Request for help re: atheism and palliative care
Jayne Kulikauskas but replace spambait by mmalt
I am a theist who has posted here in the past. I dropped out in
January because I was having trouble making time for this newsgroup.
I still don't have time, but now I need your help. (It is ok to help
me because Tukla marked me as a friendly. Hi Tukla <scratches
behind ears> Better sniff me and see if it has worn off.) Here is
the background:
I have to do a work placement for the degree I am doing and I have
gotten one with a home hospice agency. This is a program that
matches volunteers to clients with life-threatening illnesses who do
not want to go into hospital. It supports people who want to die at
home amid familiar surroundings. The majority of clients at my
agency have AIDS. The next most common illness is cancer.
One of my projects is to design a training program for volunteers to
help prepare them to meet the spiritual needs of clients. (They
figured that an M Div student could do this.) I want to do a segment
on respecting the beliefs (or lack thereof) of clients who are
atheists and agnostics. Most of the volunteers have a religious
background and have been exposed to the usual stereotypes about
atheism. For example, one issue I want to address is the old "no
atheists in foxholes" idea. It is important that the volunteers
realize that they should not expect atheists to change their beliefs
just because they are facing death.
I am asking for help in this project. Please give me your
suggestions about what should go into this volunteer training.
I would appreicate learning from your personal experiences as well
as any book recommendations. I suspect there may be some good
humanist materials out there on this.
My newsfeed tends to be unreliable, so I would be grateful for email
copies of any posted responses to this. (Look out for my
spam-proofing.) Thank you very much.
Jayne
ClaySkye
>
>I am a theist who has posted here in the past. I dropped out in
>January because I was having trouble making time for this newsgroup.
>I still don't have time, but now I need your help. (It is ok to help
>me because Tukla marked me as a friendly. Hi Tukla <scratches
>behind ears> Better sniff me and see if it has worn off.) Here is
>the background:
Honestly I don't know Tukla's scent from any other rat, but I'll take your word
for it.
>I have to do a work placement for the degree I am doing and I have
>gotten one with a home hospice agency. This is a program that
>matches volunteers to clients with life-threatening illnesses who do
>not want to go into hospital. It supports people who want to die at
>home amid familiar surroundings. The majority of clients at my
>agency have AIDS. The next most common illness is cancer.
Sounds like a very worthy endeaver. One I am not made for, but good for you.
>One of my projects is to design a training program for volunteers to
>help prepare them to meet the spiritual needs of clients. (They
>figured that an M Div student could do this.) I want to do a segment
>on respecting the beliefs (or lack thereof) of clients who are
>atheists and agnostics. Most of the volunteers have a religious
>background and have been exposed to the usual stereotypes about
>atheism. For example, one issue I want to address is the old "no
>atheists in foxholes" idea. It is important that the volunteers
>realize that they should not expect atheists to change their beliefs
>just because they are facing death.
I agree. Good luck on that one. I must say that when I had my son a priest
came into my room and asked if I wanted to speak to a nun or a priest. I said
I was an atheist and he asked if He could just look at the baby and made some
nice comments about him and about the delivery (I was well known at the moment
for having the largest baby born that day) He never mentioned religion just
spoke to me as a person about how wonderful motherhood was and all. My point,
even the most religious should be able to talk about these things with
atheists. If this priest could, then so could the other volunteers.
>I am asking for help in this project. Please give me your
>suggestions about what should go into this volunteer training.
>I would appreicate learning from your personal experiences as well
>as any book recommendations. I suspect there may be some good
>humanist materials out there on this.
I would simply talk to them honestly about their life and their death. I was
with a friend dying of AIDS many years back and that is what he really wanted.
He said through talking to me about things he realized all of the things he
wanted to get done and wanted to say. Help them to have some closure. That's
what I would want.
>My newsfeed tends to be unreliable, so I would be grateful for email
>copies of any posted responses to this. (Look out for my
>spam-proofing.) Thank you very much.
Done.
>Jayne
ClayeSkye
#4 (Head of EAC Department of Education/Reeducation)
I still believe that I cannot be saved-Smashing Pumpkins
Rednecks didn't do this. Rednecks aren't this creative-Michael, The Blair
Witch Project
Jayne Kulikauskas but replace spambait by mmalt
[]
> I would simply talk to them honestly about their life and their death. I was
> with a friend dying of AIDS many years back and that is what he really
> wanted.
> He said through talking to me about things he realized all of the things he
> wanted to get done and wanted to say. Help them to have some closure.
> That's what I would want.
[]
Thank you very much. This is really helpful.
Jayne
Abner Mintz
> I have to do a work placement for the degree I am doing and I have
> gotten one with a home hospice agency. This is a program that
> matches volunteers to clients with life-threatening illnesses who do
> not want to go into hospital. It supports people who want to die at
> home amid familiar surroundings. The majority of clients at my
> agency have AIDS. The next most common illness is cancer.
"May I applaud you?"
> One of my projects is to design a training program for volunteers to
> help prepare them to meet the spiritual needs of clients. (They
> figured that an M Div student could do this.) I want to do a segment
> on respecting the beliefs (or lack thereof) of clients who are
> atheists and agnostics.
"This may sound repetitive, but may I applaud you again?" :)
> Most of the volunteers have a religious
> background and have been exposed to the usual stereotypes about
> atheism. For example, one issue I want to address is the old "no
> atheists in foxholes" idea. It is important that the volunteers
> realize that they should not expect atheists to change their beliefs
> just because they are facing death.
> I am asking for help in this project. Please give me your
> suggestions about what should go into this volunteer training.
> I would appreicate learning from your personal experiences as well
> as any book recommendations. I suspect there may be some good
> humanist materials out there on this.
"It may not be exactly what you were looking for, but
I read a short article in BMJ (the British Medical
Journal) a while back where a doctor was
reminiscing about the deaths of some of his atheist
patients, marveling on how peacefully they went.
He also gave an anecdote about how one patient was
being consoled by a religious relative, and, while
the relative was telling her that she would soon
be with god, the patient gave the doctor a big
wink when the relative couldn't see ..."
"As a short reading, it might be useful - do you
want me to see if I can dig it out again for you?"
isa...@my-deja.com
your request and hope it will be helpful.
As I have been heavily socialized within both an orthodox and later in a
liberal christian manner, it took some time to get over the paradigm "If
there was no God then what is the true meaning of life". If it were not
for striving to follow God's will….then what are we here for? This is
sometimes a hard frame of mind to shake AND if you are to be successful
in administering comfort of a non-spiritual nature you will have to
learn how to do this. I find nothing more ridiculous and sometimes
insulting when a religious person tells me in a moment of hardship "It's
God's will" OR "God has a plan". Or "God is testing you".
Your quest reminds me of something I saw in the movie Gandhi. A Hindu
claimed to Gandhi that he could never be forgiven since he had killed
Muslims and orphaned Muslim children . Gandhi's response to the Hindu
was for him to adopt a Muslim child and raise him as a Muslim.
If your goal is to improve the human condition upon death without
injecting your spiritual nature, then you should try to understand (yes
even live) as an atheist.
What would that mean? I think you will find that the depth of feeling,
the expression of empathy, dreams and aspirations and all the
characteristics you attribute to theists are no different in atheists.
If you were to take God out of your life, what would give you meaning?
Maybe good friends and a family to be remembered by? Maybe the
experiences you had and would like to pass down to a loved one. Maybe
the expression of love and caring you wish to share with others. All
of these attributes are no different in the atheist.
Good luck with your endeavor.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Jayne Kulikauskas but replace spambait by mmalt
> Please do not construe the following as insulting, I am responding to
> your request and hope it will be helpful.
Thank you. I will take it in the spirit it is given.
> As I have been heavily socialized within both an orthodox and later in a
> liberal christian manner, it took some time to get over the paradigm "If
> there was no God then what is the true meaning of life". If it were not
> for striving to follow God's will….then what are we here for? This is
> sometimes a hard frame of mind to shake AND if you are to be successful
> in administering comfort of a non-spiritual nature you will have to
> learn how to do this.
I think you are right. I suspect it is true for many theists and it is
certainly true for me that my faith in God is predominantly about
creating meaning. This is so central to the way I think that it can
cause an obstacle when I try to empathize with atheists. And, of
course, empathy is essential in this situation.
> I find nothing more ridiculous and sometimes
> insulting when a religious person tells me in a moment of hardship "It's
> God's will" OR "God has a plan". Or "God is testing you".
These are kind of dumb things to say, even to theists. Regardless of
a person's beliefs, they don't need to hear this when they are
suffering.
> Your quest reminds me of something I saw in the movie Gandhi. A Hindu
> claimed to Gandhi that he could never be forgiven since he had killed
> Muslims and orphaned Muslim children . Gandhi's response to the Hindu
> was for him to adopt a Muslim child and raise him as a Muslim.
>
> If your goal is to improve the human condition upon death without
> injecting your spiritual nature, then you should try to understand (yes
> even live) as an atheist.
> What would that mean? I think you will find that the depth of feeling,
> the expression of empathy, dreams and aspirations and all the
> characteristics you attribute to theists are no different in atheists.
The time I spent on a.a in the past was largely for the purpose of
learning to understand atheists. I think that I have been able to get
past the labels and stereotypes and see the common humanity I share
with them. I did eventually learn to see atheists as individuals.
However, it took me some time and effort. I'm trying to think of how
to communicate this in the short time available to train the
volunteers.
> If you were to take God out of your life, what would give you meaning?
> Maybe good friends and a family to be remembered by? Maybe the
> experiences you had and would like to pass down to a loved one. Maybe
> the expression of love and caring you wish to share with others. All
> of these attributes are no different in the atheist.
I wonder if asking these questions would get through to the
volunteers. I would not have been able to answer them until fairly
recently. When I imagined life without God, I could not see any
meaning. It was terrifying and distressing. I became a theist, not so
much because I believed God existed, but because of my horror at the
thought of God not existing.
Even now, when I am firmly convinced that atheists can lead good and
meaningful lives, I find it extremely difficult to imagine myself
living without God.
I do agree with you on the goal. I want the volunteers to see that
they must not assume that atheists have no meaning in their lives.
I'm just doubtful that these questions will help them to see that.
> Good luck with your endeavor.
Thank you for your good wishes and your help. Your ideas have been
thought-provoking and I believe that thinking is a good thing.
Jayne
Jayne Kulikauskas but replace spambait by mmalt
> Jayne Kulikauskas but replace spambait by mmalt wrote:
[]
>> One of my projects is to design a training program for volunteers to
>> help prepare them to meet the spiritual needs of clients. (They
>> figured that an M Div student could do this.) I want to do a segment
>> on respecting the beliefs (or lack thereof) of clients who are
>> atheists and agnostics.
>
> "This may sound repetitive, but may I applaud you again?" :)
You may if I may share the applause with my friends and teachers
here. <g> They are the ones who taught me enough that I realized
there was a need for this.
[rest of post dealt with in email]
Jayne
Andres64
jay...@spambait.guild.org (Jayne Kulikauskas but replace spambait
by mmalt) wrote:
>Hi,
Hi Jayne, I remember you from your previous stint in aa. As I
recall, you were quite polite, sincere and well spoken. I'm glad
to see you back. As a matter of fact, I've been away from aa for
several months also. I just started posting again.
>I am a theist who has posted here in the past. I dropped out in
>January because I was having trouble making time for this
>newsgroup. I still don't have time, but now I need your help.
>(It is ok to help me because Tukla marked me as a friendly. Hi
>Tukla <scratches behind ears> Better sniff me and see if it has
>worn off.) Here is the background:
>I have to do a work placement for the degree I am doing and I
>have gotten one with a home hospice agency. This is a program
>that matches volunteers to clients with life-threatening
>illnesses who do not want to go into hospital. It supports
>people who want to die at home amid familiar surroundings. The
>majority of clients at my agency have AIDS. The next most common
>illness is cancer.
I have to say that I truly admire you and your compassion. I've
thought about volunteering, but somehow I never get around to it.
I suppose that I'm scared of what might happen. Anyway.
>One of my projects is to design a training program for
>volunteers to help prepare them to meet the spiritual needs of
>clients. (They figured that an M Div student could do this.)
Excuse my ignorance, but I'm assuming that M Div is Master of
Divinity? Are you going to be dealing with people of other
faiths, as well as "no faith?"
> I want to do a segment on respecting the beliefs (or lack
>thereof) of clients who are atheists and agnostics. Most of the
>volunteers have a religious background and have been exposed to
>the usual stereotypes about atheism. For example, one issue I
>want to address is the old "no atheists in foxholes" idea.
> It is important that the volunteers realize that they should
>not expect atheists to change their beliefs just because they
>are facing death.
IMO, although I have never been in that situation personally, the
"no atheists in fox holes" may not be so far off. In fact, it
doesn't seem all that unreasonable for a person dying to "grasp
at straws" (no offense intended). Personally, while I am not
afraid to die, I'm not looking forward to it either. Who knows,
maybe on my death bed I'll ask for God's help; after all it
surely couldn't hurt, could it?
>I am asking for help in this project. Please give me your
>suggestions about what should go into this volunteer training.
>I would appreicate learning from your personal experiences as
>well as any book recommendations. I suspect there may be some
>good humanist materials out there on this.
I'm not sure how I would address it specifically, but I think
that understanding an atheist/agnostic would be the same as
understanding how to act with any other religion. I assume that
not all the religious persons with which you deal are Christians,
yet I presume that you can deal with them quite well. Personally,
I think that the Golden Rule is a fine way to live. Believe it or
not, I can be quite understanding and sensitive to people of
religious faith. I don't believe what they believe, and I may
even think that they are wrong, but that doesn't give me the
right to be uncaring, and it doesn't make my beliefs better than
theirs.
I would strongly recommend against any "preaching" or
"proselytizing." The most I might recommend, would be a gently
asking if they wanted any "spiritual" help/info/talk/counseling.
If they say "no", I'd drop it right there. I don't think that
anyone, especially someone in their position, wants top be told
that they are wrong. No one wants to be told that they are going
to hell. No one wants to be told that they have made the wrong
decisions.
I guess I've always been an atheist. Although I was raised in a
Catholic family, was baptized, have had Communion, been
confirmed, been married in a Catholic church. I think for me the
"straw that broke the camel's back" was when I was about 12. My
grandfather suddenly became very ill. We drove all night to get
to him at the hospital, but I couldn't go in to see him. I stayed
at my grandma's house and prayed and prayed. So even at that age,
I "converted" when "in the fox hole."
