gone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

I have no idea what a dialetheist is.

---

One who doesn't believe in rotary phones.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Varenne Rodin

No. I don't agree that it would be a good thing to reverence him. That would be akin to slavery. Is slavery a good thing? A person can decide to be a slave to their god, but even if it is real, they will not convince me that I and my children should be slaves.

---

Well, I guess theists wouldn't agree that reverence is akin to or synonymous with slavery. They would think it a good thing to reverence the good. And they think that God is supremely good. Here's another way of looking at it. Most cultures throughout history have thought it a good thing to reverence parents. Because, among other things, parents are the source of our being and are - or ought to be - our benefactors. But, if God exists, he's ever so much more our source of being and benefactor. So we should reverence him too. It's a sort of a fortiori argument. Again this is predicated on the conditional, if God exists . . .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Calidore

One who doesn't believe in rotary phones.

---

:biggrin5:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Climacus

Well, I guess theists wouldn't agree that reverence is akin to or synonymous with slavery. They would think it a good thing to reverence the good. And they think that God is supremely good. Here's another way of looking at it. Most cultures throughout history have thought it a good thing to reverence parents. Because, among other things, parents are the source of our being and are - or ought to be - our benefactors. But, if God exists, he's ever so much more our source of being and benefactor. So we should reverence him too. It's a sort of a fortiori argument. Again this is predicated on the conditional, if God exists . . .

---

If a parent is abusive or neglectful, that parent should no longer be revered. It should be fought. This god "parent" theists revere sits by while his children are mutilated, decapitated, burned, hanged, shot, stabbed, raped, beaten, gorged, eaten by disease, executed, enslaved, starved. For thousands of years there have been genocides and plagues. The horrors of North Korea, AIDS in Africa, starvation in Somalia, the holocaust, the dark ages, hundreds of years of extremely high infant mortality rates. If there is a god, if this is by design, it's evil.

Much better to realize we alone have responsibility for our lives and how we effect others than to leave everything in the hands of a god who, if there, ignores atrocity. If he rewards suffering with another life, he is still sick. It's like a slave holder. There is no gray area here. There is no interpreting torture differently. Torture is torture. Painting a rosy picture of it only further enables it. I would rather enjoy my life and seek genuine truths for the entirety of it than abide torture in the hopes of a paradise reward. Theism is fantasy. It should be kept private and not thrust upon a vulnerable society.

I'll state it more simply. Theists who believe their god should be revered are like abused wives living in denial of what is being done to them. They are afraid of misbehaving for fear of punishment. The abuser buys them a present and it's all good again. That sucks. We should empower people to get out of that mindset. It's false security and the abandonment of freedom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Climacus

And you don't mean this hyperbolically? But to draw this conclusion, you need to canvass the religions for truth-claims, quantify them, assign truth values to them, and do the math. Surely you're not saying that you've done something like this?

---

You are amazing Climacus. I think only you could do that job because in your bizarre book, there is not even 0.000000001% of the staggering number of claims. Actually you are the most credible Protagorian that ever lived, except perhaps Erasmus of Rotterdam and Hugo Chavez of Venezuela.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Varenne Rodin

I'll state it more simply. Theists who believe their god should be revered are like abused wives living in denial of what is being done to them. They are afraid of misbehaving for fear of punishment. The abuser buys them a present and it's all good again. That sucks. We should empower people to get out of that mindset. It's false security and the abandonment of freedom.

---

You struggle with the problem of evil. I understand that. Don't we all? All I was doing was suggesting a theistic line of thought, a way to understand the theist's point of view. Your analogy doesn't hold for the theist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cafolini

You are amazing Climacus. I think only you could do that job because in your bizarre book, there is not even 0.000000001% of the staggering number of claims. Actually you are the most credible Protagorian that ever lived, except perhaps Erasmus of Rotterdam and Hugo Chavez of Venezuela.

