Atheism Explained

[WIP]

Having read the above mentioned excerpts, I can tell the book isn't worth much. See here:

[/indent]

The last sentence is presented as fact, but absolutely no supporting evidence is given. It is pure opinion.

It is opinion based on references to facts! As I mentioned previously, approximately half of the book is indexed references to each of the 89 non-renewable resources mentioned in the proceeding 250 pages, and I have no intentions of typing out the whole thing, regardless of copyright issues! What this book and other similar books warning of resource scarcity (like The End Of Growth by Richard Hernberg) point out is that those (such as you) who claim that there will be an endless run of innovations and improvements based on new technology, do not have much of an argument outside of the narrow realm of computers and information technology.....where energy and materials are less important than than increased information capacity. The conclusion that there has to be an eventual endgame to using innovation and technological solutions in dealing with energy needs and finite resources in most industrial applications is a no-brainer. The only debate is where those hard limits are, and when they will start seizing up our present banking and economic systems. The evidence that we have approached the limits to growth is becoming apparent right now to anyone who is looking at the issue objectively. It likely started in 2005, when we most likely reached peak conventional oil, and the present trend of economic growth spiking oil prices and causing repeated declines is a trend we will not grow the economy out of! Unlike the 70's, the last time high oil prices really caused economies to seize up, this time there are no Canterells or North Sea, Beaufort Sea, or other major developments of conventional oil waiting in the wings. What is coming online now is tar sands oil, and tentative developments of tight oil locked in shale deposits. These oils are dirty and expensive -- both in money terms and ecologically. So, even if the world goes to hell driving up CO2 levels, these oils are expensive now, and will rise in costs as developing them will require moving to more energy-intensive deposits.

So because something does not exist now means it will never exist? No. Again, he is ignoring technological progress.

And that makes another book I got this last year: Techno-Fix by Michael and Joyce Huesemann essential reading. Technological progress has not produced those flying cars that we seen on The Jetsons when I was a kid. And that's because Moore's Law only applies to IT, where energy is less of a consideration. When it came to having our own personal jetpacks...they are technically feasible, but practically impossible. High tech medical devices and drugs doesn't really improve our general health and wellbeing as much as imagined. High tech weapons haven't brought us world peace.

What happens with every new technology, especially when it is attempted to fix environmental problems, like carbon increases in the atmosphere, is that the "fix" results in unexpected harms being done in the environment that require more counter-technologies to be developed in an attempt to fix them. What techno-optimists fail to realize with every expansion of civilization exploiting the natural world is that nature is a holistic system of interconnected systems. That was essentially Barry Commoner's first law of ecology. As we increase population, energy, resource and land use, we decrease the capacity of the natural environment, we create unintended consequences, such as unexpected and unpredictable changes in weather systems, an acceleration in die-offs of plant and animal species. And putting a halt to the extinction process is almost impossible, because they are the result of an accumulation of causes, not one specific cause that can be fixed with a reductionist technological application.

New technology cost-benefit analyses are biased in favour of new tech devices that increase consumption, adding to our collective environmental problems, while failing to improve happiness and wellbeing.

And, I'm having a more and more difficult time trying to connect techno-optimism and faith in scientific progress back to the subject of atheism and trying to challenge the notion that freethinkers are showing the way to a better future for this world!

Edited December 4, 2012 by WIP

[Pliny]

It does seem clear to me that we have likely run out of time to reduce population numbers the easy way....like waiting for birth control, family planning movements to reduce overall population numbers. Whenever we really hit crunch time with resources....specifically, like when world grain production totals start declining more rapidly....the more people there are with less food available, the greater the size of the calamity. We could feed a greater population if food distribution was in any way connected to need, but it's not! Those with more money are using their new wealth to increase the amount of meat in their diets and drive grain prices higher. Biofuels are also having a negative effect....especially the idiotic strategy of producing ethanol from corn. As long as the global economy functions in the manner that it does at present, we are headed for an increasingly violent and desperate fight for the resources that are available. No human society has functioned very well when it is in a state of decline. But previously, collapses of local governments and economies have been local; this time, in our globalized world, a collapse will also be global.

So you're saying, although the same tune has been sung for millenia, this is the big one, time for the crunch, down to the wire, the edge of the cliff.

We're baked. We're done. It's all over but the shouting. Our goose is cooked. We may as well hang it up. Another World War is probably a better choice than famine and starvation which will be the lot of most of us.

I know what you're thinking, "Now you're talking! Now you're making sense! Finally!"

Well, it's another glorious day!

Edited December 6, 2012 by Pliny

[WIP]

So you're saying, although the same tune has been sung for millenia, this is the big one, time for the crunch, down to the wire, the edge of the cliff.

We're baked. We're done. It's all over but the shouting. Our goose is cooked. We may as well hang it up. Another World War is probably a better choice than famine and starvation which will be the lot of most of us.

I know what you're thinking, "Now you're talking! Now you're making sense! Finally!"

Well, it's another glorious day!

Well, pardon me if I don't attempt to sugarcoat the message! Until someone shows me evidence to the contrary, my underlying assumption about the human condition is that we are racing towards our own destruction as a species. Bits and pieces of these issues appear separately as separate issues, dealt with as environmental, resource and economic problems under different categories. It's because of idiotic compartmentalization of economics and environment that Obama can get away with a stupid statement after his re-election about being concerned about the environment, but having to give reviving the the economy the utmost priority.

Sure, there have been times in the past when the end seemed imminent. I would guess that most of the religious hysteria you seem to be referring to, were an unconscious realization of difficult times in the past, when wars, disease, massacres and forced emigrations made end time thinking plausible. Most pro-growth clowns still keep yacking today about the Club of Rome meeting in 1968, and their final report which predicted an End To Growth. They were extrapolating from present trends of their day; but today, with the state of the environment, resource decline, there is much less wiggle room for pro-growth capitalists to breathe new life again into Neoliberal economic theory. So, like it or not, we have two choices life: either this present system ends or the human race dumps so much carbon into the atmosphere that our species, and possibly even most others on Earth now, are also doomed to extinction.

[Pliny]

Well, pardon me if I don't attempt to sugarcoat the message! Until someone shows me evidence to the contrary, my underlying assumption about the human condition is that we are racing towards our own destruction as a species. Bits and pieces of these issues appear separately as separate issues, dealt with as environmental, resource and economic problems under different categories. It's because of idiotic compartmentalization of economics and environment that Obama can get away with a stupid statement after his re-election about being concerned about the environment, but having to give reviving the the economy the utmost priority.

Sure, there have been times in the past when the end seemed imminent. I would guess that most of the religious hysteria you seem to be referring to, were an unconscious realization of difficult times in the past, when wars, disease, massacres and forced emigrations made end time thinking plausible. Most pro-growth clowns still keep yacking today about the Club of Rome meeting in 1968, and their final report which predicted an End To Growth. They were extrapolating from present trends of their day; but today, with the state of the environment, resource decline, there is much less wiggle room for pro-growth capitalists to breathe new life again into Neoliberal economic theory. So, like it or not, we have two choices life: either this present system ends or the human race dumps so much carbon into the atmosphere that our species, and possibly even most others on Earth now, are also doomed to extinction.

I'll start spreading the message. Can I refer people to your posts on the matter? You have some excellent references that corroborate your view.

The Club of |Rome? I am surprised you mention them. They do seem to propound the same or a similar message to yours? Why do you disparage them so? They are just a bunch of elitists worried about the planet, its resources and over-population? I believe all of academia holds this view. You won't have any trouble finding corroborative literature.

People are demanding human rights these days so a scenario like "Logan's Run" is not likely. My! My! We are in a pickle! We crash and burn and die passively in apathy or actively destroy ourselves. That seems our choice?

[Bonam]

Well, pardon me if I don't attempt to sugarcoat the message! Until someone shows me evidence to the contrary, my underlying assumption about the human condition is that we are racing towards our own destruction as a species.

And that is your problem. Why is that your "underlying assumption"?

[WIP]

So you're saying, although the same tune has been sung for millenia, this is the big one, time for the crunch, down to the wire, the edge of the cliff.

We're baked. We're done. It's all over but the shouting. Our goose is cooked. We may as well hang it up. Another World War is probably a better choice than famine and starvation which will be the lot of most of us.

I know what you're thinking, "Now you're talking! Now you're making sense! Finally!"

Well, it's another glorious day!

yeah we're cooked....or more correctly - almost certainly cooked! And it's mostly because there are too many people like you - who think they're smart, think they're educated, but can't see past the end of their noses! I'm relatively new at examining environmental issues like climate change....I've only really studied this issue in detail in the last five years. But, what is most important, aside from reading a few books that go into a little detail and cover paleoclimate, atmospherics and how biospheres function. And there are two important points that I have learned:

1. Our growth-dependent economic system, which requires constant expansion and increases in energy and resource extraction, is 100% incompatible with long-term survival of the human race....and most other species for that matter.

2. Most humans seem to be incapable of deferring short-term, immediate gratification, in favour of long term benefit...even if that benefit almost certainly means the survival of their children and grandchildren.....it's easier to just live in denial, and pretend that you just don't know any better!

And what that means is that, as the costs and requirements for doing more than cosmetic fixes for environment have become apparent, there has been less and less resolve to do anything about it! If the problem was easy and cheap....or even moderately costly, like banning freon and other cloroflurocarbon gases, in the efforts to stop the decline in the Earth's ozone layer, the oil lobby and their propaganda would not have been enough to stop the Kyoto Protocol, and put and end to serious efforts to tax carbon -- and at least slow down the rates of carbon increase.

3. The gravity of the climate situation has been underemphasized...not exaggerated, as some denial clowns maintain! Here's some bad news - specifically about the twin sister of a hotter world - Ocean Acidification - and this report published earlier this year, has been left in the science ghetto of science publications like Science Digest, Scientific American or the best written article - here at Physics.Org. This report informs us with almost absolute certainty - that the world's oceans are becoming rapidly acidic, and at an increasing rate; and the dieoff of ocean life, beginning with the most common forms of plankton, which supply almost half the world's total oxygen supply, has already begun, and likely won't be stopped, because of the lack of action to reduce atmospheric carbon levels. Now, where won't you find this story? Any mainstream media source...whether it calls itself liberal, conservative, "balanced" etc. - none of the MSM picked up this story over the last six months....at least in North America....I'm not sure about European, especially non-English media. And you wonder why I'm in a foul mood!

So, I find myself more and more in agreement with the peak oil and peak resource theorists, who say the only realistic hope now for longterm human survival is that too many resources will become too expensive to maintain our plundering way of life. And that finally brings me back to where I feel these economic and environmental issues bump up against secularism, the freethought movements, and the notion that a lot of my atheist friends have that they are a rational, objective minority, swimming in a sea of idiocy. This is a fairly recent realization on my part, that naturalistic thinking does not = taking a rational approach to economics and the environment. And freethinkers have their own reason to put up barriers to conflicting information, since a modern humanist mythology began over 100 years ago, that claimed credit for The Enlightenment, the unequivocal acceptance of new technological advances, and modern capitalism in its liberal or conservative forms, because most freethinkers are stuck with a notion of continual, unending progress, that will lead to a better world through human advancements, rather than divine intervention. The mere notion that...maybe the Enlightenment, especially the unqualified embrace of technology wasn't such a good idea after all....is just too horrible for most atheists to contemplate! Almost the equivalent of a religious-minded believer daring to contemplate that there are no gods.

