Pope says atheists can go to heaven...

[kimmy]

Do you find it even just a little bit odd that you are arguing with a complete stranger about a bill that was changed(what I mean by that is the original bad wording was changed) in another country years ago? I find it strange. It doesn't benefit either of us in any way and it has the potential of putting one or the other in a bad mood.

As I said, it's not just the one law, there's a number of Republican bills and laws in various states that are intended to provide religious people with exemptions. I'll post some when I get home from work.

-k

[Mighty AC]

Definitely. The core of the AA 12 steps is the belief in an a higher power. If someone has an issue with the god thing they can choose some other benevolent abstraction (for example, the AA group) but most members with long time sobriety come to believe in some sort of god as part of their recovery.

A significant portion of AA members do not believe in a higher power and ignore the mysticism aspect. AA has about 2.1M members worldwide, 93K from Canada. My guess would be that the demographics of members are similar to that of their communities. So roughly 25% of the Canadians members are likely non-religious.

The psychology is not hard to understand. Addicts tend to be control freaks and developing a belief in a benevolent abstraction allows the addict to let go of things they would feel otherwise compelled to try to control.

...

IOW - It makes no difference whether the higher power is real or not - simply believing in it gives the addict critical tools needed to live a sober life. It makes no difference if you think they could have accomplished the same thing another way because they found something that works for them.

AA has a very low success rate. The highest estimates say that 2.5% achieve 5 years of sobriety, though researchers say a truer figure is south of 1%. The program is very out dated, based on research done in the 1930's. Though sponsor/group emotional support is beneficial (and copied by other programs), several aspects of the program are not effective. The rigid 'one programs fits all' approach, creating dependence on the meetings instead of building self reliance over time, the complete lack of education of, and treatment for, the biochemical root of the problem, and the built in helpless of submitting to a higher power have all been shown to be counter productive.

Modern programs credit individuals, not a token higher power, for their successes and build responsibility for their setbacks. This helps to put the individual in control and create long term responsibility and self reliance. They also work to treat the depression and spin off addiction problems that usually accompany drug and alcohol addiction treatment. Bill W, the AA founder, was plagued with depression problems and severe addictions (to the point of hallucination) to nicotine, caffeine and sex.

Edited January 28, 2014 by Mighty AC

[Mighty AC]

The power of this apparently comes from the "benevolent abstraction" itself. It's apparently a useful psychological tool.

In situations where placebos and distractions are useful in the short term, it seems that they need not be a magical entities. I agree that gods can be an optional crutch for those that already believe, though I don't see a case for maintaining a mythological idea for the purpose of diverting attention.

Edited January 28, 2014 by Mighty AC

[TimG]

A significant portion of AA members do not believe in a higher power and ignore the mysticism aspect.

You have no data to support that assertion. I am simply describing how the program is presented in meetings and claim that many members choose to follow the philosophy and are able to stay sober.

AA has a very low success rate. The highest estimates say that 2.5% achieve 5 years of sobriety, though researchers say a truer figure is south of 1%.

Such stats are largely meaningless because simply showing up to a meeting is not enough to benefit from AA. To benefit one must accept the philosophy of AA and only a subset of the people who show up at meetings do that. There are no stats that measure the effectiveness of the program for people that actually make an effort to follow it. I am not even certain how one would determine if someone made an effort to accept the philosophy of AA.

That said, AA is self sustaining without any government support so it is obviously successful enough. Also, most treatment centers today refer clients to AA after they leave so your argument that "modern methods" replace AA is clearly nonsense. Modern treatment methods provide additional support to addicts but they don't replace AA from the point of view of professionals that work in the field (have you actually talked any?)

in helpless of submitting to a higher power have all been shown to be counter productive.

This statement misrepresents the role of a high power within AA which shows that whoever made it has no idea what they are talking about (sounds like crap some anti-theist made up based on their childish stereotypes of what a higher power means).

But debating the merits of philosophies is not the point. Nothing you have stated refutes the idea that:

1) People go to AA and adopt its philosophy;

2) The AA philosophy includes a belief in a higher power;

3) People stay sober.

It makes no difference if you think the higher power could be removed from the picture because this is the path that people actually followed and it was successful. This example demonstrates that a belief in a god is not necessarily a bad thing.

I must say your unbelievable arrogance is surprising. Most people can accept that if others want to believe in a god then that is their choice. If someone changes their life by choosing to believe in a god there is nothing wrong with telling other people about it if they want to listen. Theism, like anti-theism, only becomes a problem when people seek to impose their beliefs on people who disagree.

Edited January 28, 2014 by TimG

[Mighty AC]

The internet is littered with stories and guides for non-theists attending AA.

I agree that people go to AA.
I agree that people adopt the philosophy to varying degrees.
I agree that the philosophy includes belief in a higher power.

I agree that a small percentage of people stay sober.

I've read many accounts of people who have found success in the program while ignoring the higher power. Neither of us know what percentage find submitting to an imaginary friend useful, but I have found information that suggests "benevolent distractions" are harmful long term.