---

What book are you talking about, a religious book? I never said I was religious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Climacus

You struggle with the problem of evil. I understand that. Don't we all? All I was doing was suggesting a theistic line of thought, a way to understand the theist's point of view. Your analogy doesn't hold for the theist.

---

I understand theists quite well. I was raised by theists. I live in the united states. What's to misunderstand? They're very vocal about their causes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Climacus

Well, when theists say things like "we can't be good without God," they don't mean "we can't be good if we don't believe in God." (Unless they're morons, of course, and we needn't discuss morons.) They mean that if God doesn't exists, then good and evil don't exist either, at least not objectively. And so we can be neither good nor evil. (Maybe they're wrong about this, but that's what they mean.)

The soundness of Hitchens' sentiment, on the other hand, is contingent on whether or not God exists. For if God exists, then there are good actions that atheists cannot perform. In example, if God exists - an all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing being - then it is a good thing to reverence him. But if you don't believe in him, you can't do so.

---

Nice way of putting that. I agree.

---------------------

Although this thread is about atheism, it keeps going back to religion and then a criticism or defense of religion. What I am wondering is if atheism has any sort of specific practice that helps the atheist live a good life, specifically, how do atheists avoid fighting within their own families? In other words, I'm trying to find out if atheism has anything positive to offer or if all it has is a critique of what other people want to believe in.

Now I can see the sort of things that some atheists actually practice--at least the vocal ones. Here are two things that I see atheists practice:

(1) They tend to practice self-righteousness when it comes to other people's spirituality.

(2) They tend to refuse to forgive religious people because, I suspect, that would defuse the first practice.

Now, I'm not saying religious people are any better, but neither of these habits or practices seem like something that would make an atheist's family life joyful. When tensions arise in the family, I can see the self-righteousness and unforgiving attitude get directed at a spouse, parent, child or other close relative.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

Nice way of putting that. I agree.

---------------------

Although this thread is about atheism, it keeps going back to religion and then a criticism or defense of religion. What I am wondering is if atheism has any sort of specific practice that helps the atheist live a good life, specifically, how do atheists avoid fighting within their own families? In other words, I'm trying to find out if atheism has anything positive to offer or if all it has is a critique of what other people want to believe in.

Now I can see the sort of things that some atheists actually practice--at least the vocal ones. Here are two things that I see atheists practice:

(1) They tend to practice self-righteousness when it comes to other people's spirituality.

(2) They tend to refuse to forgive religious people because, I suspect, that would defuse the first practice.

Now, I'm not saying religious people are any better, but neither of these habits or practices seem like something that would make an atheist's family life joyful. When tensions arise in the family, I can see the self-righteousness and unforgiving attitude get directed at a spouse, parent, child or other close relative.

---

Well, since we aren't under the impression that women were made from our rib for the purpose of being our helper, since we don't ascribe to the doctrine of male headship, I'd suspect most atheist marriages are based upon terms of equality in contrast with many Christian/Muslim ones.

The only difference between a moral atheist and a moral theist is that the atheist is moral for the sake of being moral, not because he or she has been ordered to do so under threat of eternal damnation.

Research secular humanism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

Well, since we aren't under the impression that women were made from our rib for the purpose of being our helper, since we don't ascribe to the doctrine of male headship, I'd suspect most atheist marriages are based upon terms of equality in contrast with many Christian/Muslim ones.

The only difference between a moral atheist and a moral theist is that the atheist is moral for the sake of being moral, not because he or she has been ordered to do so under threat of eternal damnation.

Research secular humanism.

---

So there is no fighting in families with atheists because their ideas keep them from fighting? They all live peacefully together.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

So there is no fighting in families with atheists because their ideas keep them from fighting? They all live peacefully together.

---

I doubt there's any more or less fighting in atheist households than religious ones. In my experience the best and worst people can belong to either side.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

Well, since we aren't under the impression that women were made from our rib for the purpose of being our helper, since we don't ascribe to the doctrine of male headship, I'd suspect most atheist marriages are based upon terms of equality in contrast with many Christian/Muslim ones.