[Pliny]

yeah we're cooked....or more correctly - almost certainly cooked! And it's mostly because there are too many people like you - who think they're smart, think they're educated, but can't see past the end of their noses!

Smart? - Not guilty. Educated? - not guilty. Can't see past the end of their noses? - not guilty.

I'm relatively new at examining environmental issues like climate change....I've only really studied this issue in detail in the last five years. But, what is most important, aside from reading a few books that go into a little detail and cover paleoclimate, atmospherics and how biospheres function. And there are two important points that I have learned:

1. Our growth-dependent economic system, which requires constant expansion and increases in energy and resource extraction, is 100% incompatible with long-term survival of the human race....and most other species for that matter.

Government requires growth to sustain itself. Its parasitic nature demands economic growth. It cannot shrink or the people will suffer - that is the refrain and it is true for those receiving entitlements from it - for some the entitlements are a matter of life and death. There are two directions it can take without making sacrifice itself which it seems reluctant to do. And why should it, when it is increasingly entrusted with the engineering of the globe. and not simply a sovereign nation. It must make its decisions on the greatest good for the planet, no longer the greatest good for the greatest number of people, the greatest good for the planet. That means, and we see it in global policy, the curtailing of human development, the reduction in the use of non-renewable resources, the reduction of population, and like policies that regulate human consumption, development, population, The conundrum being that those policies also curtail economic growth, and subsequently, revenues to those social engineers. It's self-destructive but government will not destroy itself - that is not in the interests of the planet - so the people will suffer, mainly those whom the government will determine should suffer - the enemies of the planet - the productive. The poor have nothing to worry about from government until the productive are gone. This is more or less the way we are going.

The other route is a more revolutionary installation of a global government.

2. Most humans seem to be incapable of deferring short-term, immediate gratification, in favour of long term benefit...even if that benefit almost certainly means the survival of their children and grandchildren.....it's easier to just live in denial, and pretend that you just don't know any better!

And what that means is that, as the costs and requirements for doing more than cosmetic fixes for environment have become apparent, there has been less and less resolve to do anything about it! If the problem was easy and cheap....or even moderately costly, like banning freon and other cloroflurocarbon gases, in the efforts to stop the decline in the Earth's ozone layer, the oil lobby and their propaganda would not have been enough to stop the Kyoto Protocol, and put and end to serious efforts to tax carbon -- and at least slow down the rates of carbon increase.

You say you are relatively new at examining environmental issues but I doubt you have ever held a view contrary to the environmental movement. if you had and were convinced otherwise by the data you might be more credible but I think you just enjoy having your own views confirmed.

3. The gravity of the climate situation has been underemphasized...not exaggerated, as some denial clowns maintain! Here's some bad news - specifically about the twin sister of a hotter world - Ocean Acidification - and this report published earlier this year, has been left in the science ghetto of science publications like Science Digest, Scientific American or the best written article - here at Physics.Org. This report informs us with almost absolute certainty - that the world's oceans are becoming rapidly acidic, and at an increasing rate; and the dieoff of ocean life, beginning with the most common forms of plankton, which supply almost half the world's total oxygen supply, has already begun, and likely won't be stopped, because of the lack of action to reduce atmospheric carbon levels. Now, where won't you find this story? Any mainstream media source...whether it calls itself liberal, conservative, "balanced" etc. - none of the MSM picked up this story over the last six months....at least in North America....I'm not sure about European, especially non-English media. And you wonder why I'm in a foul mood!

Short term immediate gratification without consideration for long-term benefit is a result of heavy regulation where the individual sees he will have to take and enjoy what he can before government starts to either tax it or make it illegal. People will sacrifice immediate gratification for long term benefit if they have a hope of realizing a benefit. Government tends to make that an uncertainty with such things as class warfare and wealth redistribution Environmental regulations on property, on resources,

Government is not saving any of the standard of living for the people only for itself.

So, I find myself more and more in agreement with the peak oil and peak resource theorists, who say the only realistic hope now for longterm human survival is that too many resources will become too expensive to maintain our plundering way of life. And that finally brings me back to where I feel these economic and environmental issues bump up against secularism, the freethought movements, and the notion that a lot of my atheist friends have that they are a rational, objective minority, swimming in a sea of idiocy. This is a fairly recent realization on my part, that naturalistic thinking does not = taking a rational approach to economics and the environment. And freethinkers have their own reason to put up barriers to conflicting information, since a modern humanist mythology began over 100 years ago, that claimed credit for The Enlightenment, the unequivocal acceptance of new technological advances, and modern capitalism in its liberal or conservative forms, because most freethinkers are stuck with a notion of continual, unending progress, that will lead to a better world through human advancements, rather than divine intervention. The mere notion that...maybe the Enlightenment, especially the unqualified embrace of technology wasn't such a good idea after all....is just too horrible for most atheists to contemplate! Almost the equivalent of a religious-minded believer daring to contemplate that there are no gods.

Atheists, of course, view themselves as a rational objective minority swimming in a sea of idiocy. They are Gods among us, and so does any Dictator feel about himself.

[WIP]

Government requires growth to sustain itself. Its parasitic nature demands economic growth. It cannot shrink or the people will suffer - that is the refrain and it is true for those receiving entitlements from it - for some the entitlements are a matter of life and death. There are two directions it can take without making sacrifice itself which it seems reluctant to do. And why should it, when it is increasingly entrusted with the engineering of the globe. and not simply a sovereign nation. It must make its decisions on the greatest good for the planet, no longer the greatest good for the greatest number of people, the greatest good for the planet. That means, and we see it in global policy, the curtailing of human development, the reduction in the use of non-renewable resources, the reduction of population, and like policies that regulate human consumption, development, population, The conundrum being that those policies also curtail economic growth, and subsequently, revenues to those social engineers. It's self-destructive but government will not destroy itself - that is not in the interests of the planet - so the people will suffer, mainly those whom the government will determine should suffer - the enemies of the planet - the productive. The poor have nothing to worry about from government until the productive are gone. This is more or less the way we are going.

The other route is a more revolutionary installation of a global government.

How many red herrings died in the construction of that paragraph?

First, could you provide a definition of what you are calling "Government," because the libertarian/anarchist crowd floats around and never says whether they are talking about national governments alone, or local governments. And needless to say, they pretend that "government" orders billionaire bankers and oil company barons around and confiscates their money for nefarious purposes. A quick look at the way most of the world's governments are financed, and who holds and accumulates more wealth, plus who benefits from financial "reforms" and "free trade" legislation, reveal what a fallacy the anti-government crusade is, and that it is little more than a diversion or a misdirection, to draw attention away from the powerful manipulating interests behind government....and who have created the only international institutions with real power to change economic policies.

And, nice try....attempting to make a case that government is the social force that is dependent on continuous growth! In fact, the only growth in government today is military spending -- which is mostly financed from the collective tax base, while the objectives benefit no one aside from a few large corporate interests....such as major oil companies in the M.E., and mining and other resource companies, as well as new multinational corporations set up to take advantage of the privatization of infrastructure in bankrupted third world nations. The only other increases come from programmed spending - old age pensions and medicare - which are based on promises made to contributors during their working years....and about to be renegged on by the U.S. and other governments around the world. And that's government growth in a nutshell!

What I was talking about in terms of dangerous, eventually catastrophic growth, is the way our modern capitalist money and banking system functions. 97% of new money is created by a stroke of the pen or a data entry, every time a new loan is authorized to a borrower. It is not taken from a bank's assets, but all of a sudden appears as a debit entry on the books, and as long as the loan is payed back with interest, the new money matches the real increase in economic growth of the local economy....and that's why constant growth is essential! If the economy is flat, or in decline - confidence in the funny money scheme could easily collapse....like it almost did in 2008 and will eventually do again, when the pyramid of new derivative investments can't be piled up any higher. I'm going to have to get around to posting a thread on the subject; for now, I'll leave it with this revealing comment from way back in 1927, while the Roaring Twenties were still roaring -- from Sir Josiah Stamp, former Governor of the Bank of England, in a talk at the University of Texas:

The modern banking system manufactures money out of nothing. The process is perhaps the most astounding piece of sleight of hand that was ever invented. Banking was conceived in inequity and born in sin. Bankers own the earth. Take it away from them but leave them the power to create money, and with a flick of a pen, they will create enough money to buy it back again. Take this great power away from them and all great fortunes like mine will disappear, for then this would be a better and happier world to live in. But, if you want to continue to be the slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, then let the bankers continue to create money and control credit.

You say you are relatively new at examining environmental issues but I doubt you have ever held a view contrary to the environmental movement. if you had and were convinced otherwise by the data you might be more credible but I think you just enjoy having your own views confirmed.

What I was referring to specifically, was coming to terms with the size and scale of the problem for the human race to live in a sustainable manner today. I started moving away from the denial crap maybe 6 or 7 years ago, when I started realizing that the arguments denying the human factor in changing the climate, did not have valid proposals for how CO2 can increase without increasing the greenhouse effect. The arguments are mostly attacking evidence for anthropogenic climate change, and not proposing an alternative theory to explain the facts.....the same strategy used by creationists against evolution.

But, what is recent for me, is realizing that our economic system, and our entire consumer-driven way of life is leading the world towards extinction. Most of the environment or green proposals to deal with climate change toss out buzzwords like 'sustainable growth' or 'clean energy,' without bothering to demonstrate how proposed changes will do much to stop, let alone slow down growth in greenhouse gas emissions. If we were to go by Al Gore's movie: An Inconvenient Truth, all we have to do is change our lightbulbs and inflate our tires to save the planet! And Gore, being just a little more moderate than the voracious capitalists at the energy companies, is not going to propose solutions that are difficult or do anything to change the present system.....and that's when I realized that the green capitalists are either awash or a worse threat than the Koch Brothers to the environment, because they are like a false ally, who pretends to be on your side while working towards the opposite objectives.

Short term immediate gratification without consideration for long-term benefit is a result of heavy regulation where the individual sees he will have to take and enjoy what he can before government starts to either tax it or make it illegal. People will sacrifice immediate gratification for long term benefit if they have a hope of realizing a benefit. Government tends to make that an uncertainty with such things as class warfare and wealth redistribution Environmental regulations on property, on resources,

No, it is partly from new technology - even back when I was in school, many social science commentators were a little apprehensive about the future of the TV generation, because of the measured psychological changes in children who watch high amounts of television....especially commercial television, where the programs are secondary to the needs of marketers of new products and services. Even television has had an average effect of making the populace more isolated and less sociable, impulsive, neurotic, and more easily distracted/unable to pay attention; and that's without adding all of the other electronic devices with the computer era, that have so many walking around (or driving around) in their own little bubbles, with their phones, tablet computers and mp3 players.

And, along with the isolating effects of technology, we add the increasing inequality in wealth and incomes, that fragment a population further, into smaller and smaller niches that feel little if any common purpose with others....even right in their own neighbourhoods! No wonder libertarianism became such a fad in the last 30 years!

Atheists, of course, view themselves as a rational objective minority swimming in a sea of idiocy. They are Gods among us, and so does any Dictator feel about himself.