I guess what I'm trying to say is that people are people. We all
want to be treated with respect and caring. We all want our
dignity.
>My newsfeed tends to be unreliable, so I would be grateful for
>email copies of any posted responses to this. (Look out for my
>spam-proofing.) Thank you very much.
>Jayne
Thank you.
Once the game is over, the king and the pawn go back in the same
box.
-- Italian Proverb
--
Sincerely,
Andres (#1624)
You always have a choice.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Jayne Kulikauskas but replace spambait by mmalt
> In article <00525.202710....@mmalt.guild.org>,
> jay...@spambait.guild.org (Jayne Kulikauskas but replace spambait
> by mmalt) wrote:
[]
>>I have to do a work placement for the degree I am doing and I
>>have gotten one with a home hospice agency. This is a program
>>that matches volunteers to clients with life-threatening
>>illnesses who do not want to go into hospital. It supports
>>people who want to die at home amid familiar surroundings. The
>>majority of clients at my agency have AIDS. The next most common
>>illness is cancer.
>
> I have to say that I truly admire you and your compassion. I've
> thought about volunteering, but somehow I never get around to it.
Around here (Toronto) many of the home hospice agencies are
non-religious. (And even the church-based ones respect the beliefs of
the clients.) I suspect agencies would appreciate being able to match
atheist volunteers to atheist clients. You would instinctively know
all the things I'm trying to put into my training program.
> I suppose that I'm scared of what might happen. Anyway.
I encourage you to think about it more. If it is the right thing for
you, you will be able to overcome your fear.
>>One of my projects is to design a training program for
>>volunteers to help prepare them to meet the spiritual needs of
>>clients. (They figured that an M Div student could do this.)
>
> Excuse my ignorance, but I'm assuming that M Div is Master of
> Divinity?
That's right. It was foolish of me to use the abbreviation here.
> Are you going to be dealing with people of other
> faiths, as well as "no faith?"
Oh yes. Toronto is an extremely multi-cultural area. The training
needs to include information on many religions. However, I think that
most theists are better able have empathy with other theists than with
atheists. It is hard for us to get our heads around the "no god"
thing. So I think this area needs special attention in the training.
>> I want to do a segment on respecting the beliefs (or lack
>>thereof) of clients who are atheists and agnostics. Most of the
>>volunteers have a religious background and have been exposed to
>>the usual stereotypes about atheism. For example, one issue I
>>want to address is the old "no atheists in foxholes" idea.
>> It is important that the volunteers realize that they should
>>not expect atheists to change their beliefs just because they
>>are facing death.
>
> IMO, although I have never been in that situation personally, the
> "no atheists in fox holes" may not be so far off. In fact, it
> doesn't seem all that unreasonable for a person dying to "grasp
> at straws" (no offense intended). Personally, while I am not
> afraid to die, I'm not looking forward to it either. Who knows,
> maybe on my death bed I'll ask for God's help; after all it
> surely couldn't hurt, could it?
That may be the response of some, but I don't want the volunteers
assuming that this is a typical atheist response. I see such an
assumption implying a deep lack of respect for atheists. I find that
an unacceptable attitude.
>>I am asking for help in this project. Please give me your
>>suggestions about what should go into this volunteer training.
>>I would appreicate learning from your personal experiences as
>>well as any book recommendations. I suspect there may be some
>>good humanist materials out there on this.
>
> I'm not sure how I would address it specifically, but I think
> that understanding an atheist/agnostic would be the same as
> understanding how to act with any other religion. I assume that
> not all the religious persons with which you deal are Christians,
> yet I presume that you can deal with them quite well.
Volunteers are trained in that too. It is not something that people
automatically know.
> Personally,
> I think that the Golden Rule is a fine way to live. Believe it or
> not, I can be quite understanding and sensitive to people of
> religious faith. I don't believe what they believe, and I may
> even think that they are wrong, but that doesn't give me the
> right to be uncaring, and it doesn't make my beliefs better than
> theirs.
Of course, I believe you are a sensitive and understanding person. You
sound like you would do well at this kind of work and I hope you give
it serious thought.
> I would strongly recommend against any "preaching" or
> "proselytizing." The most I might recommend, would be a gently
> asking if they wanted any "spiritual" help/info/talk/counseling.
> If they say "no", I'd drop it right there. I don't think that
> anyone, especially someone in their position, wants top be told
> that they are wrong. No one wants to be told that they are going
> to hell. No one wants to be told that they have made the wrong
> decisions.
Absolutely.
> I guess I've always been an atheist. Although I was raised in a
> Catholic family, was baptized, have had Communion, been
> confirmed, been married in a Catholic church. I think for me the
> "straw that broke the camel's back" was when I was about 12. My
> grandfather suddenly became very ill. We drove all night to get
> to him at the hospital, but I couldn't go in to see him. I stayed
> at my grandma's house and prayed and prayed. So even at that age,
> I "converted" when "in the fox hole."
It sounds like it must have been painful for you.
> I guess what I'm trying to say is that people are people. We all
> want to be treated with respect and caring. We all want our
> dignity.
If I can just get that across in the training, I will consider it a
success.
Jayne
Greg Gyetko
> Hi,
>
> One of my projects is to design a training program for volunteers to
> help prepare them to meet the spiritual needs of clients. (They
> figured that an M Div student could do this.) I want to do a segment
> on respecting the beliefs (or lack thereof) of clients who are
> atheists and agnostics. Most of the volunteers have a religious
> background and have been exposed to the usual stereotypes about
> atheism. For example, one issue I want to address is the old "no
> atheists in foxholes" idea. It is important that the volunteers
> realize that they should not expect atheists to change their beliefs
> just because they are facing death.
That's a real toughie. I imagine you're going to get some really
interesting responses, and it's going to increase the SNR ratio on this
newsgroup quite a bit. :-)
What you're looking at, for the most part, is a person who wants one of
two things: to be left alone to comtemplate his life; or to have
someone with him to remember the better parts of his life.
I can't speak absolutely for all atheists (obviously), but a part of
atheism is accepting that death is the end. The vast majority of
atheists, by the time they grow old, or by the time they've suffered
under debilitating diseases, have come to terms with the event of
death. Making life more comfortable, at this point, is merely a matter
of keeping pain to a minimum and having people around to remember the
accomplishments of one's life.
Stress to the people that will deliver this care to atheists that this
is the most probably desire of an atheist. We are not open slates
waiting for a religion to be written upon us. We do not desire to "turn
back to god". We want a peaceful end to our existences as we remember
the lives that we have lived.
Greg.
--
alt.atheism atheist #911, BAAWA Knight
"I'd worship Satan, but I'm going to hell anyway,
so why bother?."
EAC Homepage: http://eac.home.dhs.org
Greg Gyetko
Jayne Kulikauskas but replace spambait by mmalt
> Jayne Kulikauskas but replace spambait by mmalt wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> One of my projects is to design a training program for volunteers to
>> help prepare them to meet the spiritual needs of clients. (They
>> figured that an M Div student could do this.) I want to do a segment
>> on respecting the beliefs (or lack thereof) of clients who are
>> atheists and agnostics. Most of the volunteers have a religious
>> background and have been exposed to the usual stereotypes about
>> atheism. For example, one issue I want to address is the old "no
>> atheists in foxholes" idea. It is important that the volunteers
>> realize that they should not expect atheists to change their beliefs
>> just because they are facing death.
>
> That's a real toughie. I imagine you're going to get some really
> interesting responses, and it's going to increase the SNR ratio on this
> newsgroup quite a bit. :-)
Responses have been great but they are a "drop in the ocean" here.
I find the volume of posts on a.a rather overwhelming.
> What you're looking at, for the most part, is a person who wants one of
> two things: to be left alone to comtemplate his life; or to have
> someone with him to remember the better parts of his life.
>
> I can't speak absolutely for all atheists (obviously), but a part of
> atheism is accepting that death is the end. The vast majority of
> atheists, by the time they grow old, or by the time they've suffered
> under debilitating diseases, have come to terms with the event of
> death. Making life more comfortable, at this point, is merely a matter
> of keeping pain to a minimum and having people around to remember the
> accomplishments of one's life.
>
> Stress to the people that will deliver this care to atheists that this
> is the most probably desire of an atheist. We are not open slates
> waiting for a religion to be written upon us. We do not desire to "turn
> back to god". We want a peaceful end to our existences as we remember
> the lives that we have lived.
You have explained this really well. Do you have any suggestions on
how to present these ideas during training? Simply stating ideas is
not as effective for learning as giving an exercise where people have
to figure it out for themselves.
Jayne
Jayne Kulikauskas but replace spambait by mmalt
I wrote:
> Responses have been great but they are a "drop in the ocean" here.
> I find the volume of posts on a.a rather overwhelming.
I've been hoping Andrew Lias would contribute to this thread, since I
suspect his experience in providing support for people with suicidal
tendencies will be relevant. I'm guessing that due to the
aforementioned high volume he hasn't even noticed this thread. So I'll
try invoking him by name. (Or perhaps I should call upon the IPU. Nah,
I better not mess with Her Invisible Pinkness; I don't think She likes
Christians.)
Hey! Andrew! <wave arms> Over here!
Jayne
TheCentralSc...@pobox.com
>One of my projects is to design a training program for volunteers to
>help prepare them to meet the spiritual needs of clients. (They
You misspelled delusional.
Jayne Kulikauskas but replace spambait by mmalt
While you do not appear to be among them, a great many people use this
word in a sense that does not necessarily include religion. It refers
to the human spirit -- to our emotional, aesthetic and social apsects.
Perhaps you appreciate beauty in art or music. Perhaps you value
friendship or family. Perhaps you feel that the needs of humanity have
some claim on you. These would be considered spiritual in this sense.
Do you think that it is common for atheists to have such a negative
reaction to the word "spiritual"? If so, it would be important to let
volunteers know that they should avoid it when speaking to atheists.
Jayne
cz...@ecn.ab.ca
: Do you think that it is common for atheists to have such a negative
: reaction to the word "spiritual"?
Depends on the use of the term. I like what you said above:
: It refers to the human spirit -- to our emotional, aesthetic and
: social apsects.
That, I can dig. But I admit to getting turned off when the usage
refers to all aspects religious (mainstream or personal) and/or
having to do with invisible boojums like souls and, well, spirits. It
is this latter usage that one finds most prevalent (sp?) in society.
: If so, it would be important to let volunteers know that they should
: avoid it when speaking to atheists.
Yes, by all means have warn volunteers against this "religious" usage!
--
*************************************************************
Men think epilepsy divine, merely because they do not
understand it. But if they called everything divine
which they do not understand, why, there would be no
end of divine things.
Hippocrates of Cos
*************************************************************
Jayne Kulikauskas but replace spambait by mmalt
> Jayne Kulikauskas wrote:
>
> : Do you think that it is common for atheists to have such a negative
> : reaction to the word "spiritual"?
>
> Depends on the use of the term. I like what you said above:
>
> : It refers to the human spirit -- to our emotional, aesthetic and
> : social apsects.
>
> That, I can dig. But I admit to getting turned off when the usage
> refers to all aspects religious (mainstream or personal) and/or
> having to do with invisible boojums like souls and, well, spirits. It
> is this latter usage that one finds most prevalent (sp?) in society.
Now that I think about it, that probably is the prevalent usage.
> : If so, it would be important to let volunteers know that they should
> : avoid it when speaking to atheists.
>
> Yes, by all means have warn volunteers against this "religious" usage!
Thanks. This gives me an idea. It might worth while to compile a list
of "hot button" words that would tend to have negative connotations
for atheists. It's obvious that one wouldn't talk about gods, but
there may be more subtle things to watch out for. Any suggestions?
Jayne
Michelle Malkin
(Jayne Kulikauskas but replace spambait by mmalt) wrote:
>TheCentralSc...@pobox.com writes:
>
>> On Thu, 25 May 2000 20:27:10 EST, Jayne Kulikauskas but replace spambait by
>> mmalt <jay...@spambait.guild.org> wrote:
>>>One of my projects is to design a training program for volunteers to
>>>help prepare them to meet the spiritual needs of clients. (They
>> *********
>> You misspelled delusional.
>
>While you do not appear to be among them, a great many people use this
>word in a sense that does not necessarily include religion. It refers
>to the human spirit -- to our emotional, aesthetic and social apsects.
>Perhaps you appreciate beauty in art or music. Perhaps you value
>friendship or family. Perhaps you feel that the needs of humanity have
>some claim on you. These would be considered spiritual in this sense.
>
>Do you think that it is common for atheists to have such a negative
>reaction to the word "spiritual"? If so, it would be important to let
>volunteers know that they should avoid it when speaking to atheists.
>
>Jayne
Actually, that's a good idea. I imagine that any atheist in
the position you are describing will be expecting people
to try to convert them for their "spiritual" well-being. For
someone NOT to do this would be a huge relief to them.
Michelle Malkin (Mickey)
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
aa atheist/agnostic list #1 ULC #3 ~EAC list #1
High Priestess Bastet of the Non-Church Temple of Si & Am
EAC Bible Thumper Thumper BAAWA Knight Who Says SPONG!
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
Liberty is the only thing you cannot have unless you are willing to
give it to others. - William Allen White, Emporia Gazette
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
Dr Sinister
<00527.182302....@mmalt.guild.org>:
>Thanks. This gives me an idea. It might worth while to
>compile a list of "hot button" words that would tend to have
>negative connotations for atheists. It's obvious that one
>wouldn't talk about gods, but there may be more subtle things
>to watch out for. Any suggestions?
Certainly. Do not mention:
1. Lady Di can heal the sick
2. Marlon Brando can shrink himself to the size of a walnut
and fly through space at will.
3. Superman and planet Krypton actually exist.
All three of these notions apparently imply theism.
Therefore, avoid them when speaking to some atheist idiot
whose easily offended by god-talk.
Also: don't mention IPU to an atheist, because that's
precisely the same thing as god:
[Blowero]"Find string: "God". Replace all: "Invisible Pink
Unicorn""
--
"although many say that they doubt whether God exists, they
are in possession of nothing but the name, or feign something
they call God." -Spinoza
Tukla Ratte
replace spambait by mmalt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am a theist who has posted here in the past. I dropped out in
> January because I was having trouble making time for this newsgroup.
> I still don't have time, but now I need your help. (It is ok to help
> me because Tukla marked me as a friendly. Hi Tukla <scratches
> behind ears>
<purr purr purr>
>Better sniff me and see if it has worn off.)