Clearly people have claimed success in the program with or without religion. Thus arguing religion is beneficial as a potential placebo choice is like arguing in favour of cocaine use because it improves energy level, creativity and self confidence.

[TimG]

I have found information that suggests "benevolent distractions" are harmful long term.

That is simply an unsupported assertion that you have made.

Cearly people have claimed success in the program with or without religion. Thus arguing religion is beneficial as a potential placebo choice is like arguing in favour of cocaine use because it improves energy level, creativity and self confidence.

An nonsensical analogy because there is no identifiable harm that comes from simply believing in a higher power.

I guess that last point is the issue. As an anti-theist you have convinced yourself that simply believing in a god is harmful (not unlike theists who think that not believing in god is harmful). From my perspective there is absolutely no rational basis for that claim. If someone wants to believe in god then that is their prerogative and no one has any business judging them just like people who believe in god have no business judging people who do not choose to believe.

Edited January 28, 2014 by TimG

[Mighty AC]

I must say your unbelievable arrogance is surprising. Most people can accept that if others want to believe in a god then that is their choice. If someone changes their life by choosing to believe in a god there is nothing wrong with telling other people about it if they want to listen. Theism, like anti-theism, only becomes a problem when people seek to impose their beliefs on people who disagree.

Though I do find belief without evidence to be dangerous, and a sign of intellectual weakness, I generally don't care about what unjustified assertions others consider to be true. I don't bother with say Wiccans or those that pay for Reiki treatments because they do not significantly impact my life. The problem with religion currently, is its pervasiveness. As a result believers have political power and their ideas are being imposed on us constantly. Religion is being pushed into classrooms, used as an excuse for state sponsored discrimination and misogyny. The name of a deity is even part of our anthem and on US currency.

The only way to reduce the power, influence and consequences of these unsubstantiated beliefs is to reduce adherence to them. Open criticism of bad ideas is how we eventually denounce them.

[Mighty AC]

I guess that last point is the issue. As an anti-theist you have convinced yourself that simply believing in a god is harmful (not unlike theists who think that not believing in god is harmful). From my perspective there is absolutely no rational basis for that claim. If someone wants to believe in god then that is their prerogative and no one has any business judging them just like people who believe in god have no business judging people who do not choose to believe.

As mentioned in the previous post, if we could separate the evils imposed on society by the pervasiveness of religious belief then I would not take issue with it. Unfortunately, religious organizations are well connected politically and are using that power to impose beliefs on society.

[cybercoma]

Lead by the nose down the red herring path.

[TimG]

the evils imposed on society by the pervasiveness of religious belief then I would not take issue with it. Unfortunately, religious organizations are well connected politically and are using that power to impose beliefs on society.

I am not aware of any "evils" being imposed by theists in Canada in 2014. If anything, it is the secularists who are imposing their views on the religious. In the US you have issues in some states but that is a US problem. In any case, my live and let live philosophy goes both ways so if theists seek to impose their morality on others I object too. Edited January 28, 2014 by TimG

[GostHacked]

I gotta call BS on this, atheists didn't get special treatment over any other group.

That was not the point. When the theists push on atheists, things are ok. If it's the other way around, people get upset about it. I wonder why. That is why the term 'blow back' was used.

[Mighty AC]

I am not aware of any "evils" being imposed by theists in Canada in 2014. If anything, it is the secularists who are imposing their views on the religious. In the US you have issues in some states but that is a US problem. In any case, my live and let live philosophy goes both ways so if theists seek to impose their morality on others I object too.

We are certainly light years ahead of the Americans on that front, but we don't live in isolation, especially from the US. For instance there is a notable increase in discriminatory statements from the Canadian religious community during the Republican primaries. I also notice an increase in racist statements from peers during the annual Fox News "War On Christmas" season. Like all other issues in the US, those of the religious variety, affect us.

Additionally, Canada has only very recently made progress on equal marriage and we still have sizable religious (Christian) privilege issues to battle. While in power our current government lead by Stephen Harper, who is famous for his exclusionary "God bless Canada" sign off, voted 89% in favour of restoring "traditional marriage" and stripping equal rights for homosexuals. Thankfully, the Cons were a minority government at the time and the opposition blocked the motion. We still publicly fund religious education, primarily for just one sect. We still encounter Christian prayers being read before municipal government meetings. We still have the word "God" in our divisive national anthem and religion is the driving force behind opposition to social issues like euthanasia.

Removing some Christian privileges, to create a slightly less tilted playing field, in what is supposed to be a secular nation is not anti-theistic, it is simply advocation for equal government treatment.

[-1=e^ipi]

I am not aware of any "evils" being imposed by theists in Canada in 2014. If anything, it is the secularists who are imposing their views on the religious. In the US you have issues in some states but that is a US problem. In any case, my live and let live philosophy goes both ways so if theists seek to impose their morality on others I object too.