I was hoping one or more, other atheists would take the bait on this one....and I promised to start a thread on that general subject....if I can get it set up properly. This is the most recent change for me, because up until a year or two ago, I followed along with a modern secular dogma that the Age of Enlightenment in Europe, started by Rene Descartes and Francis Bacon, was the launching of a permanent trend in human history, of increasing knowledge leading to improvements through applying new technology and new knowledge....this is pretty much standard humanist philosophy in a nutshell, and is still the majority doctrine today as best exemplified in books by writers like Stephen Pinker - an evolutionary psychologist who wrote a new book a year ago trying to make a case for human improvement through the long course of human history....I forget the title of the book, but I heard so many of his interviews and lectures promoting it, I probably wouldn't find much that was new or interesting inside the pages. And, I would have bought into secular humanist doctrine that continued progress requires abandoning old gods and religions as relics of the past, and that most people will be much better off after they have abandoned religion. And it's this last part of secular humanist dogma that I find the weakest -- there is a pulling away from traditional religion today; but is there evidence that people are becoming naturalists or are happier after they stop attending their churches? The story might turn out to be something going in the opposite direction, as the move away from religion and the demands of those religions, may just be motivated by increasing self interest and self absorption. From what I've seen, organized religions can do good things and bad things. They can motivate and push people to reach out to others and be concerned for more than their own immediate interests, and even promote universal concern for everyone around the world.....or they can go in the opposite direction, and underline and justify modern selfish, individualistic motives.....this is where I see the great evil of right wing Christianity and related religions making the world a worse place to live in!

A couple of months ago, my wife and I went on a brief trip to New York City, and did a lot of the typical tourist stuff while visiting a staying a couple of nights as guest of one of my cousins who lives in Manhattan. I was struck, while walking through Times Square and observing the garish, obscene commercialism that assaults the senses, that there was an ad from American Atheists among the billboard ads for every product imaginable:'Keep The Merry, Dump The Myth' or maybe it was 'Dump The Myth, Keep The Merry'....who knows....or who cares? I guess the point was that to American Atheists, the harmful religion is Christianity and celebrating Christmas as a religious occasion. And as far as I am aware, American Atheists has nothing much to say about America's real true religion - Materialism! Which to me is the most serious and damaging religion and causes the most harm and suffering for people. And is the average American better off without any religion in a harshly competitive materialistic world? Or, might they be better off having an alternative religion that doesn't worship the god of money?

[Michael Hardner]

And as far as I am aware, American Atheists has nothing much to say about America's real true religion - Materialism! Which to me is the most serious and damaging religion and causes the most harm and suffering for people. And is the average American better off without any religion in a harshly competitive materialistic world? Or, might they be better off having an alternative religion that doesn't worship the god of money?

Interesting point. If Atheists, Christians and capitalists are unable to make a statement of our common human values - who will be left to do it ?

[WIP]

Interesting point. If Atheists, Christians and capitalists are unable to make a statement of our common human values - who will be left to do it ?

The impression I got from the atheist ad in Times Square, especially after I heard some of my thoughts echoed by a host of a public radio show (WBAI), is that most of us are worshipping the god of money, and most focused on what we own and all that's out there that we want to buy. That's what struck me as strange about the focus of the atheist ad - somebody celebrating Jesus at Christmas time is the biggest problem you can think of, especially while you're walking right through the heart of Babylon itself.

[The_Squid]

But materialism is a religion like atheism is a religion. It's not. So why would an atheist group that is striving for a secular country worry about materialism when it isn't actually a religion? They could worry about hunger in Mongolia too.... That's a problem!

[Michael Hardner]

But materialism is a religion like atheism is a religion. It's not. So why would an atheist group that is striving for a secular country worry about materialism when it isn't actually a religion? They could worry about hunger in Mongolia too.... That's a problem!

They shouldn't. But somebody should.

[Pliny]

How many red herrings died in the construction of that paragraph?

We'll have to get the EPA in on that one.

First, could you provide a definition of what you are calling "Government," because the libertarian/anarchist crowd floats around and never says whether they are talking about national governments alone, or local governments. And needless to say, they pretend that "government" orders billionaire bankers and oil company barons around and confiscates their money for nefarious purposes. A quick look at the way most of the world's governments are financed, and who holds and accumulates more wealth, plus who benefits from financial "reforms" and "free trade" legislation, reveal what a fallacy the anti-government crusade is, and that it is little more than a diversion or a misdirection, to draw attention away from the powerful manipulating interests behind government....and who have created the only international institutions with real power to change economic policies.

By government I am generally speaking of national governments. Libertarians, I believe, are generally speaking about all levels of government.

Government makes the rules. If they collude with corporations or business to make them it is still government that carries the gavel. Vancouver, thanks to it's city council, does not have a Walmart in city limits, a clear demonstration that government even at the municipal level has the upper hand. Banks are more likely to collude with government as economic power is associated with economic control. Let's face it the central banks make the currency and advise on economic policy. The establishment makes it very difficult to discern the private/public interests involved in economic policy and decision making. The Government of Canada claims that the Bank of Canada is a part of the government which means there are no private interests influencing final decision making policies. There is no denying that private interests have input, a more direct voice than the citizen would in economic policy but the citizens for the greater part are not the experts government will make final decisions upon.

So the question you need answering is how much collusion goes on between corporate bankers, or corporations in general, and government, where government abandons its role as "government".

And, nice try....attempting to make a case that government is the social force that is dependent on continuous growth! In fact, the only growth in government today is military spending -- which is mostly financed from the collective tax base, while the objectives benefit no one aside from a few large corporate interests....such as major oil companies in the M.E., and mining and other resource companies, as well as new multinational corporations set up to take advantage of the privatization of infrastructure in bankrupted third world nations. The only other increases come from programmed spending - old age pensions and medicare - which are based on promises made to contributors during their working years....and about to be renegged on by the U.S. and other governments around the world. And that's government growth in a nutshell!

Well take a look at government staffing and budgets of regulatory agencies in this report. http://mercatus.org/publication/regulators-budget-report

What I was talking about in terms of dangerous, eventually catastrophic growth, is the way our modern capitalist money and banking system functions. 97% of new money is created by a stroke of the pen or a data entry, every time a new loan is authorized to a borrower. It is not taken from a bank's assets, but all of a sudden appears as a debit entry on the books, and as long as the loan is payed back with interest, the new money matches the real increase in economic growth of the local economy....and that's why constant growth is essential! If the economy is flat, or in decline - confidence in the funny money scheme could easily collapse....like it almost did in 2008 and will eventually do again, when the pyramid of new derivative investments can't be piled up any higher. I'm going to have to get around to posting a thread on the subject; for now, I'll leave it with this revealing comment from way back in 1927, while the Roaring Twenties were still roaring -- from Sir Josiah Stamp, former Governor of the Bank of England, in a talk at the University of Texas:

The modern banking system manufactures money out of nothing. The process is perhaps the most astounding piece of sleight of hand that was ever invented. Banking was conceived in inequity and born in sin. Bankers own the earth. Take it away from them but leave them the power to create money, and with a flick of a pen, they will create enough money to buy it back again. Take this great power away from them and all great fortunes like mine will disappear, for then this would be a better and happier world to live in. But, if you want to continue to be the slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, then let the bankers continue to create money and control credit.

I don't have an argument with this at all. However, government will always be around no matter the economic circumstances. It may or may not decide to save the private sector - but it will generally prop it up because it gets its revenues from it and it looks better. The central bank works in concert with government but government can end that relationship at any time. It could allow banks to create their own currencies or it could adopt a commodity backed currency.

Once again it is government that must make the decisions. Banks can force nothing.

What I was referring to specifically, was coming to terms with the size and scale of the problem for the human race to live in a sustainable manner today. I started moving away from the denial crap maybe 6 or 7 years ago, when I started realizing that the arguments denying the human factor in changing the climate, did not have valid proposals for how CO2 can increase without increasing the greenhouse effect. The arguments are mostly attacking evidence for anthropogenic climate change, and not proposing an alternative theory to explain the facts.....the same strategy used by creationists against evolution.

The alternative theories are never given any credibility. They are there.

But, what is recent for me, is realizing that our economic system, and our entire consumer-driven way of life is leading the world towards extinction. Most of the environment or green proposals to deal with climate change toss out buzzwords like 'sustainable growth' or 'clean energy,' without bothering to demonstrate how proposed changes will do much to stop, let alone slow down growth in greenhouse gas emissions. If we were to go by Al Gore's movie: An Inconvenient Truth, all we have to do is change our lightbulbs and inflate our tires to save the planet! And Gore, being just a little more moderate than the voracious capitalists at the energy companies, is not going to propose solutions that are difficult or do anything to change the present system.....and that's when I realized that the green capitalists are either awash or a worse threat than the Koch Brothers to the environment, because they are like a false ally, who pretends to be on your side while working towards the opposite objectives.

Besides the fact that capitalists will always ride the trends and incorporate whatever is popular to increase the profit margin.

No, it is partly from new technology - even back when I was in school, many social science commentators were a little apprehensive about the future of the TV generation, because of the measured psychological changes in children who watch high amounts of television....especially commercial television, where the programs are secondary to the needs of marketers of new products and services. Even television has had an average effect of making the populace more isolated and less sociable, impulsive, neurotic, and more easily distracted/unable to pay attention; and that's without adding all of the other electronic devices with the computer era, that have so many walking around (or driving around) in their own little bubbles, with their phones, tablet computers and mp3 players.

I don't think so. Our public education system attempts to tell us how to behave in our social relationships. Most people see it as the facetious facade it is to assume people are going to behave the way they are taught.

And, along with the isolating effects of technology, we add the increasing inequality in wealth and incomes, that fragment a population further, into smaller and smaller niches that feel little if any common purpose with others....even right in their own neighbourhoods! No wonder libertarianism became such a fad in the last 30 years!

A banking and monetary problem that would not necessarily be eliminated by sound monetary policy but would be more volatile making the playing field a little more even - something the left desires but has no idea how to achieve.

I was hoping one or more, other atheists would take the bait on this one....and I promised to start a thread on that general subject....if I can get it set up properly. This is the most recent change for me, because up until a year or two ago, I followed along with a modern secular dogma that the Age of Enlightenment in Europe, started by Rene Descartes and Francis Bacon, was the launching of a permanent trend in human history, of increasing knowledge leading to improvements through applying new technology and new knowledge....this is pretty much standard humanist philosophy in a nutshell, and is still the majority doctrine today as best exemplified in books by writers like Stephen Pinker - an evolutionary psychologist who wrote a new book a year ago trying to make a case for human improvement through the long course of human history....I forget the title of the book, but I heard so many of his interviews and lectures promoting it, I probably wouldn't find much that was new or interesting inside the pages. And, I would have bought into secular humanist doctrine that continued progress requires abandoning old gods and religions as relics of the past, and that most people will be much better off after they have abandoned religion. And it's this last part of secular humanist dogma that I find the weakest -- there is a pulling away from traditional religion today; but is there evidence that people are becoming naturalists or are happier after they stop attending their churches? The story might turn out to be something going in the opposite direction, as the move away from religion and the demands of those religions, may just be motivated by increasing self interest and self absorption. From what I've seen, organized religions can do good things and bad things. They can motivate and push people to reach out to others and be concerned for more than their own immediate interests, and even promote universal concern for everyone around the world.....or they can go in the opposite direction, and underline and justify modern selfish, individualistic motives.....this is where I see the great evil of right wing Christianity and related religions making the world a worse place to live in!