Later. Keep scritching. Ooo. <purr purr>
Hi, Jayne!
< snip >
--
Tukla, Eater of Theists, Squeaker of Chew Toys
Director, EAC Animoid Shocktroop Division
Defender of the Honor of She Who Leads the EAC
atheist #1347, Official Mascot of Alt.Atheism
BAAWA Knight, Bat-Winged Calico Angora Punk Rat
Tukla's Net: http://www.tukla.net/
Sniper
>
> jay...@spambait.guild.org (Jayne Kulikauskas but replace
> spambait by mmalt) wrote in
> <00527.182302....@mmalt.guild.org>:
>
> >Thanks. This gives me an idea. It might worth while to
> >compile a list of "hot button" words that would tend to have
> >negative connotations for atheists. It's obvious that one
> >wouldn't talk about gods, but there may be more subtle things
> >to watch out for. Any suggestions?
>
> Certainly. Do not mention:
>
> 1. Lady Di can heal the sick
Some Christian's believe Jesus healed the sick.
> 2. Marlon Brando can shrink himself to the size of a walnut
> and fly through space at will.
Some Christians believe Jesus walked on water, turned water
into wine, sent demons out of humans & into pigs, stopped
a storm by sheer will, & raised the dead. Go figure.
> 3. Superman and planet Krypton actually exist.
Some Christian's believe Jesus was born from a virgin, was
the son of God, died & actually came back to life. For an
encore, if you believe in his resurection his Father, God,
will agree to let you go to heaven instead of hell.
> All three of these notions apparently imply theism.
> Therefore, avoid them when speaking to some atheist idiot
> whose easily offended by god-talk.
All three notions apparently imply Christianity, which
last time I checked _is_ a form of theism.
It's interesting that you think theism is ridiculous in
the scenario's you've painted, yet fully acceptable within
the context of Christianity. Or at least you don't find it
incompatible with it. I wonder why this is?
Don't give me any of this crap about those things being
metaphorical. I know a number of Christians, most even,
who believe them literally. Are they not theists, Doc?
[snip]
Dr Sinister
<39303797...@gotcha.com>:
>Dr Sinister wrote:
>>
>> jay...@spambait.guild.org (Jayne Kulikauskas but replace
>> spambait by mmalt) wrote in
>> <00527.182302....@mmalt.guild.org>:
>>
>> >Thanks. This gives me an idea. It might worth while to
>> >compile a list of "hot button" words that would tend to
>> >have negative connotations for atheists. It's obvious
>> >that one wouldn't talk about gods, but there may be more
>> >subtle things to watch out for. Any suggestions?
>>
>> Certainly. Do not mention:
>>
>> 1. Lady Di can heal the sick
>
>Some Christian's believe Jesus healed the sick.
Some people believe that doctors can heal the sick, which is
an even more incredible claim.
What stops an atheist from believing Jesus healed the sick?
Nothing. What stops an atheist from believing Madame Blavatsky
healed the sick? Nothing. What stops an atheist from believing
Aleister Crowley made people sick? Nothing.
The christan's belief that "Jesus healed the sick" has no
relevance to the issue of what is and what is not a theist.
What makes the christian a theist is his belief in the
existence of god. Not his beliefs about what make of Hawaiian
shirts god wore or what god eats for breakfast.
Are you getting the picture yet?
>> 2. Marlon Brando can shrink himself to the size of a walnut
>> and fly through space at will.
>
>Some Christians believe Jesus walked on water, turned water
>into wine, sent demons out of humans & into pigs, stopped
>a storm by sheer will, & raised the dead. Go figure.
But what makes them theists is that they believe in the
existence of god.
Get it?
>> 3. Superman and planet Krypton actually exist.
>
>Some Christian's believe Jesus was born from a virgin, was
>the son of God, died & actually came back to life. For an
>encore, if you believe in his resurection his Father, God,
>will agree to let you go to heaven instead of hell.
Let me see. Suppose I believe Sniper was born of a virgin. Is
that sufficient to establish that I am a theist?
(snip)
>Don't give me any of this crap about those things being
>metaphorical. I know a number of Christians, most even,
>who believe them literally. Are they not theists, Doc?
Of course there are christians who take all this literally.
And there are some who claim to be christians who only believe
it metaphorically. But in both cases, what makes them THEISTS
is the belief in the existence of gods, numbnuts.
Do you see what's going on here or is this going to take a few
more posts filled with torturous explanations?
Sniper
>
> Sni...@gotcha.com (Sniper) wrote in
> <39303797...@gotcha.com>:
>
> >Dr Sinister wrote:
> >>
> >> jay...@spambait.guild.org (Jayne Kulikauskas but replace
> >> spambait by mmalt) wrote in
> >> <00527.182302....@mmalt.guild.org>:
> >>
> >> >Thanks. This gives me an idea. It might worth while to
> >> >compile a list of "hot button" words that would tend to
> >> >have negative connotations for atheists. It's obvious
> >> >that one wouldn't talk about gods, but there may be more
> >> >subtle things to watch out for. Any suggestions?
> >>
> >> Certainly. Do not mention:
> >>
> >> 1. Lady Di can heal the sick
> >
> >Some Christian's believe Jesus healed the sick.
>
> Some people believe that doctors can heal the sick, which is
> an even more incredible claim.
It's really hard to believe that you're being this incredibly
dense. One of the reasons Christian's believe Jesus was God
was _because_ he healed the sick.
> What stops an atheist from believing Jesus healed the sick?
> Nothing. What stops an atheist from believing Madame Blavatsky
> healed the sick? Nothing. What stops an atheist from believing
> Aleister Crowley made people sick? Nothing.
See above. I've been told by a number of Christian's that the
reason they know _their_ God is the "real" God, is because
Jesus did things that others didn't. Like _heal the sick_,
cast out devils, raise the dead, etc.
> The christan's belief that "Jesus healed the sick" has no
> relevance to the issue of what is and what is not a theist.
Bull fucking shit. Many of them believe in God _because_ they
believe he healed the sick. It's still not starting to connect
it that biased little mind of yours, is it?
> What makes the christian a theist is his belief in the
> existence of god. Not his beliefs about what make of Hawaiian
> shirts god wore or what god eats for breakfast.
Yes, it's the belief in a god, we both agree on this. What you
can't seem to grasp is the reason that many of the followers
of Jesus believed in _him_ as God, was _because_ he did these
things. Many of his followers today claim the same reason. If
you're going to stand here & deny that this is the case then
I have nothing more to discuss with you, because then you'd
just be disengenous, & not worthy of any more of my time. Is
_this_ what you're trying to claim, that _nobody_ believes
in God because of miracles? Miracles are given as the reason
many people give for believing in God. You imply that nobody
finds miracles to be a reason for believing in God, IOW, for
being theists. To use your own words: "Get real".
> Are you getting the picture yet?
I got it all along. I'm afraid it's you, Doc, in your blind
hatred, that can't admit you're wrong on this.
> >> 2. Marlon Brando can shrink himself to the size of a walnut
> >> and fly through space at will.
> >
> >Some Christians believe Jesus walked on water, turned water
> >into wine, sent demons out of humans & into pigs, stopped
> >a storm by sheer will, & raised the dead. Go figure.
>
> But what makes them theists is that they believe in the
> existence of god.
Have you been drinking tonight? Yes, what makes them theists
is that they believe in god. What makes many people, (not all
Doc, but many) believe in god, are the things that Jesus did
in the bible. If you're going to say that some people come to
a belief in God without these things, I'll agree. You're an
educated enough man to know that some people believe in god
because of these things.
> Get it?
The better question is do _you_?
> >> 3. Superman and planet Krypton actually exist.
> >
> >Some Christian's believe Jesus was born from a virgin, was
> >the son of God, died & actually came back to life. For an
> >encore, if you believe in his resurection his Father, God,
> >will agree to let you go to heaven instead of hell.
>
> Let me see. Suppose I believe Sniper was born of a virgin. Is
> that sufficient to establish that I am a theist?
See above. It's hard to believe that an obviously intelligent
man like you can be so idiotic lately.
> (snip)
>
> >Don't give me any of this crap about those things being
> >metaphorical. I know a number of Christians, most even,
> >who believe them literally. Are they not theists, Doc?
>
> Of course there are christians who take all this literally.
Bingo! And they are theists. They are theists because they
believe in a god. They believe in a god because they believe
that Jesus did these things. Is this starting to sink in yet?
> And there are some who claim to be christians who only believe
> it metaphorically. But in both cases, what makes them THEISTS
> is the belief in the existence of gods, numbnuts.
That I had to explain all this to you saddens me.
> Do you see what's going on here or is this going to take a few
> more posts filled with torturous explanations?
Yes, I see what's going on. You're too fucking proud to admit
that you were shown to be wrong on this. I was hoping for a
bit more from you. Hate does that to a person, though, makes
them blinded to the truth. You should really spend some time
contemplating this, doc. You fucked up on this one.
Dr Sinister
<393094E4...@gotcha.com>:
>Dr Sinister wrote:
>>
>> Sni...@gotcha.com (Sniper) wrote in
>> <39303797...@gotcha.com>:
>>
>> >Dr Sinister wrote:
>> >>
>> >> jay...@spambait.guild.org (Jayne Kulikauskas but replace
>> >> spambait by mmalt) wrote in
>> >> <00527.182302....@mmalt.guild.org>:
>> >>
>> >> >Thanks. This gives me an idea. It might worth while to
>> >> >compile a list of "hot button" words that would tend to
>> >> >have negative connotations for atheists. It's obvious
>> >> >that one wouldn't talk about gods, but there may be
>> >> >more subtle things to watch out for. Any suggestions?
>> >>
>> >> Certainly. Do not mention:
>> >>
>> >> 1. Lady Di can heal the sick
>> >
>> >Some Christian's believe Jesus healed the sick.
>>
>> Some people believe that doctors can heal the sick, which
>> is an even more incredible claim.
>
>It's really hard to believe that you're being this incredibly
>dense. One of the reasons Christian's believe Jesus was God
>was _because_ he healed the sick.
Ok. I see this is going to take more time on my part. The
question this whole "debate" revolves around is what is and
what is not a theist. I asked the following:
1. I believe Superman and planet Krypton actually exist. Does
this make me a theist?
2. I believe that, when Lady Di was alive, she had the power
to heal the sick. Does this make me a theist?
3. I believe that Marlon Brando can make himself invisible on
demand, that he can also reduce himself to the size of a
walnut and travel through space by application of sheer will.
Does this make me a theist?
And you answered yes to these questions. As you later pointed
out, these were idiotic hypotheticals. Of course they are. In
fact, they are totally arbitrary because that is how I thought
them up: arbitrarily. You know this.
Now because they are completely arbitrary, I can further
multiply such idiotic claims. Like this:
4. I believe that Star Trek is real, and the Enterprise
actually exists. Does this make me a theist?
5. I believe that my mind is being controlled by a plutonium
nucleus deep in my brain. Am I a theist?
6. I believe that I can make clouds evaporate by simply
concentrating on them. Am I a theist?
7. I believe in astrology. Am I a theist?
8. I believe that the number '9' will give me great finanical
advantages in the future. Am I a theist?
Now, for you to have any semblance of consistency with your
prior statements, you will have to answer yes to these
questions, and if you don't you will have to explain why these
arbitrary idiocies are different from the earlier arbitrary
idiocies.
And since I can go on like this forever, your notion of theism
contains within it the following:
Someone who believes in arbitrary idiocies, is a theist.
Now. You may like to think that this is the case, because you
really do consider that theists believe in arbitrary idiocies.
However, this is not how theism is defined, nor are any of
these things 'theism'.
Theism is the belief in the existence of one or more gods.
Actually, it should be _god_, singular, a usage which dates
back to David Hume. However, in alt.atheism, this provision is
ignored, and I can live with that. Nevertheless, the
definition does not read:
'Someone who believes in stupid shit, is a theist.'
That is not theism. If you think gods are as stupid as the
arbitrary idiocies above, that is fine. You are then saying
this:
'Someone who believes in gods is a theist'
'I think gods are stupid, arbitrary shit, for the most part.'
See? That's perfectly fine. We have our definition of theism,
and you have your opinion. Nowhere in the definition of theism
is there any notion that "gods" are stupid or not stupid. It's
just a definition.
But you may not say:
"Someone who believes idiotic nonsense, is a theist"
That simply won't do, Sniper.
(snip)
>Bull fucking shit. Many of them believe in God _because_ they
>believe he healed the sick. It's still not starting to
>connect it that biased little mind of yours, is it?
Someone can choose to believe that Jesus is god for no reason
at all. They would still be a theist.
>> What makes the christian a theist is his belief in the
>> existence of god. Not his beliefs about what make of
>> Hawaiian shirts god wore or what god eats for breakfast.
>
>Yes, it's the belief in a god, we both agree on this. What
>you can't seem to grasp is the reason that many of the
>followers of Jesus believed in _him_ as God, was _because_ he
>did these things.
What you don't seem to grasp is that no one needs any reason
at all to believe Jesus was god.
>Many of his followers today claim the same
>reason. If you're going to stand here & deny that this is the
>case then I have nothing more to discuss with you, because
>then you'd just be disengenous, & not worthy of any more of
>my time.
I'm not denying that christians have reasons for believing
Jesus is god. What I am denying is that this has relevance to
them being theists.
>Is _this_ what you're trying to claim, that _nobody_
>believes in God because of miracles?
No, where did that bit of nonsense come from? Why can't you
understand that theism isn't a line of reasoning? It's a
belief. That's how it is defined.
(snip)
>> Are you getting the picture yet?
>
>I got it all along.
No you haven't.
(snip)
>> But what makes them theists is that they believe in the
>> existence of god.
>
>Have you been drinking tonight?
No, and that's probably why I haven't been very effective in
getting you to see something plainly obvious.
>Yes, what makes them theists
>is that they believe in god.
I'm glad we agree.
>What makes many people, (not all
>Doc, but many) believe in god, are the things that Jesus did
>in the bible.
So? As I said before, sniper, a person can believe Jesus is
god for no particular reason whatsoever. What is the
difference between:
1. Someone who believes Jesus is god for a bunch of reasons
2. Someone who believes Jesus is god for no reason.
Pertaining to the issue of 'who is a theist' there is
absolutely no difference between these two. They are both
theists.
