A discourse on Atheism (not a religious debate)

[Drkshadow03]

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.

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.

[Climacus]

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.

[Varenne Rodin]

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.

[Climacus]

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.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

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?

[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.

[Drkshadow03]

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.

[YesNo]

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.

[Climacus]

I never said theists were an established community.

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

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 ). 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.

[cafolini]

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 ). 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.

[Varenne Rodin]

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 ). 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.

That's actually somewhat supportive of my point (shock). YesNo seems insistent on saying that atheists have a specific way of life, and that it's particularly negative, hostile, and self-righteous. My point was that I can only speak for myself and my family on this matter, and that I do not share in communal practices with other atheists. I have not noticed this hostility YesNo claims as an atheist trait, and certainly not within my family life. I don't fight with anyone much. When Christians tell me my children will burn in hell, or when their children push my son down at school and beat him for not going to church, I take offense to that. I like a few Christians, but I loathe Christianity in this country. That is where the hostility is. It's not at home with me. The focus of my life does not revolve around theism and atheism.

YesNo, you seem to have ignored my earlier post about being good to others and taking care of ourselves. To answer your question, I do meditate. There is no prayer to anyone involved in that meditation. I also do yoga. I hike mountain trails every day. There are lots of things that human beings do to feel healthy and peaceful without the need for a group mentality or crutch. I can't say what other atheists do. I have heard about secular humanists arranging food and clothing drives for the poor. Some humanists get together in groups and meet up for beach volleyball, Google tells me.

I'm starting to think your question is less like a question and more like another avenue to harangue atheism again.

Climacus, I apologize if any of my text offends your education. It's early. I haven't poured my coffee, and I've heard these comments so many times that I'm no longer interested in giving carefully considered responses. I predict the outcome will be the same. Christians as eternal enemies. No big deal.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

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.

Interesting. I heard what I said on some news story, and took them for their word. Still, I wonder what the percentage of the suicide bombers are who're engineers (they were sort of the group I was thinking of). I doubt terrorist organizations would send out their best and brightest to blow themselves up. I think they target low socio-economic people for those positions, since they have "nothing to live for," as it were. I could be wrong, though.

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 ). 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.

Got it.

[JuniperWoolf]

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.

Yes, that's because I gave you a link to a database.

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.

All atheists aren't the same, and they don't all do the same things to "make their lives and so their family lives better." Some Christians are jerks who beat their kids, and some are great people who encourage family discussions and spend time with their kids. The same is true of atheists. The same is true for ALL people. (duh)

The reason I think atheists may especially have a problem with family living is the negative practice of hostility toward others.

Hostility and self-righteousness, huh? Doesn't the church have kind of an enormous, centuries-spanning history of... you know... killing people? How could anyone say that secular people are bad at raising families and religious people aren't because unlike religious people, atheists are naturally "hostile?" Also, speaking of self-righteousness, aren't you the one who just made the claim that atheists can't properly raise their own children? Really, I'm asking, did you have a straight face when you typed that?

[Charles Darnay]

Hostility and self-righteousness, huh? Doesn't the church have kind of an enormous, centuries-spanning history of... you know... killing people? How could anyone say that secular people are bad at raising families and religious people aren't because unlike religious people, atheists are naturally "hostile?" Also, speaking of self-righteousness, aren't you the one who just made the claim that atheists can't properly raise their own children? Really, I'm asking, did you have a straight face when you typed that?

I think the general view (from a Christian pov) of an atheist family sitting down to dinner is a lot like the dinner scene from American Beauty. Or rather:

Pa: so did you here ---

Son: no dad! you're wrong!

Daughter: no you're wrong stupid.


And you see, there's no Bible to immediately turn to so you can't resolve the debate by looking it up.

[Varenne Rodin]

I think the general view (from a Christian pov) of an atheist family sitting down to dinner is a lot like the dinner scene from American Beauty. Or rather:

Pa: so did you here ---

Son: no dad! you're wrong!

Daughter: no you're wrong stupid.


And you see, there's no Bible to immediately turn to so you can't resolve the debate by looking it up.

That's one of the most obtuse things I have read. I don't ever fight at the dinner table. We smile, we thank each other for all of the help with the meal. If we had a disagreement we would settle it nonviolently because we care for each other. If your religion makes you suspect people of being evil to the people they love, without anything to support that idea, your religion breeds hate and distrust without cause.