This is a more multi-faceted logic than the two valued logic of the atheist which is no religion is good and all religion is bad.

A couple of months ago, my wife and I went on a brief trip to New York City, and did a lot of the typical tourist stuff while visiting a staying a couple of nights as guest of one of my cousins who lives in Manhattan. I was struck, while walking through Times Square and observing the garish, obscene commercialism that assaults the senses, that there was an ad from American Atheists among the billboard ads for every product imaginable:'Keep The Merry, Dump The Myth' or maybe it was 'Dump The Myth, Keep The Merry'....who knows....or who cares? I guess the point was that to American Atheists, the harmful religion is Christianity and celebrating Christmas as a religious occasion. And as far as I am aware, American Atheists has nothing much to say about America's real true religion - Materialism! Which to me is the most serious and damaging religion and causes the most harm and suffering for people. And is the average American better off without any religion in a harshly competitive materialistic world? Or, might they be better off having an alternative religion that doesn't worship the god of money?

Once again is materialism simply a problem of human values or could part of the problem be a push from government to grow the economy? People will support that government position if it portends to improve theirs.

[WIP]

But materialism is a religion like atheism is a religion. It's not. So why would an atheist group that is striving for a secular country worry about materialism when it isn't actually a religion? They could worry about hunger in Mongolia too.... That's a problem!

This is why I lost interest in any sort of organizing around atheism -- both online and a CFI-sponsored group locally. The promoting naturalism and opposing religion strategy assumes that everyone is better off in a world without religion. And setting up promoting secularism and ending religion as the core values, means allying with each and every group that just happens to identify themselves as atheist. From my pov, I could join with left-liberal Christians before I would want to join with libertarians or some of the related self-oriented cults, like the objectivists or fans of Frederich Nietzsche.

A religion doesn't have to be about worshiping supernatural deities; it can be used to describe any organized belief systems and cultural traditions that a group of people follow. In the case of materialism, it may be a metaphorical reference, but if people are striving for materialistic status symbols, it doesn't matter whether they are doing it consciously or at some unconscious level, the end results are the same if they are spending most of their time working for, and obsessing about things that they 'need.' But, like I said before, if you're playing tourist in NYC, it seems like the worship of money is the most important religion if you go by the flashing ads and some of the shops displaying Rolex watches and $1000 wallets....I assume catering to an income demographic somewhere beyond what I'm making! So, it seems like the place where you might want to challenge people to focus on higher values than acquiring new toys, rather than worrying about the Jesus thing at Christmas.

[kimmy]

Atheists, of course, view themselves as a rational objective minority swimming in a sea of idiocy. They are Gods among us, and so does any Dictator feel about himself.

I was hoping one or more, other atheists would take the bait on this one...

I didn't take that bait because it looked like, well, bait. Respond to something like that and soon enough you're wading through novella-length posts drawing inane comparisons between atheism and socialism or so-on. Life is too short to spend wrestling with straw-men.

But if you wish I'll chip in a couple of observations.

First off, it's not atheists who claim to have all the answers. Atheists are the ones willing to say "we don't know that." It's the ones who say "our book has all of the answers!" who claim to have definitive knowledge of what is, how it got that way, and how things need to be.

Secondly, I'd posit that somebody who thinks the notable characteristic of a dictator is that they think they're smarter than everybody else is, himself, not very smart.

The alternative theories are never given any credibility. They are there.

Not all theories are created equally, Pliny. You seem to be under the impression that alternative theories are oppressed by the Establishment for political reasons. In reality, most of these alternative theories are just ignored because they're crap. As a libertarian, you should be in favor of this. You should like the idea that theories should succeed on their merits. You should be appalled by the premise that all theories ought to be considered equal regardless of their merits.

Good theories provide explanations for existing evidence and can be used to predict new phenomena. For example, someone realized that if relativity were true, we should be able to observe time dilation. Since then, time dilation has been experimentally proven. Bad theories, on the other hand, don't answer useful questions or provide testable predictions.

For example, Das Deutsche Physik wasn't a result of efforts to explain empirical evidence, it was a result of resistance to "Das Judische Physik". It held that the experimental evidence behind the theories of Einstein and Bohr must be erroneous and that there must be alternative explanations, but failed to produce any. The single great achievement of Deutsche Physik was to drive Germany's best scientists abroad and give America the expertise to build the atomic bomb.

Or, take your gravity theory from the other thread-- the idea that gravity is an illusion resulting from everything continuously expanding. The genesis for that theory was not observed evidence, but (if I recall correctly) the opinion that Relativity seemed "wack". Did he explain any unexplained phenomena? Did he offer any testable hypothesis? No and no. His theory isn't being "oppressed" by "the Establishment". It is being ignored because there's nothing to investigate. (btw, that's also why no real scientists are doing "Creation Science" either.)

This is a more multi-faceted logic than the two valued logic of the atheist which is no religion is good and all religion is bad.

Another of your strawmen.

-k

[WIP]

I didn't take that bait because it looked like, well, bait. Respond to something like that and soon enough you're wading through novella-length posts drawing inane comparisons between atheism and socialism or so-on. Life is too short to spend wrestling with straw-men.

Who's comparing atheism to socialism? If people like you want to take issue for the reasons I've given for my shift in political thinking, that's one thing; but I'm moving towards socialism because I don't see anything salvageable for the longterm in a growth-dependent capitalist system, which are destroying ecosystems and using up non-renewable resources at a faster and faster pace - putting us on the brink of extinction today. If it's a matter of what's important in life, stopping suicidal overconsumption is more important to me than deconverting people from believing in God or a hereafter. And, considering the condition the world's in today, I don't see evangelical atheism as providing much that is of real value in troubled times. If people want to know the truth, I'll tell people what I believe is the truth; if they want to hold on to a comforting myth....well, maybe that's better for some people in these times!

And, I don't see how not believing in gods, provides a cause to rally around anyway! But, nowadays, in the internet age, there are all kinds of atheist online groups trying to do just that. If you join one of the atheist equivalents to facebook - Atheist Nexus or Think Atheist, the first thing you'll find is that the only thing to unite around is being against religion.....everything else is enemy camps -- left wing atheists vs. libertarians, vegans vs. omnivores, feminists vs. a rising clique of so called men's rights activists....and on and on....the only thing that unites these groups is religion is bad, and everyone will be better off by being an atheist. If you disagree, you discover that there are even slur words to describe atheists of little non-faith, like "faitheist" or "accommodationist;" I think both were made up by Jerry Coyne (Evolution Is True), who seems to have become the grand inquisitor of new atheism....always on the lookout for heresy - like the NCSE declaring that the organization has no interest in attacking religious beliefs and just wants to focus on proper science education. And don't pretend you're some kind of intellectual because you can toss out a reference to the Skeptic's Guide to the Universe! I listen to each episode too....at least part way....sometimes they get boring!

But if you wish I'll chip in a couple of observations.

First off, it's not atheists who claim to have all the answers. Atheists are the ones willing to say "we don't know that." It's the ones who say "our book has all of the answers!" who claim to have definitive knowledge of what is, how it got that way, and how things need to be.

Atheism only describes what someone doesn't believe in; and that leaves a void to be filled in with some sort of naturalistic worldview, because anyone who thinks about the big questions has to go with a set of assumptions about what sort of world we live in, and how it should work. A worldview may be informed by facts and science, but if an atheist adopts some sort of humanist philosophy as a grounding principle, assumptions start replacing facts.

Just as I feel that a person's religious beliefs don't necessarily tell me alot about how they act in society....whether they are altruistic and show concern for others, or are selfish and self-absorbed, it's obviously the same thing when someone says they're an atheist. Atheism by itself, doesn't tell me a whole lot about what sort of people they are.

Secondly, I'd posit that somebody who thinks the notable characteristic of a dictator is that they think they're smarter than everybody else is, himself, not very smart.

????????????????????

Good theories provide explanations for existing evidence and can be used to predict new phenomena. For example, someone realized that if relativity were true, we should be able to observe time dilation. Since then, time dilation has been experimentally proven. Bad theories, on the other hand, don't answer useful questions or provide testable predictions.

For example, Das Deutsche Physik wasn't a result of efforts to explain empirical evidence, it was a result of resistance to "Das Judische Physik". It held that the experimental evidence behind the theories of Einstein and Bohr must be erroneous and that there must be alternative explanations, but failed to produce any. The single great achievement of Deutsche Physik was to drive Germany's best scientists abroad and give America the expertise to build the atomic bomb.

Or, take your gravity theory from the other thread-- the idea that gravity is an illusion resulting from everything continuously expanding. The genesis for that theory was not observed evidence, but (if I recall correctly) the opinion that Relativity seemed "wack". Did he explain any unexplained phenomena? Did he offer any testable hypothesis? No and no. His theory isn't being "oppressed" by "the Establishment". It is being ignored because there's nothing to investigate. (btw, that's also why no real scientists are doing "Creation Science" either.)

Okay, so that takes care of physics! But how about issues that impact on how people live their lives and make choices in life! For example, about two years ago, Sam Harris went on the lecture circuit to promote a book he had just published called "The Moral Landscape," wherein he claimed that science, using the scientific method and the latest technological breakthroughs in neural imaging, could....at least in theory....go beyond informing philosophers about moral issues and ethical choices, and make the jump right to using science itself to make the best choices, in a completely objective system that would bridge David Hume's Is/Ought Paradox, or according to Harris, demonstrate that there is not really a problem because there would be no gaps between factual statements of 'what is' and normative claims about 'what ought to be.' Is he right? Will science not only abolish religion, but abolish philosophy also? Or is he already substituting his own attitudes about the way the world ought to be, when he makes claims about where science will lead moral theory?

[kimmy]

Who's comparing atheism to socialism?

That's how it usually ends up with Pliny. It goes something like "Atheists are intellectual bullies because they ridicule religious ideas, and bullying is like socialism because it oppresses people who are different and socialists try to make everybody the same so atheists are socialist bullies."

If people like you want to take issue for the reasons I've given for my shift in political thinking, that's one thing;

I wasn't taking issue with you at all. I have really not been following your discussion. I was responding to the Pliny quote.

And, I don't see how not believing in gods, provides a cause to rally around anyway! But, nowadays, in the internet age, there are all kinds of atheist online groups trying to do just that. If you join one of the atheist equivalents to facebook - Atheist Nexus or Think Atheist, the first thing you'll find is that the only thing to unite around is being against religion.....everything else is enemy camps -- left wing atheists vs. libertarians, vegans vs. omnivores, feminists vs. a rising clique of so called men's rights activists....and on and on....the only thing that unites these groups is religion is bad, and everyone will be better off by being an atheist. If you disagree, you discover that there are even slur words to describe atheists of little non-faith, like "faitheist" or "accommodationist;" I think both were made up by Jerry Coyne (Evolution Is True), who seems to have become the grand inquisitor of new atheism....always on the lookout for heresy - like the NCSE declaring that the organization has no interest in attacking religious beliefs and just wants to focus on proper science education.