In fact, in my list of arbitrary idiocies #1 to #3, I stated
no reason nor whit of rationale as to why I would believe said
arbitrary idiocy. Yet you affirmed that if I did believe them,
I would be a theist.
So your ranting about reasons and rationalizations within
christianity seems to be rather pointless.
>If you're going to say that some people come to
>a belief in God without these things, I'll agree.
I'm glad we agree then. So what was the purpose of your
ranting about christianity? The issue is and was theism.
>You're an
>educated enough man to know that some people believe in god
>because of these things.
Sure. So what?
(snip)
>> Let me see. Suppose I believe Sniper was born of a virgin.
>> Is that sufficient to establish that I am a theist?
>
>See above. It's hard to believe that an obviously intelligent
>man like you can be so idiotic lately.
Why don't you answer the question? Let me answer it for you
then:
Possible responses from Sniper:
1. yes it makes you a theist.
Sinister's reply: you are an idiot.
2. No it doesn't make you a theist
Sinister's reply: you are contradicting yourself.
Conclusion: your digression about virgin birth and various
specific beliefs Christians have about their god has nothing
to do with the issue of their theism. Only one belief does:
that god exists.
>> (snip)
>>
>> >Don't give me any of this crap about those things being
>> >metaphorical. I know a number of Christians, most even,
>> >who believe them literally. Are they not theists, Doc?
>>
>> Of course there are christians who take all this literally.
>
>Bingo! And they are theists.
Where did you get the idea that I thought otherwise?
>They are theists because they
>believe in a god.
Correct. We agree. Let's call this statement of yours S1.
>They believe in a god because they believe
>that Jesus did these things.
Yes, sure, the ones who have reasons believe in the existence
of a god for whatever these reasons are. Let us call your
statement S2.
Tell me, sniper, what relevance is statement S2 to this issue,
if by statement S1 you have already established that they are
theists?
That's right, son, nothing.
(snip ranting)
Dr Sinister
(snip)
>It's really hard to believe that you're being this incredibly
>dense.
(snip)
>It's still not starting to connect it that biased little mind
>of yours, is it?
(snip)
>I got it all along. I'm afraid it's you, Doc, in your blind
>hatred, that can't admit you're wrong on this.
(snip)
>It's hard to believe that an obviously intelligent
>man like you can be so idiotic lately.
(snip)
>That I had to explain all this to you saddens me.
>Yes, I see what's going on. You're too fucking proud to admit
>that you were shown to be wrong on this. I was hoping for a
>bit more from you. Hate does that to a person, though, makes
>them blinded to the truth. You should really spend some time
>contemplating this, doc. You fucked up on this one.
Just to dispel this notion of yours that I somehow do not
understand your line of reasoning, let me present it to you in
my own words.
Let's agree on a few things first.
1. Theism is the belief in the existence of god(s).
2. To be brief, I shall refer to the belief mentioned in (1)
as the god-belief.
3. A theist is someone who has a god-belief.
4. The three beliefs I asked you to comment on were totally
arbitrary, idiotic nonsense. We agree on that.
5. I asked you if holding any of these beliefs would make me a
theist.
To give you the widest benefit of the doubt, I will consider
two answers from you:
(a) yes, these arbitrary idiotic beliefs would make me a
theist if I believed them.
(b) if I held these arbitrary idiotic beliefs, which may or
may not necessarily be god-beliefs in themselves, knowing
that I held them would allow you to make the inference that I
had a god-belief somewhere in my head.
Now. I have already dispensed with (a). These idiotic beliefs
are not god-beliefs.
As for (b), it is no less absurd than (a). Here is how I
understand your reasoning for (b):
While it is true that some people can be theists for no reason
whatsoever, there are people who have reasons for believing
what they believe. You provide an example: a subset of
christians who have reasons for believing Jesus is god. You
cite that this kind of christian has reasons based on his
beliefs that:
miracles involving Jesus actually happened
the virgin birth
healing the sick
ressurection
etc
Your argument now goes as follows:
1. These particular christians believe in god because they
first believe in these supporting beliefs, upon which they
then proceed to form a conclusion and a god-belief.
2. Therefore, there are people for whom secondary beliefs lead
to the formation of a god-belief.
3. Based on (2) you conclude: given the appropriate secondary
beliefs, you can infer the presense of the god-belief.
This is clearly a fallacy. Here are (some of) the reasons:
1. The only people you know whose god-beliefs originated from
the secondary beliefs are the ones you are talking about: that
particular subset of christians. When you take an arbitrary
christian, he may indeed believe in the secondary beliefs, and
he may indeed even have a god-belief, but it by no means
follows that his god-belief was decided upon from his
secondary beliefs. You simply cannot make that deduction
because he may have other reasons to believe in god, reasons
which do not have anything to do with the miracles etc., that
he also believes literally happened.
2. I gave you a set of idiotic arbitrary beliefs. You are
comparing these to christian beliefs which you probably
consider to be idiotic as well. However, while the beliefs I
listed for you were arbitrary, the christian beliefs you
listed for me are not. They are beliefs which you know are
associated with a particular religion. So your analogy is
severely flawed. Even if there really was a religion which
required the secondary belief "Marlon Brando can shrink
himself to the size of a walnut" along with the god-belief
"god exists", you would still not avoid the fallacy in (1)
above.
3. You can argue that by believing in the secondary beliefs of
christianity, a christian would have a tendancy to believe
Jesus is god. But that doesn't make much sense, since
Christians tend to believe Jesus is god anyway. Whether or not
the secondary beliefs actually cause the god-belief is
something you haven't established, you have assumed it for the
sake of argument in your subset of christians. Now. You
already know that the secondary beliefs of Christianity go
hand-in-hand with the god-belief for this subset. But if you
did NOT know that christians have a god-belief, what would you
conclude? Some examples:
Examine the combination of these two:
"I believe that trees can speak Hungarian from time to time."
"I believe in the existence of Vishnu."
Now, it's quite explicit that I have a god-belief, which is
expressed in the latter statement. Tell me, Sniper, what on
earth does the idiotic former belief have to do with the god
belief? That's right, nothing. Nothing at all. So if you were
only given the former statement, and you inferred that I have
a god belief from that piece of information, you would have
been right, but you would certainly not have been right in
your reasoning, which is fallacious. You might as well have
tossed a coin and then decided. Because I may as well have
revealed
"I believe there are no gods"
rather than my belief in the existence of Vishnu. Another
example:
"I believe that Piltdown man actually existed."
This is certainly an idiotic belief. And since we know
Piltdown man was fiction, believing that he actually existed
is no different from believing planet Krypton existed before
it blew up. So, what sort of god-belief can originate in my
mind from this? All you can say is this:
"A god".
Which is clearly nonsense. You might as well say that anyone
who believes anything stupid has a god-belief in his head.
And now we are back to square one. It's a bit different in
case (b).
In case (a) you would be saying:
An arbitrary idiotic belief is a god-belief
While I often hear statements like "god is a leprechaun" in
alt.atheism, in case (a) you would be saying something more
like "leprechauns are gods".
But in case (b) you would be saying:
An arbitrary idiotic belief implies a god-belief.
Some atheists like to say "Oh, you believe in god, well then,
you must believe in leprechauns too." But you would bee saying
"Oh, you believe in leprechauns, well then, you must believe
in god too."
Totally fallacious and totally wrong.
Sniper
[snip]
> Let's agree on a few things first.
>
> 1. Theism is the belief in the existence of god(s).
Agree.
> 2. To be brief, I shall refer to the belief mentioned in (1)
> as the god-belief.
>
> 3. A theist is someone who has a god-belief.
Yes.
> 4. The three beliefs I asked you to comment on were totally
> arbitrary, idiotic nonsense. We agree on that.
Yup.
> 5. I asked you if holding any of these beliefs would make me a
> theist.
>
> To give you the widest benefit of the doubt, I will consider
> two answers from you:
>
> (a) yes, these arbitrary idiotic beliefs would make me a
> theist if I believed them.
>
> (b) if I held these arbitrary idiotic beliefs, which may or
> may not necessarily be god-beliefs in themselves, knowing
> that I held them would allow you to make the inference that I
> had a god-belief somewhere in my head.
Now try this: If you held the belief that these god like powers
represented, by extention, the fact that there must be a god,
then yes, it would make you a theist. IOW, just as there were
those who looked at the perceived powers of Jesus, & thereby
came to believe that this proved (to them) that there's a God.
This is all I was trying to convey.
I don't believe that someone is a theist merely because they
believe in the "supernatural". If you'll recall my earlier
reply on this, I said that I define "god" as a supernatural
(I know we don't agree on the terms validity, but stay w/ me)
creator or ruler of the cosmos, or part of it. Without the
creator and/or ruler part, I don't define it as a god, &
therefore wouldn't define one who believed in it as a theist.
If I wasn't clear enough on this before, my bad. OK?
[snip]
Liz
Kulikauskas but replace spambait by mmalt) in alt.atheism wrote:
>cz...@ecn.ab.ca () writes:
>
>> Jayne Kulikauskas wrote:
>>
>> : Do you think that it is common for atheists to have such a negative
>> : reaction to the word "spiritual"?
Yes.
>>
>> Depends on the use of the term. I like what you said above:
>>
>> : It refers to the human spirit -- to our emotional, aesthetic and
>> : social apsects.
>>
>> That, I can dig. But I admit to getting turned off when the usage
>> refers to all aspects religious (mainstream or personal) and/or
>> having to do with invisible boojums like souls and, well, spirits. It
>> is this latter usage that one finds most prevalent (sp?) in society.
>
>Now that I think about it, that probably is the prevalent usage.
>
>> : If so, it would be important to let volunteers know that they should
>> : avoid it when speaking to atheists.
>>
>> Yes, by all means have warn volunteers against this "religious" usage!
>
>Thanks. This gives me an idea. It might worth while to compile a list
>of "hot button" words that would tend to have negative connotations
>for atheists. It's obvious that one wouldn't talk about gods, but
>there may be more subtle things to watch out for. Any suggestions?
You might want to discourage the use of words with euphemistically
refer to an afterlife such as:
other side
hereafter
gone to one's reward
eternity
heaven
sweet by-and-by
great beyond
happy hunting grounds
up there
I know that I am perfectly comfortable using the words die and death
and would appreciate anyone talking to me to use those words.
Überwench #658
Dame Liz the Undaunted BAAWA
Andrew Lias
Jayne Kulikauskas but replace spambait by mmalt <jay...@spambait.guild.org> wrote:
>[following up my own post]
>I wrote:
>
>> Responses have been great but they are a "drop in the ocean" here.
>> I find the volume of posts on a.a rather overwhelming.
>
>I've been hoping Andrew Lias would contribute to this thread, since I
>suspect his experience in providing support for people with suicidal
>tendencies will be relevant. I'm guessing that due to the
>aforementioned high volume he hasn't even noticed this thread. So I'll
>try invoking him by name.
Well, I did see it. I've just been a bit sick. Now that I've got my
health back, let me first point you to a URL from the Song's of the
Phoenix site that I wrote on this very subject:
http://www.wco.com/~anrwlias/phoenix/c59.htm
That's for my "official" thoughts on the subject -- all of which are
a perfectly accurate representation of my views.
Now for a personal anecdote.
As you know, in 1990, I tried to kill myself. Before I sunk into
unconsciousness, I had a personal epiphany which can be summarized as,
"This is stupid!"
Be that as it may, I decided I wanted to live, after all, and called for
help. In due course I was transported to the hospital. It was touch and
go for awhile.
Now comes the relevant part. Having gone through the ordeal of first
poisoning myself with sleeping pills and then having my stomach pumped
along with an administration of charcoal, I was very much out of it. I
lapsed into a state where I was conscious but unable to interact with the
outside world -- literally too weak to talk.
While I was in this state, one of the interns serreptitiously looked
around -- clearly to make sure he wasn't being observed -- placed his hand
on my chest and vocally prayed for the Lord to save me.
Now, having had the perspective of years to reflect on this incident, I
have come to understand that he meant well. I'm sure that his heart was
in the right place. I would also like to think that if he understood the
effect that it had on me at the time, he would have restrained himself.
You see, it made me angry. Angry and frustrated that I couldn't tell him
to fuck the hell off.
Let me explain: at no point during this horrible ordeal was my atheism in
question. When I tried to kill myself, it was because I thought death was
an end and I craved it. When I decided that I wanted to live it was
because I thought that death was an end and I wanted to avoid it.
To that end, all of my mental energies were bound up in a literal struggle
for survival. Now comes along this would-be sammaritan whose decided to
impose his own worldview on my *very* personal attempt to keep myself from
dying -- frankly, I didn't need it. I didn't need his mythology, I didn't
need his attempt to call his gods attention to my aid, I didn't need any
of it. If nothing else, it was disrespectful. I had lived an atheist and
I was, in fact, prepared to die an atheist if it came to that. How dare
he put this bullshit in my path at just the point in my life where I was
literally too weak to even tell him not to?
Like I said, it made me very angry. That was an emotion that I really
couldn't afford just right then. I had better things to be thinking about
and having to think about this instead was intolerable.
Obviously, I pulled through and, eventually, I forgave him, but the point
stands. If he had said a silent prayer for me in the comfort of his own
mind, that would have been one thing, but to vocally invoke his god on my
behalf was not the kindness that I'm sure he thinks it was.
If nothing else, try to convey that to your class. Sick people have one
task that matters, and that task so utterly personal and intimate that
they don't need you to come along, blissfully lumbering over their core
beliefs in a hamfisted effort to "help" them. It's one thing if they ask
you to pray with them, or some such -- even as a dedicated atheist I'd be
more than happy to extend that simply courtesy to a sick person -- but
DON'T simply presume that your prayers or other religious displays are
welcome. We live in a big, big world and it is horrifyingly provincial
and selfish to simply assume that those who you are treating share your
views on the subject.
Hope that helps, Jayne.
Oh, and it's great to see you around here again, even if only for a little
while. :-)
--
I'm giving the bird to spam; remove the middle finger to reply to me.
*-----------*------------------*-----------------------*------------*
Christian Fundamentalism: The doctrine that there is an absolutely
powerful, infinitely knowledgeable, universe spanning entity that is
deeply and personally concerned about my sex life.
*-----------*------------------*-----------------------*------------*
http://www.wco.com/~anrwlias
Michelle Malkin
wrote:
You forgot 'kicking up the daisies'. Which reminds me, I may
be going to see Eric Idle's Monty Python show when he's here
in Philly! Yay!