The only difference between a moral atheist and a moral theist is that the atheist is moral for the sake of being moral, not because he or she has been ordered to do so under threat of eternal damnation.

Research secular humanism.

---

You shouldn't assume that a Christian is moral ONLY because he/she is ORDERED to be. There are many Christians that serve God because of love, not because of any threat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

You shouldn't assume that a Christian is moral ONLY because he/she is ORDERED to be. There are many Christians that serve God because of love, not because of any threat.

---

The problem with that is the "serve" part. Master/slave relationship. A dog loves its master no matter what the master does. The Christian master doesn't seem to care much about what happens to his dogs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

So there is no fighting in families with atheists because their ideas keep them from fighting? They all live peacefully together.

---

Nope, there's fighting. There's fighting in EVERY family, except for perhaps the very un-fulfilled ones who just don't give a **** anymore.

What's with your aversion to family squabbles? If both partners are equal, and they have an idea which differs from that of their partner, both should feel free to express their point. To me, that seems a hell of a lot healthier than one person putting their head down, "yes, you're right dear, of course..." (which seems to be the Christian solution to all family matters from what I've read in the bible and from parable spinners such as Hans Christian Anderson). Argument is essential to arriving at a compromise, or to finding the most effective solution to a problem which is affecting the entire family. In fact, I've read that families in which never ever fight are more likely fo feel unfulfilled and file for divorce, although I'll have to root out where that came from. I think it was a textbook.

Then of course there's the issue of human nature. I don't think that it's in our nature to meekly put our heads down and do whatever another person tells us to do, especially when that person is suggesting something which seems profoundly stupid and which will affect our entire lives and our families. The Christian wives that I know aren't meek little sock puppets. To suggest so, or to suggest that they SHOULD be or else they're "obviously not taking their religion very seriously", is somewhat insulting.

Generally, I look at service in a positive light, however, I suppose it all depends on who or what one is serving. If one is a Christian serving Jesus or a Hindu serving Rama, I think that service is positive. Love, not any threat, is what drives the morality as BienvenuJDC points out.

If one is serving oneself, pursuing transitory pleasure, it is very easy to get caught up serving greed, lust or anger. That service I would consider negative.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf

Nope, there's fighting. There's fighting in EVERY family, except for perhaps the very un-fulfilled ones who just don't give a **** anymore.

What's with your aversion to family squabbles? If both partners are equal, and they have an idea which differs from that of their partner, both should feel free to express their point. To me, that seems a hell of a lot healthier than one person putting their head down, "yes, you're right dear, of course..." (which seems to be the Christian solution to all family matters from what I've read in the bible and from parable spinners such as Hans Christian Anderson). Argument is essential to arriving at a compromise, or to finding the most effective solution to a problem which is affecting the entire family. In fact, I've read that families in which never ever fight are more likely fo feel unfulfilled and file for divorce, although I'll have to root out where that came from. I think it was a textbook.

Then of course there's the issue of human nature. I don't think that it's in our nature to meekly put our heads down and do whatever another person tells us to do, especially when that person is suggesting something which seems profoundly stupid and which will affect our entire lives and our families. The Christian wives that I know aren't meek little sock puppets. To suggest so, or to suggest that they SHOULD be, is somewhat insulting.

---

I'm more interested in what atheists do than Christians since this thread is about atheism. You seem to justify family fighting as healthy, but I'm not so sure. I'd be interested in any research you might come up with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

Love, not any threat, is what drives the morality as BienvenuJDC points out.

---

Yes - love for one's partner, love for one's children and love for one's fellow man, NOT love for one's invisible friend.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

You seem to justify family fighting as healthy, but I'm not so sure. I'd be interested in any research you might come up with.

---

Ugh. Sure, but I wish that you'd do it yourself because research is tedious and I've already learned about one vs. two-sided relationships and the strenght of each accordingly in my first year. To go back and root through the mountain of family hostility research in order to find specific examples which pertain to this subject for the sake of a stupid internet debate doesn't sound like a good time.