Sure, there are some very strongly opinioned atheists around. And perhaps we should be thankful to them for continuing to make the point that religion should not be treated with undue politeness when criticism is warranted.

But most atheists are "nones", those who don't care about attacking religion or promoting irreligion, and don't care about religion up until the point where it starts intruding on science and education and healthcare.

And don't pretend you're some kind of intellectual because you can toss out a reference to the Skeptic's Guide to the Universe! I listen to each episode too....at least part way....sometimes they get boring!

I guess I'm not some kind of intellectual; I don't actually even know what The Skeptic's Guide To The Universe is.

????????????????????

That was, again, a response to this:

Atheists, of course, view themselves as a rational objective minority swimming in a sea of idiocy. They are Gods among us, and so does any Dictator feel about himself.

Again, a plank in Pliny's inane platform equating everything he doesn't like to political oppression.

Okay, so that takes care of physics! But how about issues that impact on how people live their lives and make choices in life! For example, about two years ago, Sam Harris went on the lecture circuit to promote a book he had just published called "The Moral Landscape,"

I don't think Sam Harris' ideas about science and morality are very mainstream among atheists of any description.

-k

[WIP]

That's how it usually ends up with Pliny. It goes something like "Atheists are intellectual bullies because they ridicule religious ideas, and bullying is like socialism because it oppresses people who are different and socialists try to make everybody the same so atheists are socialist bullies."

I wasn't taking issue with you at all. I have really not been following your discussion. I was responding to the Pliny quote.

Could have fooled me! I guess you're saying that I was collateral damage then.

Sure, there are some very strongly opinioned atheists around. And perhaps we should be thankful to them for continuing to make the point that religion should not be treated with undue politeness when criticism is warranted.

But most atheists are "nones", those who don't care about attacking religion or promoting irreligion, and don't care about religion up until the point where it starts intruding on science and education and healthcare.

But, most atheists don't consider atheism or even secular humanism, to be their most important identifying feature. But, atheists who have taken the time to join or try to establish atheist meetup groups, or even those who become active in the online atheist communities, are trying to organize a movement around what they don't believe in. I can't see much of reason why this would be the most important cause, unless we're living in a place that threatens our basic freedoms.

I guess I'm not some kind of intellectual; I don't actually even know what The Skeptic's Guide To The Universe is.

Then I'm lost on who the "Novella" was that you referred to. I assumed you were referring to Steven Novella - the neurologist who somehow finds time to be a very active blogger and podcaster, as well as president of the New England Skeptical Society... which sponsors the Skeptic's Guide to the Universe. His blog posts on NEUROLOGICA can be lengthy.

I don't think Sam Harris' ideas about science and morality are very mainstream among atheists of any description.

Actually, most of his ideas are very mainstream for humanists and utilitarian moral theorists. It's just that he goes way further than most, in his bold claims about moral objectivity than most humanists; but all humanists face the same problem as Harris in trying to find purpose in an uncaused universe, or trying to use an understanding of our evolutionary heritage, and how kin altruism and reciprocal altruism would have come as a result of useful biological adaptations for our ancestors, and this blind emergent evolutionary process - devoid of any intrinsic values itself, somehow leads to the discovery of objective moral principles to apply as universal principles to use as a guide for making ethical decisions. It's not only a problem for Harris; it's a problem for humanism in general.

[Pliny]

But if you wish I'll chip in a couple of observations.

-k

No thanks.

[Pliny]

This is why I lost interest in any sort of organizing around atheism -- both online and a CFI-sponsored group locally. The promoting naturalism and opposing religion strategy assumes that everyone is better off in a world without religion. And setting up promoting secularism and ending religion as the core values, means allying with each and every group that just happens to identify themselves as atheist. From my pov, I could join with left-liberal Christians before I would want to join with libertarians or some of the related self-oriented cults, like the objectivists or fans of Frederich Nietzsche.

A religion doesn't have to be about worshiping supernatural deities; it can be used to describe any organized belief systems and cultural traditions that a group of people follow. In the case of materialism, it may be a metaphorical reference, but if people are striving for materialistic status symbols, it doesn't matter whether they are doing it consciously or at some unconscious level, the end results are the same if they are spending most of their time working for, and obsessing about things that they 'need.' But, like I said before, if you're playing tourist in NYC, it seems like the worship of money is the most important religion if you go by the flashing ads and some of the shops displaying Rolex watches and $1000 wallets....I assume catering to an income demographic somewhere beyond what I'm making! So, it seems like the place where you might want to challenge people to focus on higher values than acquiring new toys, rather than worrying about the Jesus thing at Christmas.

A religion cannot be about worshiping supernatural deities in an atheistic world. You are talking about religion as being a social control mechanism.

Some form of "religion" in that sense would tend to exist in an atheistic world. Both religion and science have a fundamental purpose of explaining what's around us. When they become an organization they tend toward being social control mechanisms. And Materialism does fit in that category.

As for your preference of joining with left-wing Christians over libertarians or related self-oriented cults. Is your life experience simply a result of where others and circumstance has led you?

[WIP]

A religion cannot be about worshiping supernatural deities in an atheistic world. You are talking about religion as being a social control mechanism.

Some form of "religion" in that sense would tend to exist in an atheistic world. Both religion and science have a fundamental purpose of explaining what's around us. When they become an organization they tend toward being social control mechanisms. And Materialism does fit in that category.

Sounds like your second sentence disproved the point you were making in the first sentence! When it comes to "explaining what's around us" or world view, the obvious difference is that a religions usually start with an explanation of how the world came to be, and answers to all of life's basic questions about existence that are mythical in origin. I don't declare that myth means nonsense and stories that have no value; but when religions declare that their doctrines are divine truth that is direct revelation from the creator of the universe, then they have backed themselves right up to the edge of a cliff. This is especially obvious with religions that demand adherence to creation mythologies which fly in the face of everything that learning and discovery have revealed about ourselves and our world for the last 200 years. Either the fundamentalist young earth creationist has to live in ignorance, or they have to come up with convoluted explanations to rationalize their doctrines in the modern world. A better choice would have been not to claim that their religious texts are sources of scientific and historically accurate information in the first place. And then they could concentrate on what they consider of value in the books....which I hope has little to do with discovering how old the earth is!

As for your preference of joining with left-wing Christians over libertarians or related self-oriented cults. Is your life experience simply a result of where others and circumstance has led you?

Before I could answer that question, I'd have to know what you mean by "others" and "circumstances." Sounds a little cryptic to me. I thought I made the point clear enough before, that what I consider important today are ideas and strategies that could make the world a better place, rather than go charging full speed towards chaos and extinction like we seem to be doing today. We've had an overdose on materialism and individualism over the last 40 years, and forgot all about civic and community responsibilities. Solutions to our problems are not going to come from nonsense like "selfish egoism" or similar individualistic claptrap mouthed by believers in an 'invisible hand' guiding market forces to provide the direction. If we are going to turn things around, it's going to take collective effort of everyone working for the common good, because total environmental collapse will make all of us losers. There will be no point to selfish, individual striving against others. It's just hard to see how this is possible now in the face of what we are up against when it comes to dealing with the aggressive, ruthless cliques who control most of the world's wealth and are able to dominate media, culture and control politicians. And the controllers of wealth, who are mostly reckless fools with no consideration of risks, do not want any changes to the type of capitalism the world functions under today -- an economic system that demands increasing consumption that is exhausting resource supplies and expanding environmental destruction.

On a personal level, real solutions will come from the realization that none of us are 'self-made' and authors of our success/or failure. We are social animals who achieve and fail to achieve based on genetic inputs that we had no say in, and guided by environmental factors that include what sort of family life we enjoyed, were we born in relative wealth or poverty, the quality of schooling, the sort of neighbourhood we grew up in, our environmental exposure to toxins like lead, or just the lack of a quality diet early in life....and on and on....there's a whole lot of factors that make up who we are that we had no choice in. What we have a choice about afterwards is how we will use what we've been given. And on that point, I'm heading towards my golden years in good health, but certainly past the half way point in the game of life; and after having my world view turned upside down, I'm still not sure what to do that will have much of an impact on the state of the world today. I guess doing something is better than doing nothing, but it's hard not to take an honest look at the near future and not be a pessimist.

[Pliny]

Sounds like your second sentence disproved the point you were making in the first sentence!

Sorry that wasn't very clear. I probably should have said that in an atheistic world there would be no supernatural deities so a religion in such a world would not be about supernatural deities. Your concept of religion is that of a social control mechanism. In an atheistic world then whatever the mechanism of social control would be what formed the religion.

When it comes to "explaining what's around us" or world view, the obvious difference is that a religions usually start with an explanation of how the world came to be, and answers to all of life's basic questions about existence that are mythical in origin. I don't declare that myth means nonsense and stories that have no value; but when religions declare that their doctrines are divine truth that is direct revelation from the creator of the universe, then they have backed themselves right up to the edge of a cliff. This is especially obvious with religions that demand adherence to creation mythologies which fly in the face of everything that learning and discovery have revealed about ourselves and our world for the last 200 years. Either the fundamentalist young earth creationist has to live in ignorance, or they have to come up with convoluted explanations to rationalize their doctrines in the modern world. A better choice would have been not to claim that their religious texts are sources of scientific and historically accurate information in the first place. And then they could concentrate on what they consider of value in the books....which I hope has little to do with discovering how old the earth is!

Pick a theory and believe it. Explain everything through your beliefs and that's your world. The devout Christian builds his world around Christianity and that is the amazing aspect of a religious belief, even Secular Humanism.

While I agree with you western religions does little to promote understanding nor would a Secular Humanist or materialist type religion promote understanding once a heirarchy and system is established. Truth will not be allowed to eat at the foundation of science in such case any more than religion. I am equating them both as social control mechanisms, once they become that they abandon any search for truth. But there always will be people looking for truth and schisms will occur unless death becomes the penalty for questioning authority.

I just find it amazing that one can form his world around such theories of the creation of the universe and doesn't see that he has created a universe for himself.

The ardent fundamentalist Christian sees the whole universe form a certain perspective. He chooses this. He ignores what doesn't align; as does the Skeptic in creating his world. They are equally happy with their conclusions but their worlds could not be more different.

Before I could answer that question, I'd have to know what you mean by "others" and "circumstances." Sounds a little cryptic to me.

Me, cryptic? I'm too simple for that. By "others" I mean others and by "circumstances I mean circumstances.

I thought I made the point clear enough before, that what I consider important today are ideas and strategies that could make the world a better place, rather than go charging full speed towards chaos and extinction like we seem to be doing today. We've had an overdose on materialism and individualism over the last 40 years, and forgot all about civic and community responsibilities. Solutions to our problems are not going to come from nonsense like "selfish egoism" or similar individualistic claptrap mouthed by believers in an 'invisible hand' guiding market forces to provide the direction. If we are going to turn things around, it's going to take collective effort of everyone working for the common good, because total environmental collapse will make all of us losers. There will be no point to selfish, individual striving against others. It's just hard to see how this is possible now in the face of what we are up against when it comes to dealing with the aggressive, ruthless cliques who control most of the world's wealth and are able to dominate media, culture and control politicians. And the controllers of wealth, who are mostly reckless fools with no consideration of risks, do not want any changes to the type of capitalism the world functions under today -- an economic system that demands increasing consumption that is exhausting resource supplies and expanding environmental destruction.