>
>Überwench #658
>
>Dame Liz the Undaunted BAAWA
Michelle Malkin (Mickey)
Jayne Kulikauskas but replace spambait by mmalt
> On Sat, 27 May 2000 13:18:21 EST, jay...@spambait.guild.org
> (Jayne Kulikauskas but replace spambait by mmalt) wrote:
[]
>>Do you think that it is common for atheists to have such a negative
>>reaction to the word "spiritual"? If so, it would be important to let
>>volunteers know that they should avoid it when speaking to atheists.
>>
>>Jayne
>
> Actually, that's a good idea. I imagine that any atheist in
> the position you are describing will be expecting people
> to try to convert them for their "spiritual" well-being. For
> someone NOT to do this would be a huge relief to them.
Thanks, Michelle. That's a good point. The existing volunteer training
makes it very clear that trying to convert clients is completely
unacceptable. However, it's not enough that the volunteers know that;
we also have to reassure the clients that we won't take advantage of
them that way.
Jayne
Jayne Kulikauskas but replace spambait by mmalt
> On Sat, 27 May 2000 18:23:02 EST, jay...@spambait.guild.org (Jayne
> Kulikauskas but replace spambait by mmalt) in alt.atheism wrote:
[]
>>Thanks. This gives me an idea. It might worth while to compile a list
>>of "hot button" words that would tend to have negative connotations
>>for atheists. It's obvious that one wouldn't talk about gods, but
>>there may be more subtle things to watch out for. Any suggestions?
>
>
>
> You might want to discourage the use of words with euphemistically
> refer to an afterlife such as:
>
> other side
> hereafter
> gone to one's reward
> eternity
> heaven
> sweet by-and-by
> great beyond
> happy hunting grounds
> up there
>
> I know that I am perfectly comfortable using the words die and death
> and would appreciate anyone talking to me to use those words.
Thanks, Liz. Is lack of belief in an afterlife directly implied by
lack of belief in gods or is something that just usually accompanies
it?
Jayne
Jayne Kulikauskas but replace spambait by mmalt
> On Thu, 25 May 2000 20:27:10 EST, in alt.atheism, Jayne Kulikauskas but
> replace spambait by mmalt wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am a theist who has posted here in the past. I dropped out in
>> January because I was having trouble making time for this newsgroup.
>> I still don't have time, but now I need your help. (It is ok to help
>> me because Tukla marked me as a friendly. Hi Tukla <scratches
>> behind ears>
>
> <purr purr purr>
>
>>Better sniff me and see if it has worn off.)
>
> Later. Keep scritching. Ooo. <purr purr>
>
> Hi, Jayne!
<more scratching behind ears>
I missed you, you big furry monster. Hey, are those new bat wings?
Jayne
Jayne Kulikauskas but replace spambait by mmalt
> jay...@spambait.guild.org (Jayne Kulikauskas but replace
> spambait by mmalt) wrote in
> <00527.182302....@mmalt.guild.org>:
>
>>Thanks. This gives me an idea. It might worth while to
>>compile a list of "hot button" words that would tend to have
>>negative connotations for atheists. It's obvious that one
>>wouldn't talk about gods, but there may be more subtle things
>>to watch out for. Any suggestions?
>
> Certainly. Do not mention:
>
> 1. Lady Di can heal the sick
>
> 2. Marlon Brando can shrink himself to the size of a walnut
> and fly through space at will.
>
> 3. Superman and planet Krypton actually exist.
>
> All three of these notions apparently imply theism.
> Therefore, avoid them when speaking to some atheist idiot
> whose easily offended by god-talk.
[]
This is not very helpful although I suppose it illustrates a certain
attitude. There are some people who want to engage in silly debates
even when what is needed is comfort and empathy. We will have to be
careful to screen our volunteers so that people like this do not get
into our program.
BTW, I am easily offended by people calling atheists idiots. I found
your post offensive as well as irrelevant.
Jayne
Jayne Kulikauskas but replace spambait by mmalt
> Dr Sinister wrote:
>>
>> Sni...@gotcha.com (Sniper) wrote in
>> <39303797...@gotcha.com>:
>>
>> >Dr Sinister wrote:
>> >>
[debate snipped]
This debate has no relevance to my question. I am selecting by subject
and it is not pleasant to get this debate instead of the information I
am seeking. I would greatly appreciate it if you would retitle this
branch of the thread. Please.
Jayne
Jayne Kulikauskas but replace spambait by mmalt
> In article <00527.065943....@mmalt.guild.org>,
> Jayne Kulikauskas but replace spambait by mmalt <jay...@spambait.guild.org>
> wrote:
>>I've been hoping Andrew Lias would contribute to this thread, since I
>>suspect his experience in providing support for people with suicidal
>>tendencies will be relevant. I'm guessing that due to the
>>aforementioned high volume he hasn't even noticed this thread. So I'll
>>try invoking him by name.
>
> Well, I did see it. I've just been a bit sick. Now that I've got my
> health back,
I'm glad that you are feeling better now.
> let me first point you to a URL from the Song's of the
> Phoenix site that I wrote on this very subject:
>
> http://www.wco.com/~anrwlias/phoenix/c59.htm
>
> That's for my "official" thoughts on the subject -- all of which are
> a perfectly accurate representation of my views.
I don't have web access again. I had it for a while and the first
thing I did with it was to check out Songs of the Phoenix. It was
quite inspiring. Anyhow, what I'm trying to say is, could you please
email your official thoughts to me.
> Now for a personal anecdote.
I respond at the end of the anecdote. I don't want to snip any of it.
May I have permission to quote all this. I can't think of a better
way to convey it than to let them hear it in your own words.
> Sick people have one
> task that matters, and that task so utterly personal and intimate that
> they don't need you to come along, blissfully lumbering over their core
> beliefs in a hamfisted effort to "help" them. It's one thing if they ask
> you to pray with them, or some such -- even as a dedicated atheist I'd be
> more than happy to extend that simply courtesy to a sick person -- but
> DON'T simply presume that your prayers or other religious displays are
> welcome. We live in a big, big world and it is horrifyingly provincial
> and selfish to simply assume that those who you are treating share your
> views on the subject.
>
> Hope that helps, Jayne.
Very much so. Thanks, Andrew.
> Oh, and it's great to see you around here again, even if only for a little
> while. :-)
It's nice to have a good excuse for the visit. <g>
Jayne
Clothaire
wrote:
{snip... a lot of garbage from Sinister}
Be aware of the fact that Sinister does not like a dialog.
He always argues both sides of a question from his own perspective.
He likes to strawman a discussion by putting idiotic words in other
people's mouths. No matter what he says, later he makes it look like
you agreed with his strawmen.
Clothaire #1392
The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever
that it is not utterly absurd; indeed, in view of the silliness of the
majority of mankind, a wide-spread belief is more likely to be foolish
than sensible.
Bertrand Russell, Marriage and Morals, 1929
Michelle Malkin
Glad to hear this. I hope that your program is a success.
Dr Sinister
<3930EE54...@gotcha.com>:
>Dr Sinister wrote:
(snip)
>> To give you the widest benefit of the doubt, I will
>> consider two answers from you:
>>
>> (a) yes, these arbitrary idiotic beliefs would make me a
>> theist if I believed them.
>>
>> (b) if I held these arbitrary idiotic beliefs, which may or
>> may not necessarily be god-beliefs in themselves, knowing
>> that I held them would allow you to make the inference that
>> I had a god-belief somewhere in my head.
>
>Now try this: If you held the belief that these god like
>powers represented, by extention, the fact that there must be
>a god,
But now this involves two beliefs: the arbitrary idiocy
belief, and the representation belief.
>then yes, it would make you a theist.
That's fine. I have no problem with this proposition. What I
have a problem with is that it has no relevance to the
question. I do realize that you have stated something
equivalent to this several times now, in the context of
Christianity. However, when I wrote above that "I will
consider two answers... (a)... (b)", I did not include
'(c) If I held these arbitrary idiotic beliefs and I believed
that these arbitrary idiocies represented, by extension, that
there is a god, then I would have a god belief.'
The reason I did not include this is because it is not an
answer. It is a statement unrelated to my questions. I tried
to make this clear in the other long post in this thread. In
that post, I vehemently denied that this statement has
anything to do with the issue:
[Sniper]"Many of his followers today claim the same reason. If
you're going to stand here & deny that this is the case then I
have nothing more to discuss with you, because then you'd just
be disengenous, & not worthy of any more of my time.
[Sinister]"I'm not denying that christians have reasons for
believing Jesus is god. What I am denying is that this has
relevance to them being theists."
>IOW, just as there were those who looked at the perceived
>powers of Jesus, & thereby came to believe that this proved
>(to them) that there's a God. This is all I was trying to
>convey.
I understand what you were and are trying to convey. I want
you to read the post that you followed up to until you
understand exactly what I am trying to convey too. I thought
of something different that may help clarify everything.
Instead of writing dry analyses, I'm going to give you an
analogy. I am not going to tell you which concept corresponds
to what analogical construct, I leave that for you to decide.
The intent of the analogy is to illustrate where the errors of
reasoning are, and why your statement above is not part of the
issue. Here goes.
Suppose you lived in a parallel universe where you suddenly
discover peculiar facts about violinists. Every violinist's
first violin, was given to him by his uncle. You interview
many violinists, and you get to know them. You then discover
that there is a large group of violinists who became
violinists _because_ their uncles gave them their first
violins. They tell you things like: "yes, I wouldn't be a
violinist today if it wasn't for that inspiring moment when my
uncle gave me my first violin."
Ok, so you conclude that there are violinists who are what
they are because their uncles bought them violins. You also
note that violinists are musicians, and you further conclude:
"some musicians became musicians because their uncles bought
them violins."
Now some guy comes to you and asks: "If my uncle bought me my
first violin, would you say that I am (or will become) a
musician"?
And if you reply "yes", then that is either a fallacy of
reasoning, or it is a re-definition of what a musician is.
Now suppose you answered him with:
"Many people are musicians because of this, so if your uncle
did buy you your first violin, I would tend to conclude it
implies you are a musician."
That is also a fallacy of reasoning.
Now suppose you answer: "well, I know for a fact that there
are musicians who became so because their uncle bought them a
violin."
That is not a fallacy, it is irrelevant to the question.
Now, suppose yet still, that some other bugger came to you and
asked "If my uncle bought me my first trombone, does that mean
I am a musician?"
If you say "yes" or "based on what I know about violinists, it
would tend to imply so" then those are certainly fallacies or
re-definitions of 'musician'.
And if you respond to the trombone question with: "well, I
know for a fact that there are musicians who became so because
their uncle bought them a violin", that is again not an
erroneous statement, simply an irrelevant one. And even if you
respond with something more closely analogous to your present
position: "If you are the type of person who becomes a
violinist upon being given a violin by your uncle, then you
are (or will) clearly become a musician" you are still saying
something true, but irrelevant.
Think about this analogy and then think about why I answered
your statement:
[Sniper]"Some Christian's believe Jesus was born from a
virgin, was the son of God, died & actually came back to life.
For an encore, if you believe in his resurection his Father,
God, will agree to let you go to heaven instead of hell.
with the question:
[Sinister]"Let me see. Suppose I believe Sniper was born of a
virgin. Is that sufficient to establish that I am a theist?"
Ok, it's not all that great an analogy, but I'm sure you can
improve on it if you wish.
>I don't believe that someone is a theist merely because they
>believe in the "supernatural". If you'll recall my earlier
>reply on this, I said that I define "god" as a supernatural
>(I know we don't agree on the terms validity, but stay w/ me)
>creator or ruler of the cosmos, or part of it. Without the
>creator and/or ruler part, I don't define it as a god, &
>therefore wouldn't define one who believed in it as a theist.
Just to set the record straight on this, here is something you
said:
[Sniper]"Again, Marlon would be seen to at least have god
-like powers, so that it would be likely that even if you
didn't believe he was a god, you'd believe god like powers
were available to him, which would imply a belief in god/s.
It is clear that you are saying 'the absurd belief would
imply belief in the availability of god-like powers, which
would likely imply belief in god(s).' You certainly are not
saying:
>If you held the belief that these god like
>powers represented, by extention, the fact that there must be
>a god, then yes, it would make you a theist.
This bit of information was not present in your original
statement about the Marlon Brando belief. But I don't really
want to get into a technical analysis of what you said and how
it is different from what you are now saying. What's important
is what you are now saying.
>If I wasn't clear enough on this before, my bad. OK?
You are being very clear here. I just do not see what this has
to do with the issue. I think it is in both of our interests
to continue thinking about this. The reason I say this is
because our previous disagreement about 'pantheism' was almost
exactly of the same form. Only the subject was different. I
asked a question, and you made a statement that sounded like
an answer. I proceeded to torment you about it, and you
responded by asserting many statements, most of which I could
agree with in principle, but none of which answered my
question. So if we figure out why this is happening to us, we
can avoid it in the future. Otherwise it is bound to keep
recurring.
Anyhow, Septic has dropped in at just the right moment when we
can use some comedic relief.
Michelle Malkin
(Jayne Kulikauskas but replace spambait by mmalt) wrote:
>drsin...@my-deja.com (Dr Sinister) writes:
>
>> jay...@spambait.guild.org (Jayne Kulikauskas but replace
Dr. Sinister is a well-known troll and an extremely nasty
one. You're best off if you just ignore him.
Dr Sinister
>drsin...@my-deja.com (Dr Sinister) writes:
>
>> jay...@spambait.guild.org (Jayne Kulikauskas but replace
>> spambait by mmalt) wrote in
>> <00527.182302....@mmalt.guild.org>:
>>
>>>Thanks. This gives me an idea. It might worth while to
>>>compile a list of "hot button" words that would tend to
>>>have negative connotations for atheists. It's obvious that
>>>one wouldn't talk about gods, but there may be more subtle
>>>things to watch out for. Any suggestions?
>>
>> Certainly. Do not mention:
>>
>> 1. Lady Di can heal the sick
>>
>> 2. Marlon Brando can shrink himself to the size of a walnut
>> and fly through space at will.
>>
>> 3. Superman and planet Krypton actually exist.
>>
>> All three of these notions apparently imply theism.
>> Therefore, avoid them when speaking to some atheist idiot
>> whose easily offended by god-talk.
>[]
>
>This is not very helpful
This is alt.atheism.
>although I suppose it illustrates a certain attitude. There
>are some people who want to engage in silly debates even when
>what is needed is comfort and empathy.