Here, go nuts:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/

Also, please address the rest of my post and not just the part you've put in bold.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Climacus

In example, if God exists - an all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing being - then it is a good thing to reverence him. But if you don't believe in him, you can't do so.

---

...and if he doesn't exist then you're wasting a lot of your life literally worshipping something that isn't real, and if he DOES exist and honestly does strongly want people to worship him or else he'll send them to a place where they'll be tortured for all eternity, then he sounds more like a psychopathic narcissist than a benevolent diety and I'd really rather not. If that's the case than I'll take the torture, thank you. Better that than being a forced sycophant.

However, I very strongly doubt that if there is a god(s), that it(they) actually care about whether or not humans revere it(them). Why would it(they)?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

I'm more interested in what atheists do than Christians since this thread is about atheism. You seem to justify family fighting as healthy, but I'm not so sure. I'd be interested in any research you might come up with.

---

Atheists aren't part of a group, we're individuals. We don't have some specific doctrine or moral code. I think when a person is an atheist, it seems important to make the best of the life they have (and all of the wonderful things that go along with that), because it's viewed as the only life there is unless and/or until we find out otherwise.

Hey, you guys. God is going to come at night and tickle your feet while you are sleeping. Then you'll see a good joke for the first time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Varenne Rodin

Atheists aren't part of a group, we're individuals. We don't have some specific doctrine or moral code.

---

I thought that was obvious, but now that I look back that does seem to be what he's asking for, doesn't it?

I guess I'll just pull out my atheist hand manual and check under "family welfare."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf

I thought that was obvious, but now that I look back that does seem to be what he's asking for, doesn't it?

I guess I'll just pull out my atheist hand manual and check under "family welfare."

---

Hahaha. Just don't reveal the secret handshake. We have to keep our sect secure.

Seriously, what do human beings like? Some of us like to be hugged, we like affection, music, art, books (pick your pleasure). We like mutual respect. What do we not like? We don't like being hurt or judged harshly for our genetics. It's not that difficult to figure out how to behave. I've been a Christian and an atheist, and I stress a lot less as an atheist. Things are less confusing for me. Be good to people, be good to yourself. That's all. No worries about big brother watching my every move (if he is watching he's a bit pervy). I just don't care about the superfluous junk that people get all tense over. I don't care about it until someone tries to force me to agree to their "god's" standards (how can they know?) for what is good and bad. It's not necessary.

I don't buy the "atheists aren't a group" thing. Of course we are. If atheists weren't a part of a group, there wouldn't be a need for an atheist label. I think it would be more accurate to say that atheists aren't an established community, though I still think that's easily arguable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi

I don't buy the "atheists aren't a group" thing. Of course we are. If atheists weren't a part of a group, there wouldn't be a need for an atheist label. I think it would be more accurate to say that atheists aren't an established community, though I still think that's easily arguable.

---

Yeah. Exactly what you said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi

I'm primarily talking about violence--murder, death, etc. I don't disagree that there is a clear link between Catholic priests and molestation, but I also wonder if these pedophiles need religion to commit these acts--it wouldn't surprise me in the least if they still turned out to be pedophiles without becoming priests. It's not that someone else would, just that the same people would for a different reason.

Make sense or not, it's what I believe. I think religion is often more of an excuse than a reason for people to commit violence. A lot of the suicide bombers and the like come from very poor socio-economic situations, and are ripe from brain-washing. It's how most terrorists are recruited. They have nothing to live for, and once they are given something to live for, they latch on to it, even if it means committing suicide. If they didn't do it for religion, maybe their reasons would be completely political (which has already been the case).

All I'm saying is that violence will find a way. It doesn't need religion. I'm not defending religion here, I'm just saying that if it wasn't religion, it'd be something else.

---

This, too, is spot on. It basically would've been my reply to Juniper.

All atheists are a group in the same sense that all theists are a group: they're all species and subspecies of the same genus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi

I don't buy the "atheists aren't a group" thing. Of course we are. If atheists weren't a part of a group, there wouldn't be a need for an atheist label. I think it would be more accurate to say that atheists aren't an established community, though I still think that's easily arguable.