Ah, yes, Canada. The land where "Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law" is the preamble to our charter of rights and freedoms, the land where the head of state is the unelected leader of the Anglican Church, the land where god is mentioned in the English national anthem and the cross & faith are mentioned in the French national anthem, the land where some provinces like Ontario use public money to fund a Catholic school system that is parallel to the public school system and results in cost duplication, the land where there are many different faith-based schools, some of which segregate children based on gender and if they are having their periods or not such as in the Toronto District School Board, the land where Islamic nutcases preach hatred of homosexuals to children in Edmonton schools that receive public funding, the land where freedom of speech is secondary to not offending 'someone's delicate feelings & beliefs in fairy tales' by Human Rights Commissions that try to silence people like Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn.

Yes... clearly the secularists are winning... *sarcasm*

[TimG]

We still have the word "God" in our divisive national anthem and religion is the driving force behind opposition to social issues like euthanasia.

Well, a truly tolerant society requires that secularists live with some public expressions of god. Attempting to expunge all mention of god from the public realm is as abusive as trying insert god everywhere. A level playing field respects all beliefs - it does not attempt to banish some from the public square because they offend some.

Also, politics has nothing to do with theism/secularism. There are people who do not believe in god but still oppose abortion, euthanasia and gay marriage. I disagree with these positions but they don't count as "evils" imposed by theists.

Denominational schools are a legacy of the past that we cannot easily be rid of but I agree they should be gone.

Edited January 30, 2014 by TimG

[-1=e^ipi]

Well, a truly tolerant society requires that secularists live with some public expressions of god. Attempting to expunge all mention of god from the public realm is as abusive as trying insert god everywhere. A level playing field respects all beliefs - it does not attempt to banish some from the public square because they offend some.

I think the statement is a bit unfair. There is a difference between individuals expressing their personal opinions about god or deities or the tooth fairy or whatever and having the state do it. The state should be neutral on such matters and should nether confirm or deny the existence of god.

Do you not think that it would be silly if the charter preamble was: "Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of Unicorns and the rule of law"?

Edited January 30, 2014 by -1=e^ipi

[TimG]

Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of Unicorns and the rule of law

In this context, god is a non-specific metaphysical construct that refers to universally held human values. In your case your god could be international code of human rights and your interpretation would be reasonably consistent with the interpretation of many theists. Worrying about this wording is a case of not seeing the forest for the trees.

Now if you were complaining about a christian prayer before a city council meeting or you were asked to swear on bible in court then you could make the case that state is imposing a theist views on you.

Edited January 30, 2014 by TimG

[Mighty AC]

No, God in our anthem does not refer to universally held human values, it refers to the biblical deity. The line "God keep our land glorious and free.” was changed from the original lyric "O Canada, glorious and free." in 1968. Times change and so should the lyrics, again. It is senseless for a nation to maintain an anthem exclusionary to a sizable portion of its population. While we're at it we can restore "all thy sons command" to the original "though dost in us command."

Edited January 30, 2014 by Mighty AC

[TimG]

No, God in our anthem does not refer to universally held human values

He was referring to the charter - not the anthem. As far as the anthem goes restoring the original wording is reasonable. I would not want to see it re-written to satisfy every interest group with an axe to grind. Edited January 30, 2014 by TimG

[-1=e^ipi]

In this context, god is a non-specific metaphysical construct that refers to universally held human values. In your case your god could be international code of human rights and your interpretation would be reasonably consistent with the interpretation of many theists. Worrying about this wording is a case of not seeing the forest for the trees.

Oh come on, this is silly! The belief in god is a universally held human value?

In that case you would have no issue changing the preamble to:

"Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of universally held human values and the rule of law"?

No, God in our anthem does not refer to universally held human values, it refers to the biblical deity. The line "God keep our land glorious and free.” was changed from the original lyric "O Canada, glorious and free." in 1968. Times change and so should the lyrics, again. It is senseless for a nation to maintain an anthem exclusionary to a sizable portion of its population. While we're at it we can restore "all thy sons command" to the original "though dost in us command."

Okay, but now what do we do with the french lyrics? They are much harder to make neutral. Maybe the French and English lyrics should mean the same thing?

[cybercoma]

Oh come on, this is silly! The belief in god is a universally held human value?

In that case you would have no issue changing the preamble to:

"Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of universally held human values and the rule of law"?

Well played.

[bush_cheney2004]

...Like all other issues in the US, those of the religious variety, affect us.

So much for being "light years ahead".

[Shady]

I miss the old school atheists. The non prothletizing kind. The age atheists are as bad as the religious types push their views on everyone.

[Bonam]

I miss the old school atheists. The non prothletizing kind. The age atheists are as bad as the religious types push their views on everyone.

Yes, I can see how one might miss opponents that don't fight back. The days of religious people telling atheists how there is no good without god and the atheists meekly turning the other cheek are over.

[Shady]

Yes, I can see how one might miss opponents that don't fight back. The days of religious people telling atheists how there is no good without god and the atheists meekly turning the other cheek are over.

I don't like those people either.

[BubberMiley]

I miss the old school atheists. The non prothletizing kind. The age atheists are as bad as the religious types push their views on everyone.

I miss the old school posters. The ones that could spell and I could understand what they were trying to say.