Silly debates can be a form of therapy too.
>We will have to be careful to screen our volunteers
>so that people like this do not get into our program.
>BTW, I am easily offended by people calling atheists idiots.
Some atheists are idiots. There's no use denying that fact.
The idiotic ones will almost certainly be problematical, in
that they will take offense to almost anything. Memorial
crosses along the roadside, for example. A reasonable person,
atheist or not, wouldn't make a big deal out of something like
that. But an idiot would. An idiot who happens to be an
atheist. There was an incident once involving Madalyn O'Hair
and a cashier. The cashier said "god bless" after she returned
O'Hair's change. O'Hair literally lost her mind. She kept
ranting, demanded to see the manager, flipping out in a big
way. Made a huge public spectacle of herself.
That's what I mean by an idiot. There's no way a reasonable
person can know in advance that a small stimulus like "god
bless" can produce such a disproportionate response. I have
found that this is not exactly uncommon.
How you deal with an individual really depends on them as an
individual and not as an "atheist" or "theist" or whatnot. A
reasonable person will not go bonkers if you mention the word
"god" inadvertently. Neither would it stress them. So the
fellow who gave you this crappy advice:
[czar]"Yes, by all means have warn volunteers against this
"religious" usage [of the word "spiritual"]!"
is basically saying that your atheist clients would be as
unreasonable as he is.
I would like to give you something to consider which may be
more helpful than my previous comments:
This is an unmoderated usenet group, alt.atheism. It's
mentioned in various essays on the history of usenet as
particularly famous for being a sewer of kookdom and inanity.
What you learn from atheists in this place cannot be
considered as representative of anything your clients are.
Your clients are living in the real world. This alt.atheism.
Please consider with skepticism anything that you are told
would be a proper policy to follow with your clients.
>I found your post offensive as well as irrelevant.
But you learned something. Rather than giving you the
kind of tailored-for-your-ears drool others are feeding you in
this thread, I gave you a first hand demonstration of exactly
what sort of stuff drives atheists up the wall. And hence you
now know one more "hot button".
Anyhow, I'm done with this thread. Sniper and I will go
play outside now, okay mommy?
Niall McAuley
>Is lack of belief in an afterlife directly implied by lack of belief
>in gods or is something that just usually accompanies it?
Someone who is an atheist because they are a materialist,
empiricist, rationalist or the like will not believe in afterlives
either.
Someone who is an atheist for other reasons (upbringing,
reaction to an unpleasant religion etc.) may still believe,
or at least not actively disbelieve, in life after death.
I have often heard people say "there must be more than just
this" when I tell them that I think what you see is what you get.
Such people are not likely to think they know what such an
afterlife is like, and they are not likely to think that your volunteers
do either.
--
Niall #36 [real address ends in se, not es.invalid]
Niall McAuley
>Hi,
Hello again, Jayne.
[among a lot of snippage]
>The majority of clients at my agency have AIDS. The next most common
>illness is cancer.
[snip]
>One of my projects is to design a training program for volunteers to
>help prepare them to meet the spiritual needs of clients.
I would be happy to have any of your volunteers visit my death-bed
if they could follow one simple rule: listen to what I say, and accept
that I mean it.
You needn't worry about hitting hot-buttons, causing unintended
offense by mentioning God, religion, magic underwear or whatever,
as long as you cut it out if I ask you to, and believe me if I tell you
that I don't want to discuss it.
If I was in the mood, I might be quite happy to discuss such
matters with a religious volunteer, as long as I thought they
would stop if I ask them to.
Prayers and even moderate amounts of holy water do not actually
hurt, and I might be in the humour to let the religious people
think they are helping. They do often mean well.
Liz
Kulikauskas but replace spambait by mmalt) in alt.atheism wrote:
>ech...@donotspam.com (Liz) writes:
>
>> On Sat, 27 May 2000 18:23:02 EST, jay...@spambait.guild.org (Jayne
>> Kulikauskas but replace spambait by mmalt) in alt.atheism wrote:
>
>[]
>>>Thanks. This gives me an idea. It might worth while to compile a list
>>>of "hot button" words that would tend to have negative connotations
>>>for atheists. It's obvious that one wouldn't talk about gods, but
>>>there may be more subtle things to watch out for. Any suggestions?
>>
>>
>>
>> You might want to discourage the use of words with euphemistically
>> refer to an afterlife such as:
>>
>> other side
[-----]
>> I know that I am perfectly comfortable using the words die and death
>> and would appreciate anyone talking to me to use those words.
>
>Thanks, Liz. Is lack of belief in an afterlife directly implied by
>lack of belief in gods or is something that just usually accompanies
>it?
One can believe in an afterlife void of gods, but it is quite unusual.
As Andrew Lias expressed in his marvelous and evocative reply, it is
the presumption that the concepts of gods and afterlives are accepted
and welcomed by the dying or very ill that is so disrespectful. Most
people aren't aware that their presumptions are not universally shared
and that the presumptions of belief in a god or belief in an afterlife
permeates their use of language. If the goal is to offer comfort,
then one should avoid making inadvertent, if well-meaning references
to something that would, like in Andrew's case, arouse anger in a
person who does not have the strength to correct or explain such
misconceptions.
For caring people, which I am sure is the case for your volunteers,
making them aware of some of the words and concepts they automatically
use will help them not to make such presumptions. I would suggest an
exercise for your volunteers to make them aware of their language. I
corrected a very annoying speech habit by merely counting the number
of times in a day I used the horrible phrase "you know" as a verbal
filler. I was appalled when I actually listened to myself. I used
approximately nine "you knows" and five "ums" per minute in my speech.
I don't know how anyone could stand to converse with me. (1) Have
your volunteers count the number of times during one day, in normal
conversation, they used god/religion/afterlife related words. IOW,
make them aware of their verbal expression of presumption of their
religious beliefs.
I'm not in any way suggesting that expression of religious belief is
wrong. It is just an exercise for awareness. When individuals are
under stress, and your volunteers could feel some level of anxiety
when working with dying patients in the hospice, they have a tendency
to fall back into familiar patterns of language and behavior which
comfort themselves instead. If they are aware of such pitfalls, they
can train themselves to avoid them.
(1) BTW, it only took me one day to stop saying "you know" and "um".
I just stopped talking when I was about to say one of the hated verbal
tics. I had a very unusual, staccato speech pattern for a few months,
but it eventually evened out. :) I did learn a great lesson.
Everyone should really listen to themselves.
Liz #658 BAAWA
Anthropologists spend years translating and interpreting
messages from past societies, and, often, we find that the
message was not meant for us. - Linda Schele (paraphrased)
Jayne Kulikauskas but replace spambait by mmalt
Michelle Malkin <malk...@mindspring.com> writes:
[]
> Dr. Sinister is a well-known troll and an extremely nasty
> one. You're best off if you just ignore him.
I just noticed that he had cross-posted his response. He seems to be
deliberately setting out to create a flame war. This will destroy this
thread's ability to serve any useful purpose.
Dr. Sinister, I appeal to whatever goodness is within you. I am
sincerely seeking information that can be used to help people face
death. Can't you recognize this as a worthwhile cause? I beg you to
take your debate elsewhere.
Jayne
Fish
I seriously question, Andrew, whether that intern had *your* best
interest at heart, or *HIS*:
=====================================================================
Situational and Dispositional Variables in Helping Behavior
(Darley & Batson, 1973)
In the parable of the good Samaritan, Jesus described a man who is
robbed, beaten, and left for dead at the side of a road. Two
"religious" individuals, a priest and a Levite, pass by but do not
stop to help. However, a Samaritan, a religious outcast, does (at some
cost to himself) give the robbery victim the help he needs. Jesus
wanted to make the point that people should model their behavior after
the Samaritan, not after "religious" people, who may be so caught up
in their thoughts that they don't see the needs of people around them.
Would the results differ if this situation were to occur in
contemporary society? Darley and Batson attempted to construct a
similar "help-needed" situation at Princeton University. Sixty-seven
seminary students first completed questionnaires to assess their
religious orientation, among other things; then, one at a time, 40 of
them showed up for a follow-up experimental session. They were asked
to prepare a short talk based on either (1) the parable of the good
Samaritan, or (2) jobs that seminary students might pursue. After
having a few minutes to prepare for their forthcoming talk,
participants were given a map to show them how to get to a room in
another building where they would give their talk. Half of the
participants were told that they would need to hurry, since they were
late for their appointment.
As these students passed down an alley, they met a man in need of
help. A confederate of the experimenters was slumped in a doorway,
head down, eyes closed, not moving. As each seminarian passed, the
victim coughed and groaned; given the geographical setting, it was
virtually impossible to miss him. The key dependent measure in this
study was whether or not the students stopped to offer and kind of
help. In fact, just 16 of the 40 seminarians (40%) offered assistance.
And religious orientation (means, end, or quest) did not predict who
would stop to offer aid.
However, among those who did stop, an interesting finding emerged.
When a seminarian offered help, the victim indicated that he had just
taken his medication, he would be fine if he just rested a few
minutes, and he would like to be left alone. Some of the "good
Samaritans" were quite insistent, however. In spite of the victim's
objections, some participants insisted on taking him into a nearby
building and pouring some coffee and/or religion into him. Among only
those who did stop to help, the intrinsic (end) dimension correlated
positively with this "I know what is best for you" helping style (r =
.43), but the quest orientation was negatively associated with such
insistent aid (r = -.54). Darley and Batson concluded that the more
intrinsic seminarians seemed to be guided by a "preprogrammed" helping
response, which was not affected by the expressed needs of the victim.
It was almost as if the "super helpers" were satisfying their own
internal need to help, rather than meeting the needs of the victim.
However, those with a quest orientation had a more "tentative" helping
style, sensitive to the person needing help, since they tended to
accept the victim's statement that he really just wanted to be left
alone and everything would be fine.
Before we leave our consideration of this study, there are some loose
ends to tie up. Contrary to expectations, it did not make any
difference whether the participant was preparing to give a speech on
the parable of the Good Samaritan or on the jobs for seminary
graduates. Apparently, thinking about helping in a Biblical context
did not make participants more likely to offer aid in a similar
situation. Finally, those participants in the "hurry up, you're late"
condition were significantly less likely to stop and offer any kind of
help than those with no "hurry up" instructions. Apparently, the most
powerful variable in determining helping behavior overall in this
study was a nonreligious one -- whether or not the participant was in
a hurry.
Darley, J. M., & Batson, C. D. (1973) "From Jersualem to Jericho": A
study of situational and dispositional variables in helping behavior.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 27, 100-108.
---------------
Hood, R., Spilka, B., Hunsberger, B., Gorsuch, R. (1996, p. 356). The
psychology of religion: An empirical approach (second edition), New
York: Guilford.
===================================================================
Table 1.3. Characteristics of Intrinsic, Extrinsic and Quest
Orientations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Intrinsic religion | Extrinsic religion | Quest religion
--------------------------------------------------------------
Devout; strong Religion of Readiness to face
personal commitment; convenience; called existential questions;
universalistic; on in crisis, when no reduction of
ethical; stress on needed complexity in life;
love of neighbor resists traditional
Ethnocentric, answers, but looks
Unselfish, exclusionistic, for "truth"
altruistic, restricted to in-group
humanitarian chauvinistic, Possibly
provincial "preintrinsic"
Framework for everyday religious conflict
life; fills life with Expedient; not
meaning integrated into Self criticism
daily life
Faith of primary Religious doubt is
importance; accepted Faith and belief are positive
without reservations; superficial; beliefs
creed is fully selectively held Openness to change
followed
Utilitarian; means to Concern with moral
Faith of ultimate other ends, is in principles
significance; a service of other
final good, supreme personal and social Antiprejudice,
value, ultimate needs humanitarian
answer
Views people in terms May reflect more
People seen as of social categories - general conflict
individuals - sex, age, status and anxiety, but
constructively
High self-esteem Low or confused
self-esteem
Loving, forgiving
God Stern, punitive God
Open to intense Negative view of death;
religious experience; feelings of powerless-
views death positively ness, external control
Feelings of power and
competence
Antiprejudice
---------------
Hood, R., Spilka, B., Hunsberger, B., Gorsuch, R. (1996, p. 25). The
psychology of religion: An empirical approach (second edition), New
York: Guilford.
--
"Fish" (David B. Trout)
Alt.Atheism #623
ICQ# 25302291
fi...@infidels.org.god
(remove "god" to reply by email)
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
"The intelligent man portions his belief to the evidence" -- Hume
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Jayne Kulikauskas but replace spambait by mmalt
> Jayne Kulikauskas but replace spambait by mmalt wrote in message
> <00528.181435....@mmalt.guild.org>...
>>Is lack of belief in an afterlife directly implied by lack of belief
>>in gods or is something that just usually accompanies it?
>
> Someone who is an atheist because they are a materialist,
> empiricist, rationalist or the like will not believe in afterlives
> either.
>
> Someone who is an atheist for other reasons (upbringing,
> reaction to an unpleasant religion etc.) may still believe,
> or at least not actively disbelieve, in life after death.
>
> I have often heard people say "there must be more than just
> this" when I tell them that I think what you see is what you get.
> Such people are not likely to think they know what such an
> afterlife is like, and they are not likely to think that your volunteers
> do either.
This is very clear. Thank you. Could you make a guess on what proportion
of atheists hold these various positions?
Jayne
--
Jayne Kulikauskas but replace spambait by mmalt
[]
> Some atheists are idiots. There's no use denying that fact.
> The idiotic ones will almost certainly be problematical, in
> that they will take offense to almost anything. Memorial
> crosses along the roadside, for example. A reasonable person,
> atheist or not, wouldn't make a big deal out of something like
> that. But an idiot would. An idiot who happens to be an
> atheist. There was an incident once involving Madalyn O'Hair
> and a cashier. The cashier said "god bless" after she returned
> O'Hair's change. O'Hair literally lost her mind. She kept
> ranting, demanded to see the manager, flipping out in a big
> way. Made a huge public spectacle of herself.
When supporting people as they face death, we do not judge their
beliefs. We do not judge that it is idiotic to take offense at
whatever offends them. We don't know what experiences formed that
person. Our job is to identify what offends them and avoid doing it. A
person facing death does not need to deal with offensive volunteers.
> That's what I mean by an idiot. There's no way a reasonable
> person can know in advance that a small stimulus like "god
> bless" can produce such a disproportionate response. I have
> found that this is not exactly uncommon.