---

You bring up a good point. There isn't a need for an atheist label, and there's nothing specifically wrong with organizing support groups. I don't happen to belong to a group. Atheism is not a theism or a governing system. We don't have a code of behavior. We don't have official atheist buildings that I'm aware of. We don't enjoy tax exemption. Saying we're not a group was probably too general a statement. Some of the posts were questioning our family lifestyles as though there must be a commonality among us as atheists. We're humans. Are humans a comparable group to theist groups? We don't believe in gods. I think that's where similarity ends if we're not counting random things that lots of people have in common.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi

I don't buy the "atheists aren't a group" thing. Of course we are. If atheists weren't a part of a group, there wouldn't be a need for an atheist label. I think it would be more accurate to say that atheists aren't an established community, though I still think that's easily arguable.

---

Theists as theists aren't an established community either. Remember, "theist" and "atheist" are genera. To find established communities you have to venture from genus into species. This seems too obvious to mention, but people overlook the fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Climacus

Theists as theists aren't an established community either. Remember, "theist" and "atheist" are genera. To find established communities you have to venture from genus into species. This seems too obvious to mention, but people overlook the fact.

---

I never said theists were an established community.

And what are we talking about all of a sudden, here, biology? :skep:

The suggestion that terrorists come from very poor socio-economic situations, and that this makes them ripe from brain-washing, is not born out by the facts. Terrorists are often engineers!

http://www.slate.com/articles/health...ldabomber.html

"Terrorists tend to be wealthier and better-educated than their countrymen."

The mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, Mohamed Atta, was an architectural engineer. Khalid Sheikh Mohamed got his degree in mechanical engineering. Two of the three founders of Lashkar-e-Taibi, the group believed to be behind the Mumbai attacks, were professors at the University of Engineering and Technology in Lahore.

Diego Gambetta and Steffen Hertog looked at more than 400 radical Islamic terrorists from more than 30 nations in the Middle East and Africa born mostly between the 1950s and 1970s. They found that engineers were three to four times more likely to become violent terrorists than their peers in finance, medicine or the sciences. The next most radicalizing graduate degree, in a distant second, was Islamic Studies.

Even among Islamic terrorists born or raised in the West, nearly 60 percent had engineering backgrounds.

Engineers described themselves as "strongly conservative" and "deeply religious" more often than professors in any other field. They have a mind-set that disdains ambiguity and compromise. They might be more passionate about bringing order to their society and see the rigid, religious law put forward in radical Islam as the best way of achieving those goals.

Terrorist organizations seem to have recognized this proclivity. A 2005 report from British intelligence noted that Islamic extremists were frequenting college campuses, looking for "inquisitive" students who might be susceptible to their message. In particular, the report noted, they targeted engineers.

Maybe schools and universities should look to providing a broader education for engineers? An education that can puncture "certainty" and "fundamentalism"? Literature could have a large part to play in this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mal4mac

The suggestion that terrorists come from very poor socio-economic situations, and that this makes them ripe from brain-washing, is not born out by the facts. Terrorists are often engineers!

http://www.slate.com/articles/health...ldabomber.html

"Terrorists tend to be wealthier and better-educated than their countrymen."

The mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, Mohamed Atta, was an architectural engineer. Khalid Sheikh Mohamed got his degree in mechanical engineering. Two of the three founders of Lashkar-e-Taibi, the group believed to be behind the Mumbai attacks, were professors at the University of Engineering and Technology in Lahore.

Diego Gambetta and Steffen Hertog looked at more than 400 radical Islamic terrorists from more than 30 nations in the Middle East and Africa born mostly between the 1950s and 1970s. They found that engineers were three to four times more likely to become violent terrorists than their peers in finance, medicine or the sciences. The next most radicalizing graduate degree, in a distant second, was Islamic Studies.

Even among Islamic terrorists born or raised in the West, nearly 60 percent had engineering backgrounds.