Yes. I understand that. The fallacy in that is that certain individuals will decide what is for the common good and the collective will only follow. Whoever is elected to lead must then determine what is for the common good and convince the collective it is for the common good. Certain individuals will be creating the world and the individual is left without any creation. The person who cannot create then becomes no less than a slave of the one endowed with the power to socially engineer the world.

A world in which a belief that God will provide all the answers is the same as a world that believes Science will provide all the answers from the individual's perspective of himself but, of course, the two worlds would be a vastly different experience.

On a personal level, real solutions will come from the realization that none of us are 'self-made' and authors of our success/or failure.

Success or failure then, can never be defined by one's self. If you decide to read this post and read it you have succeeded. If you decide to read this post and don't then you have failed. If you decide not to read it and don't then you have succeeded. If you decide not to read it and do then you have failed. What is relevant to success or failure is in what you decide.

You have decided we, the human race, are on a course of self-destruction. Seems you are working quite hard at building your own world as is any one.

We are social animals who achieve and fail to achieve based on genetic inputs that we had no say in, and guided by environmental factors that include what sort of family life we enjoyed, were we born in relative wealth or poverty, the quality of schooling, the sort of neighbourhood we grew up in, our environmental exposure to toxins like lead, or just the lack of a quality diet early in life....and on and on....there's a whole lot of factors that make up who we are that we had no choice in. What we have a choice about afterwards is how we will use what we've been given. And on that point, I'm heading towards my golden years in good health, but certainly past the half way point in the game of life; and after having my world view turned upside down, I'm still not sure what to do that will have much of an impact on the state of the world today. I guess doing something is better than doing nothing, but it's hard not to take an honest look at the near future and not be a pessimist.

You say you are not sure what to do that will have much impact on the state of the world today. Well, from the first part of that paragraph it sounds like it would be futile anyway. You are not one of the "elite" who are the source of your ills and perception of destruction. You don't have a silver spoon in your mouth, basically you have no say in those choices.

[WIP]

Sorry that wasn't very clear. I probably should have said that in an atheistic world there would be no supernatural deities so a religion in such a world would not be about supernatural deities. Your concept of religion is that of a social control mechanism. In an atheistic world then whatever the mechanism of social control would be what formed the religion.

That still sounds a little cryptic! Maybe some clearly defined terms would help. First, I get a little irritated by atheists and believers of all stripes when they talk about what's good or bad about "religion" and never get around to defining what aspects of religion are beneficial or harmful.

I didn't say religions are just social systems, although that is an important aspect of religion. "social control" implies coercion, which may not be the case. When it comes to social causes, religions can be acting to help people, or to cause increasing division and hostility to outside groups. A religion may be trying to use sermons, rituals and outreach to motivate people towards good ends, such as charitable purposes and making a personal effort on a local level to assist those in need. Most secular humanist organizations say these are worthy causes also; but it's one thing to talk about charity and doing good for others, it's another thing to put it into practice. Which is why gathering together and focusing on a common cause is more likely to lead to action than just talking about it online or in a tavern or coffee shop....which is the extent of most secular humanist organization!

I'll give you an example....Covenant House, is the largest charitable organization running shelters and programs specifically directed towards homeless youth. Started in the 60's by the Franciscan Order, and operating shelters in Vancouver and Toronto, here in Canada, they are providing a much needed service that could be further expanded....as we here in Hamilton, have a homeless youth problem, since existing shelters are mostly towards adult men and women, and youth, who are too old for group homes and may be at risk in an adult shelter, simply fall through the cracks.

Anyway, a podcast show I listen to regularly on Itunes is Equal Time For Freethought, hosted on independent public radio station WBAI New York, featured an interview with Tina Kelley -- author of a book on homeless kids who have gone through Covenant House shelters across the U.S. with Covenant House International president - Kevin Ryan. The interview discusses some of the case stories, including how a sizeable number of homeless kids are gay, and were turned out from fundamentalist Christian homes. So, in many respects we have a religious organization that has a good portion of their social outreach devoted to helping kids damaged by certain religions!

According to the interview, Covenant House does not allow an aggressive push for pastoral care, especially since many of the youth have developed a hostile attitude towards religion because of their background. But, what is relevant here, begins at about 36 min into the interview and occupies the remaining minutes of the interview, when the host shifts focus to the role religious faith plays in Covenant House outreach, and whether some kids might be put off by religion; and asks why there can't be a purely secular, non-religious alternative. And that would raise the question: WHY aren't atheistic and secular humanist organizations doing it already? Part of the reason may be due to the fact that dropping out of religion is a non-conformist action, and non-conformists are more likely to focus on individual, self-oriented pursuits. And if an atheist is not part of any organization that provides a little prodding every now and then to focus on others, professing concern about peace and goodwill to others can be nothing more than catch-phrases.

Pick a theory and believe it. Explain everything through your beliefs and that's your world. The devout Christian builds his world around Christianity and that is the amazing aspect of a religious belief, even Secular Humanism.

Not sure where this is going either! Even fundamentalists don't explain "everything" through their religion. They likely think their religion explains everything that's important, and in today's age when science challenges traditional religious beliefs on so many levels, the fundamentalist is inclined to avoid science and avoid hearing anything that weakens faith and inspires doubt.

While I agree with you western religions does little to promote understanding nor would a Secular Humanist or materialist type religion promote understanding once a heirarchy and system is established. Truth will not be allowed to eat at the foundation of science in such case any more than religion. I am equating them both as social control mechanisms, once they become that they abandon any search for truth. But there always will be people looking for truth and schisms will occur unless death becomes the penalty for questioning authority.

I can't accept religious doctrines as truth on any level other than as allegory for important lessons in life. Many times the fundamentalist obsession with making the Bible an historical document, detracts from the value of the story. When Jesus casts the money changers out of the Temple, the argument over whether it is an historical event diminishes the message therein. Same with the intervention against the mob who were following the Law by stoning a prostitute or adulterous woman. The story with the famous "let he who is without sin cast the first stone," changed the course of the development of Christianity, although the story is not found in original texts and is considered by modern textual scholars to be an addition that was inserted, not to advocate for mercy, but to make a complete break with adherence to the Mosaic Law. The story's importance doesn't matter whether or not its origins are sketchy,.

I just find it amazing that one can form his world around such theories of the creation of the universe and doesn't see that he has created a universe for himself.

I'll assume that you are saying that the act of deciding which theory is most likely is 'creating a universe' in some respects. Could be, who knows. All I know is that science tries to build an objective case for how we and the universe got here, while the religious explanation is little more than conflation, or making up an explanation when an answer is demanded, while knowledge is limited. This is a natural part of human psychology. Behavioural psychologists refer to it as a telelogical approach to answering a question. We begin our lives as children, applying teleology to everything we see. The sun is up in the sky to give us light, and every other answer a child gives will have some sort of personal reference. Gerontologists inform us that at the other end of life, if we develop dementia of some sort, our minds lose our critical and analytical thinking capacity and go back to teleology again. Every hunter/gatherer tribe I've ever heard of, has had some creation myth about where the world came from and where they came from...and just like the one in the Bible, they had no concept of what the universe actually was or the scale of the universe. The world was just what the eye could see, and many things, like stars in the sky, were just lights suspended from a giant ceiling and not other suns like our own.

A world in which a belief that God will provide all the answers is the same as a world that believes Science will provide all the answers from the individual's perspective of himself but, of course, the two worlds would be a vastly different experience.

Ultimately, I believe we have choices about what we choose to believe in, but once those beliefs are formed, we don't have a choice to believe or not to believe....whether the subject is a creator, an immortal soul, an everlasting paradise etc. The feeling of certainty is just that - a feeling, or a sensation. It is likely part of our neural development and served a purpose in rewarding our efforts to understand things about the world that were necessary for our survival. People can have great knowledge on a subject and feel uncertain about conclusions, while many can know absolutely nothing and still feel certain. So, maybe mine and other skeptics' mental demands for certainty are greater than most who are quick to jump to a conclusion.

Whether it's good to be a believer or an unbeliever is a subjective choice, based on a persons individual needs. And since our minds are all different, and not identical as intuition leads us to believe, I prefer to go with my suspicions that evidence for design and designers in nature is more of the same jumping to conclusions that we have gone through every time something in nature has been explained when the science was able to develop enough to provide real answers. But, I am aware that some people seem to have a strong belief that their lives have a purpose that is important in the grand scheme of things. Some feel a need to believe in personal immortality, which can lead to a lot of bad choices in life, but may be overcome with despair and anxiety if their beliefs in life after death are vigorously challenged. I'll just be happy with can agree on the basic things that are important to maintain a functioning society.

You have decided we, the human race, are on a course of self-destruction. Seems you are working quite hard at building your own world as is any one.

Some, would call me a doom-and-gloomer, while I would say the evidence is overwhelming and incontrovertible that human race is consuming too much of the resources of this world and changing the climate - forcing it towards a hotter state that humans never had to deal with before. The fact that our total population is still growing at a time when the world is already overshooting available resources, and we have a global economic system that demands ever-increasing energy and resource consumption....I would say that's reason enough to be pessimistic. Being a realist means being a pessimist at this point in time. I would say the optimists are irrational in their faith in human ingenuity and waiting for one of those Hollywood endings where some great scientist invents something or does something to save the day.

You say you are not sure what to do that will have much impact on the state of the world today. Well, from the first part of that paragraph it sounds like it would be futile anyway. You are not one of the "elite" who are the source of your ills and perception of destruction. You don't have a silver spoon in your mouth, basically you have no say in those choices.

I have choices over my own life, if the small community of like-minded people who are thinking along the same line, cannot influence others enough to change course, we will have to just do what we can in our own lives to survive. The sustainable community movement is an example of environmentally conscious people getting together at local level and trying to provide their communities better odds of survival. But, I don't live in Vermont...or one of the areas where sustainability is catching on. I'm living in a city that will be a disaster area like most cities, if I live long enough to see the worst of system failure and a breakdown of civilization. So, I own some land up north, and I intend to put it to use after I retire...if not before then.

[Pliny]

That still sounds a little cryptic! Maybe some clearly defined terms would help. First, I get a little irritated by atheists and believers of all stripes when they talk about what's good or bad about "religion" and never get around to defining what aspects of religion are beneficial or harmful.

I didn't say religions are just social systems, although that is an important aspect of religion. "social control" implies coercion, which may not be the case. When it comes to social causes, religions can be acting to help people, or to cause increasing division and hostility to outside groups. A religion may be trying to use sermons, rituals and outreach to motivate people towards good ends, such as charitable purposes and making a personal effort on a local level to assist those in need. Most secular humanist organizations say these are worthy causes also; but it's one thing to talk about charity and doing good for others, it's another thing to put it into practice. Which is why gathering together and focusing on a common cause is more likely to lead to action than just talking about it online or in a tavern or coffee shop....which is the extent of most secular humanist organization!