If it is not uncommon, then it is important that the volunteers know
about it. It does not matter if the response seems unreasonable or
disproportionate to others. We serve the needs of our clients.
> How you deal with an individual really depends on them as an
> individual and not as an "atheist" or "theist" or whatnot. A
> reasonable person will not go bonkers if you mention the word
> "god" inadvertently. Neither would it stress them. So the
> fellow who gave you this crappy advice:
>
> [czar]"Yes, by all means have warn volunteers against this
> "religious" usage [of the word "spiritual"]!"
>
> is basically saying that your atheist clients would be as
> unreasonable as he is.
It was not crappy advice and I am grateful he gave it. We do not limit
our client base to people who meet your standards of reasonable. We
do not expect people living with life-threatening illnesses to be calm
and reasonable about it. Something that might only be a minor
irrritation when they were in good health, could be a major stress
in this situation.
> I would like to give you something to consider which may be
> more helpful than my previous comments:
>
> This is an unmoderated usenet group, alt.atheism. It's
> mentioned in various essays on the history of usenet as
> particularly famous for being a sewer of kookdom and inanity.
> What you learn from atheists in this place cannot be
> considered as representative of anything your clients are.
> Your clients are living in the real world. This alt.atheism.
> Please consider with skepticism anything that you are told
> would be a proper policy to follow with your clients.
Thank you for your helpful suggestion. You are right that transferring
net.experiences to real life requires some thought. Nevertheless I
have found pretty much every genuine contribution to this thread
useful.
>>I found your post offensive as well as irrelevant.
>
> But you learned something. Rather than giving you the
> kind of tailored-for-your-ears drool others are feeding you in
> this thread, I gave you a first hand demonstration of exactly
> what sort of stuff drives atheists up the wall. And hence you
> now know one more "hot button".
I suppose that's one way to look at it. <g>
> Anyhow, I'm done with this thread. Sniper and I will go
> play outside now, okay mommy?
Thank you very much. I had written another request for you to leave it
alone before I saw this. However, this arrived so soon after that I
don't think you had time to see my second request before you complied.
I am very grateful that you are willing to do this.
Jayne
cz...@ecn.ab.ca
: Thanks, Liz. Is lack of belief in an afterlife directly implied by
: lack of belief in gods or is something that just usually accompanies
: it?
Although *technically* nothing about atheism directly implies an
automatic lack of belief in any sort of "afterlife", you can regard
it as a safe bet.
--
*************************************************************
Men think epilepsy divine, merely because they do not
understand it. But if they called everything divine
which they do not understand, why, there would be no
end of divine things.
Hippocrates of Cos
*************************************************************
Jayne Kulikauskas but replace spambait by mmalt
> Jayne Kulikauskas but replace spambait by mmalt wrote in message
> <00525.202710....@mmalt.guild.org>...
>>Hi,
>
> Hello again, Jayne.
Hi, Niall. Thanks for helping out.
> [among a lot of snippage]
>>The majority of clients at my agency have AIDS. The next most common
>>illness is cancer.
> [snip]
>>One of my projects is to design a training program for volunteers to
>>help prepare them to meet the spiritual needs of clients.
>
> I would be happy to have any of your volunteers visit my death-bed
> if they could follow one simple rule: listen to what I say, and accept
> that I mean it.
The existing training already has a lot of emphasis on listening, but
I think it needs work on the accepting that they mean it. I can see
this being especially important when dealing with atheists. I've
noticed a tendency, both in real life and on the net, for theists to
be condescending to atheists. There is a fundamental lack of respect
-- an attitude of "I know you better than you know yourself."
Somehow, I want the volunteers to get past this.
> You needn't worry about hitting hot-buttons, causing unintended
> offense by mentioning God, religion, magic underwear or whatever,
> as long as you cut it out if I ask you to, and believe me if I tell you
> that I don't want to discuss it.
The volunteers need to follow the cues from the clients. Obviously,
each one is an individual. Still, I think it is helpful to know about
things to watch out for. If the volunteers go in knowing that certain
phrases are sometimes offensive to atheists, then they will be more
sensitive to the cues of the particular individual
> If I was in the mood, I might be quite happy to discuss such
> matters with a religious volunteer, as long as I thought they
> would stop if I ask them to.
>
> Prayers and even moderate amounts of holy water do not actually
> hurt, and I might be in the humour to let the religious people
> think they are helping. They do often mean well.
I think that when people are very sick they sometimes lose the sense
of perspective they would need to take that approach. You are an
especially mature person and able to tolerate clumsy but well-meaning
attempts to help. However, I do not want to ask that of our clients.
Jayne
Jayne Kulikauskas but replace spambait by mmalt
[]
> One can believe in an afterlife void of gods, but it is quite unusual.
> As Andrew Lias expressed in his marvelous and evocative reply, it is
> the presumption that the concepts of gods and afterlives are accepted
> and welcomed by the dying or very ill that is so disrespectful.
Andrew's post was great.
> Most
> people aren't aware that their presumptions are not universally shared
> and that the presumptions of belief in a god or belief in an afterlife
> permeates their use of language. If the goal is to offer comfort,
> then one should avoid making inadvertent, if well-meaning references
> to something that would, like in Andrew's case, arouse anger in a
> person who does not have the strength to correct or explain such
> misconceptions.
That's the problem with presumptions. We tend to be unaware of them.
I can see that one of the goals of the training needs to be to
increase the volunteers self-awareness in this area.
> For caring people, which I am sure is the case for your volunteers,
> making them aware of some of the words and concepts they automatically
> use will help them not to make such presumptions. I would suggest an
> exercise for your volunteers to make them aware of their language. I
> corrected a very annoying speech habit by merely counting the number
> of times in a day I used the horrible phrase "you know" as a verbal
> filler. I was appalled when I actually listened to myself. I used
> approximately nine "you knows" and five "ums" per minute in my speech.
> I don't know how anyone could stand to converse with me. (1) Have
> your volunteers count the number of times during one day, in normal
> conversation, they used god/religion/afterlife related words. IOW,
> make them aware of their verbal expression of presumption of their
> religious beliefs.
This is an excellent idea. Thank you.
> I'm not in any way suggesting that expression of religious belief is
> wrong. It is just an exercise for awareness. When individuals are
> under stress, and your volunteers could feel some level of anxiety
> when working with dying patients in the hospice, they have a tendency
> to fall back into familiar patterns of language and behavior which
> comfort themselves instead. If they are aware of such pitfalls, they
> can train themselves to avoid them.
I think you are right.
> (1) BTW, it only took me one day to stop saying "you know" and "um".
> I just stopped talking when I was about to say one of the hated verbal
> tics. I had a very unusual, staccato speech pattern for a few months,
> but it eventually evened out. :) I did learn a great lesson.
> Everyone should really listen to themselves.
Thanks for the wonderful input, Liz.
Jayne
Sniper
(LOL, ain't that the truth!)
Ok, to your point. Taken, & here's the thing: I don't think I
ever really disagreed, at least in spirit. IOW, I don't think
I expressed myself clearly enough, but I've always understood
that what makes a theist a theist is the belief that god/s do
exist. Perhaps if I bring you back to my original comments in
the thread, I can show you my line of thought, which perhaps
went astray in an effort to provide you quick answers.
Below is a sequential series of exchanges between Mark & I,
and you & I. I've tried to provide everything relevant to
the conversation, if anything was omitted it was accidental.
***begin quotes***:
Sinister wrote:
> An even better question is if you yourself became a theist
> when you believed that Diana existed.
I replied:
Not at all. First, I didn't consider her a goddess. Second,
even those who "worshiped" her didn't consider her divine,
as far as I could tell. People may have worshiped her like
people worship money, sex, or celebrities, but this kind of
worship isn't theistic. What would be theistic, in my view,
is if they thought she had powers that other humans didn't
possess, & along with those powers the ability to alter our
world or lives in ways an ordinary human being could not.
Mark Richardson wrote:
> Sure and I spend time finding out about what they mean - it is
> interesting. But it means something to them not to me.
I replied:
I haven't met anybody yet who claims to "believe in god", who
defines such belief as the belief in Princess Diana, or Stalin.
I appreciate that people have claimed this about those who said
they "worshiped" Stalin, or adored Diana, but again I've _yet_
to actually meet someone who says this about themselves. We use
the term "god" figuratively, I believe, when we talk this way.
IOW, it's like saying "money is his god", or "sex is his god".
We really don't think that because of this alone they actually
believe in gods.
Sinister wrote:
> You are not understanding the severity of the problem. If you
> admit that Diana-worshippers are theists, then you are saying
> that they believe in a god - Diana. Diana clearly exists (or
> existed) and thus if you believe she exists then _you_ are
> also a theist.
I replied:
I do not admit Diana worshipers are theists. This has been
my point. Unless they think she had divine attributes, IOW
attributes which set her apart from ordinary humans, then
she's not a "goddess" in the theological sense of the word.
***end of quotes from post***
My felling was that you (both Mark & yourself) were trying
to ask me under _what_ circumstances would a person who
worshiped Princess Diana (or any person, for that matter),
be a theist. What I tried to convey is that I generally do
not consider the worship of people "theistic", unless such
worship is done because the worshiper believes the person
they worship has divine attributes. Now, you can ask: What
is a divine attribute? I'm not sure, it would really be a
perception of the theist. Some look at the "miracles" of
Jesus & conclude he was divine, hence they became theists.
Not _solely_ because they believe in miracles, but because
they believe these miracles are proof that divine attributes
do indeed exist, & therefore represent the existence of God.
Niall McAuley
>This is very clear. Thank you.
You're welcome.
>Could you make a guess on what proportion
>of atheists hold these various positions?
Not really. Alt.atheism probably has more than its share of
materialists: such people tend to be more sure of their
footing and hence more vocal and argumentative.
In Real Life, I meet more vague afterlife believers
than I see around here, but that isn't very precise.
Sorry.
Niall McAuley
>"Niall McAuley" <Niall....@eei.ericsson.es.invalid> writes:
>> I would be happy to have any of your volunteers visit my death-bed
>> if they could follow one simple rule: listen to what I say, and accept
>> that I mean it.
>The existing training already has a lot of emphasis on listening, but
>I think it needs work on the accepting that they mean it. I can see
>this being especially important when dealing with atheists. I've
>noticed a tendency, both in real life and on the net, for theists to
>be condescending to atheists. There is a fundamental lack of respect
>-- an attitude of "I know you better than you know yourself."
>Somehow, I want the volunteers to get past this.
This is exactly what I was getting at, but I am not sure how to do it.
I would suggest asking your volunteers to try putting themselves
in an atheist's shoes, but I am afraid they wouldn't be able, they
would baulk even at trying.
Perhaps if you asked them to imagine dying in hospice care
in Japan, and being visited by a follower of Shinto it might
help. They probably know bugger all about Shinto, but it
certainly is not a "People of the Book" kind of religion which
they could map to their own and pretend that its all about the
same god.
How much cobblers would they be willing to listen to from
a Shinto priest? How would they feel if he condescended
to their silly Western beliefs?
>The volunteers need to follow the cues from the clients. Obviously,
>each one is an individual. Still, I think it is helpful to know about
>things to watch out for. If the volunteers go in knowing that certain
>phrases are sometimes offensive to atheists, then they will be more
>sensitive to the cues of the particular individual
I didn't mean to knock Liz or others suggestions, just to note
that I'm not bothered personally by God-talk in general.
>> Prayers and even moderate amounts of holy water do not actually
>> hurt, and I might be in the humour to let the religious people
>> think they are helping. They do often mean well.
>I think that when people are very sick they sometimes lose the sense
>of perspective they would need to take that approach. You are an
>especially mature person and able to tolerate clumsy but well-meaning
>attempts to help. However, I do not want to ask that of our clients.
To be fair, if the drugs were not working just right I might very well
not be in any mood for this kind of thing. They'd need to listen and
*hear* to find out.
Abner Mintz
> I'm not in any way suggesting that expression of religious belief is
> wrong. It is just an exercise for awareness. When individuals are
> under stress, and your volunteers could feel some level of anxiety
> when working with dying patients in the hospice, they have a tendency
> to fall back into familiar patterns of language and behavior which
> comfort themselves instead. If they are aware of such pitfalls, they
> can train themselves to avoid them.
"I have a suggestion here - usually the problem is
with the use of religious terms such as 'god',
'heaven', etc. - phrases like 'god only knows' etc.
can be quite common in a believer's speech. Due
to the similarity in the words, it might not be
hard for them to switch to saying 'goodness' instead
of 'god'. 'Goodness only knows' is, IMO, much less
likely to be offensive to anyone."
"Second suggestion, from my wife (I mentioned this
thread to her to see if she had any suggestions :) )
- have you looked at the Army chaplain's handbook?
The Army tries to train its chaplains to deal with
various groups when they are hurt or dying ... They've
almost certainly dealt with these problems, and come
up with some sort of solutions."
"My wife is brilliant." :)
Jayne Kulikauskas but replace spambait by mmalt
> Jayne Kulikauskas wrote:
>
> : Thanks, Liz. Is lack of belief in an afterlife directly implied by
> : lack of belief in gods or is something that just usually accompanies
> : it?
>
> Although *technically* nothing about atheism directly implies an
> automatic lack of belief in any sort of "afterlife", you can regard
> it as a safe bet.
That would have been my take on it but I wanted to see some other
opinions.
Jayne
Jayne Kulikauskas but replace spambait by mmalt
[Andrew's story]
> I seriously question, Andrew, whether that intern had *your* best
> interest at heart, or *HIS*:
>
>
> =====================================================================
> Situational and Dispositional Variables in Helping Behavior
> (Darley & Batson, 1973)
>
>
> In the parable of the good Samaritan, Jesus described a man who is
> robbed, beaten, and left for dead at the side of a road. Two
> "religious" individuals, a priest and a Levite, pass by but do not
> stop to help. However, a Samaritan, a religious outcast, does (at some
> cost to himself) give the robbery victim the help he needs. Jesus
> wanted to make the point that people should model their behavior after
> the Samaritan, not after "religious" people, who may be so caught up
> in their thoughts that they don't see the needs of people around them.
[details of study snipped]
> Darley, J. M., & Batson, C. D. (1973) "From Jersualem to Jericho": A
> study of situational and dispositional variables in helping behavior.
> Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 27, 100-108.
This was an extremely useful study for me, Fish. Thank you very much.
> ---------------
> Hood, R., Spilka, B., Hunsberger, B., Gorsuch, R. (1996, p. 356). The
> psychology of religion: An empirical approach (second edition), New
> York: Guilford.