Engineers described themselves as "strongly conservative" and "deeply religious" more often than professors in any other field. They have a mind-set that disdains ambiguity and compromise. They might be more passionate about bringing order to their society and see the rigid, religious law put forward in radical Islam as the best way of achieving those goals.

Terrorist organizations seem to have recognized this proclivity. A 2005 report from British intelligence noted that Islamic extremists were frequenting college campuses, looking for "inquisitive" students who might be susceptible to their message. In particular, the report noted, they targeted engineers.

Maybe schools and universities should look to providing a broader education for engineers? An education that can puncture "certainty" and "fundamentalism"? Literature could have a large part to play in this.

---

Good point. Thanks for correcting our incorrect facts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf

Ugh. Sure, but I wish that you'd do it yourself because research is tedious and I've already learned about one vs. two-sided relationships and the strenght of each accordingly in my first year. To go back and root through the mountain of family hostility research in order to find specific examples which pertain to this subject for the sake of a stupid internet debate doesn't sound like a good time.

Here, go nuts:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/

Also, please address the rest of my post and not just the part you've put in bold.

---

Thanks for the response. I didn't find anything in the link that could be used to justify the argument that family fighting was healthy. Was there something in your post that I missed? If it doesn't interest you, no need to research it further.

Anyway, the topic is atheism, not religion, and I'm interested in what atheists practice to make their lives and so their family lives better. What the religious groups that I am most attracted to offer is mantra recitation, meditation, spiritual reading, slowing down and mindfulness. People such as Deepak Chopra would offer similar things in a non-religious context as self-help techniques.

The reason I think atheists may especially have a problem with family living is the negative practice of hostility toward others. This includes self-righteousness and a refusal to forgive religious people for whatever they happen to be blaming them for at the moment. I think the same problem would apply to political opponents, but we are specifically discussing atheism. The OP, if I understood it, seemed to specifically ask for what atheists supported as well.

On a side note, I also liked the link mal4mac sited about how fundamentalists tend to pursue engineering careers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi

I never said theists were an established community.

And what are we talking about all of a sudden, here, biology? :skep:

---

Sorry Mutatis-Mutandi. I had Varenne's comment in mind, this one: "Atheism is not a theism or a governing system."

Genus and species are, dare I say it, logical terms that the sciences borrowed. (Sorry to bring up logic again :p ). What I meant was that "atheism" and "theism" are genera and thus are literally generic. If I walk up to you and say "I'm a theist" or "I'm an atheist," then you know very little about me either way, because you don't what species or subspecies I belong to. If I say "I'm a theist," then all you know is that I believe in some or other god of some or other kind. Maybe he's impersonal, maybe he's non-interventionist, maybe he's amoral, etc. In other words, by knowing merely that someone's a theist you know nothing of their morality or metaphysics or epistemology or whatever. And by knowing merely that someone's an atheist, it's the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Climacus

Sorry Mutatis-Mutandi. I had Varenne's comment in mind, this one: "Atheism is not a theism or a governing system."

Genus and species are, dare I say it, logical terms that the sciences borrowed. (Sorry to bring up logic again :p ). What I meant was that "atheism" and "theism" are genera and thus are literally generic. If I walk up to you and say "I'm a theist" or "I'm an atheist," then you know very little about me either way, because you don't what species or subspecies I belong to. If I say "I'm a theist," then all you know is that I believe in some or other god of some or other kind. Maybe he's impersonal, maybe he's non-interventionist, maybe he's amoral, etc. In other words, by knowing merely that someone's a theist you know nothing of their morality or metaphysics or epistemology or whatever. And by knowing merely that someone's an atheist, it's the same.

---

Apparently good speech. But how do you know they have methaphysics or epistemology. Of the three things you mentioned the only one you can be sure they have is merely some form of morality, twisted or otherwise. Morality is intrinsic, residing in the unavoidable sense of good and bad. But methaphysics and epistemology are not realities for everyone, and nowadays are museum pieces archived scientifically.