I'll give you an example....Covenant House, is the largest charitable organization running shelters and programs specifically directed towards homeless youth. Started in the 60's by the Franciscan Order, and operating shelters in Vancouver and Toronto, here in Canada, they are providing a much needed service that could be further expanded....as we here in Hamilton, have a homeless youth problem, since existing shelters are mostly towards adult men and women, and youth, who are too old for group homes and may be at risk in an adult shelter, simply fall through the cracks.

Anyway, a podcast show I listen to regularly on Itunes is Equal Time For Freethought, hosted on independent public radio station WBAI New York, featured an interview with Tina Kelley -- author of a book on homeless kids who have gone through Covenant House shelters across the U.S. with Covenant House International president - Kevin Ryan. The interview discusses some of the case stories, including how a sizeable number of homeless kids are gay, and were turned out from fundamentalist Christian homes. So, in many respects we have a religious organization that has a good portion of their social outreach devoted to helping kids damaged by certain religions!

According to the interview, Covenant House does not allow an aggressive push for pastoral care, especially since many of the youth have developed a hostile attitude towards religion because of their background. But, what is relevant here, begins at about 36 min into the interview and occupies the remaining minutes of the interview, when the host shifts focus to the role religious faith plays in Covenant House outreach, and whether some kids might be put off by religion; and asks why there can't be a purely secular, non-religious alternative. And that would raise the question: WHY aren't atheistic and secular humanist organizations doing it already? Part of the reason may be due to the fact that dropping out of religion is a non-conformist action, and non-conformists are more likely to focus on individual, self-oriented pursuits. And if an atheist is not part of any organization that provides a little prodding every now and then to focus on others, professing concern about peace and goodwill to others can be nothing more than catch-phrases.

Not sure where this is going either! Even fundamentalists don't explain "everything" through their religion. They likely think their religion explains everything that's important, and in today's age when science challenges traditional religious beliefs on so many levels, the fundamentalist is inclined to avoid science and avoid hearing anything that weakens faith and inspires doubt.

I can't accept religious doctrines as truth on any level other than as allegory for important lessons in life. Many times the fundamentalist obsession with making the Bible an historical document, detracts from the value of the story. When Jesus casts the money changers out of the Temple, the argument over whether it is an historical event diminishes the message therein. Same with the intervention against the mob who were following the Law by stoning a prostitute or adulterous woman. The story with the famous "let he who is without sin cast the first stone," changed the course of the development of Christianity, although the story is not found in original texts and is considered by modern textual scholars to be an addition that was inserted, not to advocate for mercy, but to make a complete break with adherence to the Mosaic Law. The story's importance doesn't matter whether or not its origins are sketchy,.

I'll assume that you are saying that the act of deciding which theory is most likely is 'creating a universe' in some respects. Could be, who knows. All I know is that science tries to build an objective case for how we and the universe got here, while the religious explanation is little more than conflation, or making up an explanation when an answer is demanded, while knowledge is limited. This is a natural part of human psychology. Behavioural psychologists refer to it as a telelogical approach to answering a question. We begin our lives as children, applying teleology to everything we see. The sun is up in the sky to give us light, and every other answer a child gives will have some sort of personal reference. Gerontologists inform us that at the other end of life, if we develop dementia of some sort, our minds lose our critical and analytical thinking capacity and go back to teleology again. Every hunter/gatherer tribe I've ever heard of, has had some creation myth about where the world came from and where they came from...and just like the one in the Bible, they had no concept of what the universe actually was or the scale of the universe. The world was just what the eye could see, and many things, like stars in the sky, were just lights suspended from a giant ceiling and not other suns like our own.

Ultimately, I believe we have choices about what we choose to believe in, but once those beliefs are formed, we don't have a choice to believe or not to believe....whether the subject is a creator, an immortal soul, an everlasting paradise etc. The feeling of certainty is just that - a feeling, or a sensation. It is likely part of our neural development and served a purpose in rewarding our efforts to understand things about the world that were necessary for our survival. People can have great knowledge on a subject and feel uncertain about conclusions, while many can know absolutely nothing and still feel certain. So, maybe mine and other skeptics' mental demands for certainty are greater than most who are quick to jump to a conclusion.

Whether it's good to be a believer or an unbeliever is a subjective choice, based on a persons individual needs. And since our minds are all different, and not identical as intuition leads us to believe, I prefer to go with my suspicions that evidence for design and designers in nature is more of the same jumping to conclusions that we have gone through every time something in nature has been explained when the science was able to develop enough to provide real answers. But, I am aware that some people seem to have a strong belief that their lives have a purpose that is important in the grand scheme of things. Some feel a need to believe in personal immortality, which can lead to a lot of bad choices in life, but may be overcome with despair and anxiety if their beliefs in life after death are vigorously challenged. I'll just be happy with can agree on the basic things that are important to maintain a functioning society.

Some, would call me a doom-and-gloomer, while I would say the evidence is overwhelming and incontrovertible that human race is consuming too much of the resources of this world and changing the climate - forcing it towards a hotter state that humans never had to deal with before. The fact that our total population is still growing at a time when the world is already overshooting available resources, and we have a global economic system that demands ever-increasing energy and resource consumption....I would say that's reason enough to be pessimistic. Being a realist means being a pessimist at this point in time. I would say the optimists are irrational in their faith in human ingenuity and waiting for one of those Hollywood endings where some great scientist invents something or does something to save the day.

I have choices over my own life, if the small community of like-minded people who are thinking along the same line, cannot influence others enough to change course, we will have to just do what we can in our own lives to survive. The sustainable community movement is an example of environmentally conscious people getting together at local level and trying to provide their communities better odds of survival. But, I don't live in Vermont...or one of the areas where sustainability is catching on. I'm living in a city that will be a disaster area like most cities, if I live long enough to see the worst of system failure and a breakdown of civilization. So, I own some land up north, and I intend to put it to use after I retire...if not before then.

That still sounds a little cryptic! Maybe some clearly defined terms would help. First, I get a little irritated by atheists and believers of all stripes when they talk about what's good or bad about "religion" and never get around to defining what aspects of religion are beneficial or harmful.

I didn't say religions are just social systems, although that is an important aspect of religion. "social control" implies coercion, which may not be the case. When it comes to social causes, religions can be acting to help people, or to cause increasing division and hostility to outside groups. A religion may be trying to use sermons, rituals and outreach to motivate people towards good ends, such as charitable purposes and making a personal effort on a local level to assist those in need. Most secular humanist organizations say these are worthy causes also; but it's one thing to talk about charity and doing good for others, it's another thing to put it into practice. Which is why gathering together and focusing on a common cause is more likely to lead to action than just talking about it online or in a tavern or coffee shop....which is the extent of most secular humanist organization!

I'll give you an example....Covenant House, is the largest charitable organization running shelters and programs specifically directed towards homeless youth. Started in the 60's by the Franciscan Order, and operating shelters in Vancouver and Toronto, here in Canada, they are providing a much needed service that could be further expanded....as we here in Hamilton, have a homeless youth problem, since existing shelters are mostly towards adult men and women, and youth, who are too old for group homes and may be at risk in an adult shelter, simply fall through the cracks.

Anyway, a podcast show I listen to regularly on Itunes is Equal Time For Freethought, hosted on independent public radio station WBAI New York, featured an interview with Tina Kelley -- author of a book on homeless kids who have gone through Covenant House shelters across the U.S. with Covenant House International president - Kevin Ryan. The interview discusses some of the case stories, including how a sizeable number of homeless kids are gay, and were turned out from fundamentalist Christian homes. So, in many respects we have a religious organization that has a good portion of their social outreach devoted to helping kids damaged by certain religions!

According to the interview, Covenant House does not allow an aggressive push for pastoral care, especially since many of the youth have developed a hostile attitude towards religion because of their background. But, what is relevant here, begins at about 36 min into the interview and occupies the remaining minutes of the interview, when the host shifts focus to the role religious faith plays in Covenant House outreach, and whether some kids might be put off by religion; and asks why there can't be a purely secular, non-religious alternative. And that would raise the question: WHY aren't atheistic and secular humanist organizations doing it already? Part of the reason may be due to the fact that dropping out of religion is a non-conformist action, and non-conformists are more likely to focus on individual, self-oriented pursuits. And if an atheist is not part of any organization that provides a little prodding every now and then to focus on others, professing concern about peace and goodwill to others can be nothing more than catch-phrases.

Not sure where this is going either! Even fundamentalists don't explain "everything" through their religion. They likely think their religion explains everything that's important, and in today's age when science challenges traditional religious beliefs on so many levels, the fundamentalist is inclined to avoid science and avoid hearing anything that weakens faith and inspires doubt.

I can't accept religious doctrines as truth on any level other than as allegory for important lessons in life. Many times the fundamentalist obsession with making the Bible an historical document, detracts from the value of the story. When Jesus casts the money changers out of the Temple, the argument over whether it is an historical event diminishes the message therein. Same with the intervention against the mob who were following the Law by stoning a prostitute or adulterous woman. The story with the famous "let he who is without sin cast the first stone," changed the course of the development of Christianity, although the story is not found in original texts and is considered by modern textual scholars to be an addition that was inserted, not to advocate for mercy, but to make a complete break with adherence to the Mosaic Law. The story's importance doesn't matter whether or not its origins are sketchy,.

I'll assume that you are saying that the act of deciding which theory is most likely is 'creating a universe' in some respects. Could be, who knows. All I know is that science tries to build an objective case for how we and the universe got here, while the religious explanation is little more than conflation, or making up an explanation when an answer is demanded, while knowledge is limited. This is a natural part of human psychology. Behavioural psychologists refer to it as a telelogical approach to answering a question. We begin our lives as children, applying teleology to everything we see. The sun is up in the sky to give us light, and every other answer a child gives will have some sort of personal reference. Gerontologists inform us that at the other end of life, if we develop dementia of some sort, our minds lose our critical and analytical thinking capacity and go back to teleology again. Every hunter/gatherer tribe I've ever heard of, has had some creation myth about where the world came from and where they came from...and just like the one in the Bible, they had no concept of what the universe actually was or the scale of the universe. The world was just what the eye could see, and many things, like stars in the sky, were just lights suspended from a giant ceiling and not other suns like our own.

Ultimately, I believe we have choices about what we choose to believe in, but once those beliefs are formed, we don't have a choice to believe or not to believe....whether the subject is a creator, an immortal soul, an everlasting paradise etc. The feeling of certainty is just that - a feeling, or a sensation. It is likely part of our neural development and served a purpose in rewarding our efforts to understand things about the world that were necessary for our survival. People can have great knowledge on a subject and feel uncertain about conclusions, while many can know absolutely nothing and still feel certain. So, maybe mine and other skeptics' mental demands for certainty are greater than most who are quick to jump to a conclusion.

Whether it's good to be a believer or an unbeliever is a subjective choice, based on a persons individual needs. And since our minds are all different, and not identical as intuition leads us to believe, I prefer to go with my suspicions that evidence for design and designers in nature is more of the same jumping to conclusions that we have gone through every time something in nature has been explained when the science was able to develop enough to provide real answers. But, I am aware that some people seem to have a strong belief that their lives have a purpose that is important in the grand scheme of things. Some feel a need to believe in personal immortality, which can lead to a lot of bad choices in life, but may be overcome with despair and anxiety if their beliefs in life after death are vigorously challenged. I'll just be happy with can agree on the basic things that are important to maintain a functioning society.

Some, would call me a doom-and-gloomer, while I would say the evidence is overwhelming and incontrovertible that human race is consuming too much of the resources of this world and changing the climate - forcing it towards a hotter state that humans never had to deal with before. The fact that our total population is still growing at a time when the world is already overshooting available resources, and we have a global economic system that demands ever-increasing energy and resource consumption....I would say that's reason enough to be pessimistic. Being a realist means being a pessimist at this point in time. I would say the optimists are irrational in their faith in human ingenuity and waiting for one of those Hollywood endings where some great scientist invents something or does something to save the day.

I have choices over my own life, if the small community of like-minded people who are thinking along the same line, cannot influence others enough to change course, we will have to just do what we can in our own lives to survive. The sustainable community movement is an example of environmentally conscious people getting together at local level and trying to provide their communities better odds of survival. But, I don't live in Vermont...or one of the areas where sustainability is catching on. I'm living in a city that will be a disaster area like most cities, if I live long enough to see the worst of system failure and a breakdown of civilization. So, I own some land up north, and I intend to put it to use after I retire...if not before then.

You are a very good writer. Do you make your living doing that?

In reading your posts I find you forwarding the intellectual and elite messages. You use the terms, phrases and concepts that I would read from someone from the Club of Rome, or the worries of the privileged uber-wealthy. I imagine those at Bilderberger meetings discussing such concerns or other global organizations formulating agendas for future sustainability such as the UN's Agenda 21.

You seem to dislike the international banking community yet you hold their views and I find that inconsistent. I believe you do hold some disdain for "the masses" who do not have the intellectual capacity to understand the immediacy of your global concerns and the necessity to act now.

Well, the action you want is being instituted by the very people you decry. They are the privileged wealthy, the intellectual elite. The ruling class - the bankers, the global leaders, the upper strata of the intellectual class all agree with you and they attempt to mobilize the masses to do their bidding in destroying opposition to what they deem to be for the "common good". The idea of capitalism, private property, religion, etc, is all under attack because they are a source of opposition to the indoctrination of the masses in order to bring about the "sustainability" they, and you desire.

I am not a conspiracy theorist but I see a "consensus" of opinion from the intellectual class in how sustainability can be achieved by "proper" management of resources, populations, development, etc. and of course they must lead in this pursuit.

I myself abhor this singular approach and see it as being just as catastrophic as doing nothing.

Really, we have the wealth and the time to devote to sustaining ourselves but I don't believe ivory tower intellectuals and their worries have solutions based in reality. They have unrealistic goals that could prove devastating to most of the world's population.

Your post seems to illustrate a concern for the underclass, the disadvantaged individual. I, myself, see most social programs as self-serving in how to deal with them for if they disappeared what would be the necessity for the existence of such programs. While there are certainly a small percentage of people who will need aid throughout their life we should be able to create enough abundance to aid them though they must be separated from those who suffer due to circumstance and require a helping hand temporarily. Religion often filled this charitable necessity but it is increasingly, in this secular world, given short shrift, or even avoided because there is a concept of retribution attached to it. Secular programs do not have this concept and are often then just taken advantage of because of the no strings attached idea. It is one of the selling points of secular social programs. The idea you can get something for nothing is a hallmark of government socialist ideology that is appealing to the disadvantaged which in a democracy will vote for these "entitlements" that cost nothing, growing to economically unsustainable heights, and ending in collapse or revolution. It's the cycle of the welfare-warfare state.

Good luck up north! I assure you that you won't be left alone. Make sure you don't have any ring-tailed field mice, white-faced barn owls, water that can be considered swampland, etc. Basically, if it is a piece of rock without any mineral or other resource you may find some peace.

[WIP]

You are a very good writer. Do you make your living doing that?

No, but if you could point me in the direction to making money writing so I could quit my day job, I'd be happy! My wife has often asked me over the years if any of the books I was reading, and then the stuff I was reading online after getting a computer, could help me make money.

In reading your posts I find you forwarding the intellectual and elite messages. You use the terms, phrases and concepts that I would read from someone from the Club of Rome, or the worries of the privileged uber-wealthy. I imagine those at Bilderberger meetings discussing such concerns or other global organizations formulating agendas for future sustainability such as the UN's Agenda 21.

I was hoping you would elaborate on these sorts of points. The only thing I know of the Club of Rome is the Limits to Growth report and the updated Limits to Growth from a few years back which confirmed most of the dangerous trends in population growth and environment depletion identified back in 1972. If it has some connection to bilderbergers and UN conspiracy theories, all I know of them is that "Bilderberger" just rolls off the tongues of wingnuts like Alex Jones and similar conspiracy buffs. If this was the source of world domination, I'd like to know why they didn't do anything to stop the looming environmental crisis, and why they can't do anything to change world events if they are running the world right now? The global conspiracy theory I believe in is the one that makes its power plainly evident for all to see: the major international banks and corporations that have set up the only international bodies that have power over national governments -- IMF, World Bank and WTO. If the UN was trying, and was capable of taking over the world from the existing powers, I would probably be on their side! I can't see how they could do any worse than the corporate fascism that increases its wealth and power every year.

You seem to dislike the international banking community yet you hold their views and I find that inconsistent. I believe you do hold some disdain for "the masses" who do not have the intellectual capacity to understand the immediacy of your global concerns and the necessity to act now.

I'll need an interpretation for this one too! But, I'll add that the real economic situation demonstrates that the banking system is a giant blood-sucking leech that extracts the wealth from the real economy by creating new debt and then using that debt to leverage control over real assets.

Well, the action you want is being instituted by the very people you decry. They are the privileged wealthy, the intellectual elite. The ruling class - the bankers, the global leaders, the upper strata of the intellectual class all agree with you and they attempt to mobilize the masses to do their bidding in destroying opposition to what they deem to be for the "common good". The idea of capitalism, private property, religion, etc, is all under attack because they are a source of opposition to the indoctrination of the masses in order to bring about the "sustainability" they, and you desire.

???????????????????????????

I am not a conspiracy theorist but I see a "consensus" of opinion from the intellectual class in how sustainability can be achieved by "proper" management of resources, populations, development, etc. and of course they must lead in this pursuit.

I myself abhor this singular approach and see it as being just as catastrophic as doing nothing.

I'll take a stab at this and see if it has something to do with your concerns. In brief, everything I've read over the last few years about ecology, economics and resource depletion, tells me that we are using an economic system that will completely collapse at some time in the near future. We live in a finite world, with finite resources. During previous times in human history, it was possible to pick up and move to a new location to exploit the local resource base...which may have entailed killing or enslaving the locals....but today, there are no frontiers for exploration and growth....except in space....and reality is telling us that the Moon, Mars and beyond, are just too far away to be of any use to us. So, we are stuck with the resources available on this planet, and we are still adding more people and increasing our individual consumption of energy, renewable and non-renewable resources, because our banking system and our economic system demand increased growth. Tell me how this system makes any sense, and how it can sustain itself in a finite world? The only option is base economies on resources available for use and divide up resources equitably. I've mentioned a couple of times already that I see the underlying story behind the increase in wars, genocides, forced migrations, increased military spending and military actions, as being sourced in an increasingly aggressive competition for the resources that are left......and I don't see a good outcome coming from more wars for resources.

Your post seems to illustrate a concern for the underclass, the disadvantaged individual. I, myself, see most social programs as self-serving in how to deal with them for if they disappeared what would be the necessity for the existence of such programs. While there are certainly a small percentage of people who will need aid throughout their life we should be able to create enough abundance to aid them though they must be separated from those who suffer due to circumstance and require a helping hand temporarily.

So, you're in favour of the Guaranteed Minimum Income? How else do we decide who needs what? There are many people who fall through the cracks of the present system, because personal problems that may have their source in mental illness or difficult to diagnose ailments like Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, make them unemployable and unable to hold onto their jobs, and unable to qualify for disability pensions.

Religion often filled this charitable necessity but it is increasingly, in this secular world, given short shrift, or even avoided because there is a concept of retribution attached to it. Secular programs do not have this concept and are often then just taken advantage of because of the no strings attached idea. It is one of the selling points of secular social programs

Seems like there's a lot of right wing religious people here who are giving their charitable programs short shrift! What secular thinkers fear about faith-based programs supported by government, is that the providers will base their programs on some sort of religious litmus test. This may not be true in most cases, but public money shouldn't be given to charities who only want to help their own adherents and require partakers to sit through religious indoctrination before giving them a meal. Also seems like you are too overly focused on someone getting aid who may not be in dire need. From what I have seen, even those who are first in line at the food banks and at the Salvation Army truck, are already living a marginal existence. The Sally Ann truck is supposed to focus primarily on the homeless, and I have often seen a lot in line who are on welfare or psychiatric disability, but do have homes....if you can call them homes. They know who the regulars are and try to limit the ones who are in line too often, just like the food banks usually limit collections to once per month from each residence - depending on family size. Personally, I would rather focus my guns upward, at the billionaires who are robbing us blind!

The idea you can get something for nothing is a hallmark of government socialist ideology that is appealing to the disadvantaged which in a democracy will vote for these "entitlements" that cost nothing, growing to economically unsustainable heights, and ending in collapse or revolution. It's the cycle of the welfare-warfare state.

Yes, I've heard that socialist societies are less efficient than capitalist ones; but let's not forget that the few examples of socialism in practice have been primarily state socialism where control was centered among a small ruling class living miles away. When socialism is practiced at the local level, where people have a say in the work they do, and know who's contributing and who's collecting, a socialist system can work just fine. Let's not forget that Cuba survived after the collapse of the Soviet Union primarily by reforms to their communist system that reduced central control. That was more of a factor in ensuring that Cubans had food and other necessities after the money and oil were cut off by the Soviets than the U.S. and Canadian dollars provided to a few hotel resorts.

In the end, what I do know is that your system isn't working anymore. It won't find a way to grow its way out of the present malaise, and the only thing our economy has over the U.S. and the rest of the developed world is that we have oil....or what can be loosely called oil after a long, dirty job of processing. So, Canada is making money by turning Northern Alberta into a giant cesspool, and ramping up the levels of atmospheric carbon. I'd rather take the alternative!

Good luck up north! I assure you that you won't be left alone. Make sure you don't have any ring-tailed field mice, white-faced barn owls, water that can be considered swampland, etc. Basically, if it is a piece of rock without any mineral or other resource you may find some peace.

Oh, I'm not moving just yet. That small parcel of land is part of long range plans....at least I hope it's something five to 10 years in the future. I'll keep working till my youngest son is finally supporting himself, and I can collect my company pension and Canada Pension...for however long that lasts!

When it comes to the kind of collapse that I see collectively in our future, it's difficult to say exactly where a safe place to live would be! I recall a little while back - listening to an interview with Dmitri Orlov, who sees currency collapse as precipitating a breakdown or unwinding of the present social order, as events that entail a lof of uncertainty. From his own experience during his earlier years living in the collapsing Soviet Union, he says the place you don't want to be when society breaks down is in large cities. Most of the old people who starved or died of exposure, were living in the big cities, same with the younger people killed in random acts of violence. He says it was lucky that some semblance of order could be re-established after a few months, but in a worldwide collapse, there won't be anyone coming in to the rescue with bailout funds to create a new economy.