>
>
>
> ===================================================================
> Table 1.3. Characteristics of Intrinsic, Extrinsic and Quest
> Orientations
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> Intrinsic religion | Extrinsic religion | Quest religion
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Devout; strong Religion of Readiness to face
> personal commitment; convenience; called existential questions;
> universalistic; on in crisis, when no reduction of
> ethical; stress on needed complexity in life;
> love of neighbor resists traditional
[rest of chart snipped]
This is fascinating and I'm going try find this source. In case I
can't, could you tell me if these dimensions are supposed to be
mutually exclusive? I would describe myself as exhibiting most of the
characteristics from both the intrinsic and quest columns. Is that
possible?
Thank you very, very much for your input.
Jayne
Liz
<Niall....@eei.ericsson.es.invalid> in alt.atheism wrote:
>Jayne Kulikauskas but replace spambait by mmalt wrote in message <00529.083144....@mmalt.guild.org>...
[-----]
>>The volunteers need to follow the cues from the clients. Obviously,
>>each one is an individual. Still, I think it is helpful to know about
>>things to watch out for. If the volunteers go in knowing that certain
>>phrases are sometimes offensive to atheists, then they will be more
>>sensitive to the cues of the particular individual
>
>I didn't mean to knock Liz or others suggestions, just to note
>that I'm not bothered personally by God-talk in general.
I didn't feel knocked. :) God-talk in general doesn't bother me
either. God-talk-as-if-belief-were-a-foregone-conclusion-for-
everybody is irritating to me. It would be especially irritating if I
were confined to a bed in a hospice and couldn't absent myself from
the source. When someone is very ill, she can control so little of
her own life. The patient's existence is ruled by doctors and
schedules for medicines and even the most personal functions require
the assistance of health care workers. It is difficult enough to
cope with this loss of control without having to deal with someone's
careless assumptions seemingly assaulting the last bastion of control,
that of one's thoughts.
Liz #658 BAAWA
It's an incredible con job when you think about it, to
believe in something now in exchange for something after
death. Even corporations with their reward systems don't
try to make it posthumous. -- Gloria Steinem
stoney
but replace spambait by mmalt) wrote:
(coming in a bit late, partial piggy back and comments)
]>isa...@my-deja.com writes:
]>
]>> Please do not construe the following as insulting, I am responding to
]>> your request and hope it will be helpful.
]>
]>Thank you. I will take it in the spirit it is given.
]>
]>> As I have been heavily socialized within both an orthodox and later in a
]>> liberal christian manner, it took some time to get over the paradigm "If
]>> there was no God then what is the true meaning of life". If it were not
]>> for striving to follow God's will….then what are we here for? This is
]>> sometimes a hard frame of mind to shake AND if you are to be successful
]>> in administering comfort of a non-spiritual nature you will have to
]>> learn how to do this.
]>
]>I think you are right. I suspect it is true for many theists and it is
]>certainly true for me that my faith in God is predominantly about
]>creating meaning. This is so central to the way I think that it can
]>cause an obstacle when I try to empathize with atheists. And, of
]>course, empathy is essential in this situation.
"Creating" meaning is generating a fiction the individual needs to
reduce/eliminate a terror. The Cerebral Cortex is the 'story generator.' I
would question 'why' a person would need to generate fiction rather than
tracking down, and coming to terms with, the item(s) that are bothersome.
The above is not (nor is anything in this post) an attack. Perhaps it would be
helpful to ask each individual theist the question and get them to realize the
fictional story they generate is a need *they* have and to get them to realize
that *their* needs are not the needs of others.
To put it another way the theist is thirsty so they get a drink of water. The
atheist is not thirsty and has no need to drink and does not appreciate those
trying to foist off their imaginary canteen.
]>> I find nothing more ridiculous and sometimes
]>> insulting when a religious person tells me in a moment of hardship "It's
]>> God's will" OR "God has a plan". Or "God is testing you".
]>
]>These are kind of dumb things to say, even to theists. Regardless of
]>a person's beliefs, they don't need to hear this when they are
]>suffering.
]>
]>> Your quest reminds me of something I saw in the movie Gandhi. A Hindu
]>> claimed to Gandhi that he could never be forgiven since he had killed
]>> Muslims and orphaned Muslim children . Gandhi's response to the Hindu
]>> was for him to adopt a Muslim child and raise him as a Muslim.
]>>
]>> If your goal is to improve the human condition upon death without
]>> injecting your spiritual nature, then you should try to understand (yes
]>> even live) as an atheist.
]>> What would that mean? I think you will find that the depth of feeling,
]>> the expression of empathy, dreams and aspirations and all the
]>> characteristics you attribute to theists are no different in atheists.
]>
]>The time I spent on a.a in the past was largely for the purpose of
]>learning to understand atheists. I think that I have been able to get
]>past the labels and stereotypes and see the common humanity I share
]>with them. I did eventually learn to see atheists as individuals.
]>
]>However, it took me some time and effort. I'm trying to think of how
]>to communicate this in the short time available to train the
]>volunteers.
One must be able to see 'outside the flock.' Are all theists carbon copies of
each other? Since they are not, there is no reason not to see those outside the
flock as individuals.
The only difference between an atheist and a Christian is a lack of belief
concerning one particular imaginary buddy. The atheist lacks belief in one more
imaginary critter than the theist.
At this point you might bring is Maslov's heirarchy.
]>> If you were to take God out of your life, what would give you meaning?
]>> Maybe good friends and a family to be remembered by? Maybe the
]>> experiences you had and would like to pass down to a loved one. Maybe
]>> the expression of love and caring you wish to share with others. All
]>> of these attributes are no different in the atheist.
]>
]>I wonder if asking these questions would get through to the
]>volunteers. I would not have been able to answer them until fairly
]>recently. When I imagined life without God, I could not see any
]>meaning. It was terrifying and distressing. I became a theist, not so
]>much because I believed God existed, but because of my horror at the
]>thought of God not existing.
Again, *your* emotional reaction to an imaginary and undefined three letter
string. Why the emotional reaction?
What might help is the utilization/substitution of other deity constructs you
lack belief in with the questions. Meaning eliminate the letter string g-o-d
and put in Zeus, for instance. Discuss that and then help the students to
realize that to those outside their religion that *their* particular critter
*is* Zeus.
When I was a theist, my horror and terror was about this monstrocity that not
only knew my every thought but was writing each and every little thing down in a
book and would extract a horrible and eternal retribution after my death rather
than providing bits of assistance along the way.
]>Even now, when I am firmly convinced that atheists can lead good and
]>meaningful lives, I find it extremely difficult to imagine myself
]>living without God.
Which is a lack in you. Do you have any difficulty in imagining yourself living
without Zeus? Ra? Tiamat the Dragon? The Frost Giants?
Once again, I think what would help is to explore items and generate 'credit' to
something else and then explore. This, imo, pulls the emotions out and brings
the intellect to the forefront.
]>I do agree with you on the goal. I want the volunteers to see that
]>they must not assume that atheists have no meaning in their lives.
]>I'm just doubtful that these questions will help them to see that.
Questions can, as long as the emotions are kept out of the equation.
]>> Good luck with your endeavor.
]>
]>Thank you for your good wishes and your help. Your ideas have been
]>thought-provoking and I believe that thinking is a good thing.
]>
]>Jayne
Stoney
stoney
but replace spambait by mmalt) wrote:
]>Andres64 <andres64...@my-deja.com.invalid> writes:
(snip)
]>> I guess what I'm trying to say is that people are people. We all
]>> want to be treated with respect and caring. We all want our
]>> dignity.
]>
]>If I can just get that across in the training, I will consider it a
]>success.
My previous post was on the right track.
Andres's quotes provided more information.
Once again, I'd suggest bringing in Maslov. I'd also bring in the person
getting to know the individual as a person not just "the patient in bed 3."
There could even be a couple paragraph synopsis clipped to the chart to assist.
An item from when I was going through management school in the military. It
dealt with couseling and the rock/hardplace possibilities. Each of us at one
point was the 'counselor' as well as the 'counselee.'
Each person was given a 'scenario' and the 'counselee' was given about 10
minutes to contemplate the situation s/he was in as "Adam/Adrienne Barnes."
I don't recall the scenario from when I was the "couselee", but I do remember I
had the "counselor" in tears because I was able to bring the scenario to life.
Imo, bringing a scenario to 'life' is the key. A sterile exercise is a sterile
exercise and is point-less square filling.
During each item the others in the class are listening to the interchange,
listening, observing techniques, action/reaction, and by-play.
]>Jayne
Stoney
stoney
but replace spambait by mmalt) wrote:
]>cz...@ecn.ab.ca () writes:
]>
]>> Jayne Kulikauskas wrote:
]>>
]>> : Do you think that it is common for atheists to have such a negative
]>> : reaction to the word "spiritual"?
]>>
]>> Depends on the use of the term. I like what you said above:
]>>
]>> : It refers to the human spirit -- to our emotional, aesthetic and
]>> : social apsects.
]>>
]>> That, I can dig. But I admit to getting turned off when the usage
]>> refers to all aspects religious (mainstream or personal) and/or
]>> having to do with invisible boojums like souls and, well, spirits. It
]>> is this latter usage that one finds most prevalent (sp?) in society.
]>
]>Now that I think about it, that probably is the prevalent usage.
]>
]>> : If so, it would be important to let volunteers know that they should
]>> : avoid it when speaking to atheists.
]>>
]>> Yes, by all means have warn volunteers against this "religious" usage!
]>
]>Thanks. This gives me an idea. It might worth while to compile a list
]>of "hot button" words that would tend to have negative connotations
]>for atheists. It's obvious that one wouldn't talk about gods, but
]>there may be more subtle things to watch out for. Any suggestions?
(brainstorming)
Faith, Salvation, Pascal's Wager, Heaven/Hell, their *testimony.*.
]>Jayne
Stoney
Elroy Willis
> Hi,
> I am a theist who has posted here in the past. I dropped out in
> January because I was having trouble making time for this newsgroup.
Yeah, you left without answering all my questions!! :)
Just wanted to say Hi!!
--
Elroy Willis
BAAWA (Undercover News Division)
http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news
Faith is to the human what sand is to the ostrich
Jayne Kulikauskas but replace spambait by mmalt
> Jayne Kulikauskas but replace spambait by mmalt wrote in message
> <00529.072950....@mmalt.guild.org>...
[]
>>Could you make a guess on what proportion
>>of atheists hold these various positions?
>
>
> Not really. Alt.atheism probably has more than its share of
> materialists: such people tend to be more sure of their
> footing and hence more vocal and argumentative.
>
> In Real Life, I meet more vague afterlife believers
> than I see around here, but that isn't very precise.
> Sorry.
It's still helpful. Do you (or anyone else) have ideas about other
ways that a.a atheists tend to differ from atheists in general?
Jayne
Jayne Kulikauskas but replace spambait by mmalt
> Jayne Kulikauskas but replace spambait by mmalt wrote in message
> <00529.083144....@mmalt.guild.org>...
[]
>>The existing training already has a lot of emphasis on listening, but
>>I think it needs work on the accepting that they mean it. I can see
>>this being especially important when dealing with atheists. I've
>>noticed a tendency, both in real life and on the net, for theists to
>>be condescending to atheists. There is a fundamental lack of respect
>>-- an attitude of "I know you better than you know yourself."
>>Somehow, I want the volunteers to get past this.
>
> This is exactly what I was getting at, but I am not sure how to do it.
> I would suggest asking your volunteers to try putting themselves
> in an atheist's shoes, but I am afraid they wouldn't be able, they
> would baulk even at trying.
I think that what we are talking about here is empathy. I'm not sure
to what degree this can be taught. It is a quality we are looking for
in volunteers. Perhaps people who are already good at empathy could
apply it to atheists with only a bit of information and encouragement.
> Perhaps if you asked them to imagine dying in hospice care
> in Japan, and being visited by a follower of Shinto it might
> help. They probably know bugger all about Shinto, but it
> certainly is not a "People of the Book" kind of religion which
> they could map to their own and pretend that its all about the
> same god.
>
> How much cobblers would they be willing to listen to from
> a Shinto priest? How would they feel if he condescended
> to their silly Western beliefs?
[]
Yes, I think we need an exercise something like this.
Jayne
Jayne Kulikauskas but replace spambait by mmalt
[]
> "I have a suggestion here - usually the problem is
> with the use of religious terms such as 'god',
> 'heaven', etc. - phrases like 'god only knows' etc.
> can be quite common in a believer's speech. Due
> to the similarity in the words, it might not be
> hard for them to switch to saying 'goodness' instead
> of 'god'. 'Goodness only knows' is, IMO, much less
> likely to be offensive to anyone."
I just had an ironic thought. This whole concept could be summed up
as "Do not take the name of the Lord in vain." That appeals to my
sense of the incongruous. The advice from atheists is to follow one
of the 10 Commandments.
> "Second suggestion, from my wife (I mentioned this
> thread to her to see if she had any suggestions :) )
> - have you looked at the Army chaplain's handbook?
> The Army tries to train its chaplains to deal with
> various groups when they are hurt or dying ... They've
> almost certainly dealt with these problems, and come
> up with some sort of solutions."
I have been looking at some chaplaincy materials though not that
particular one. However, I especially wanted to hear ideas from a
variety of atheists.
> "My wife is brilliant." :)
I guess you better keep her then. <g>
--
Jayne
Jayne Kulikauskas but replace spambait by mmalt
[]
> I didn't feel knocked. :) God-talk in general doesn't bother me
> either. God-talk-as-if-belief-were-a-foregone-conclusion-for-
> everybody is irritating to me. It would be especially irritating if I
> were confined to a bed in a hospice and couldn't absent myself from
> the source. When someone is very ill, she can control so little of
> her own life. The patient's existence is ruled by doctors and
> schedules for medicines and even the most personal functions require
> the assistance of health care workers. It is difficult enough to
> cope with this loss of control without having to deal with someone's
> careless assumptions seemingly assaulting the last bastion of control,
> that of one's thoughts.
This is a very good point. The idea about the importance of leaving
the clients in control is already taught. I think it might be
effective to show that respect for other's beliefs is an extension of
that.
Jayne
Jayne Kulikauskas but replace spambait by mmalt
> On Fri, 26 May 2000 13:48:10 EST, jay...@spambait.guild.org (Jayne
> Kulikauskas
> but replace spambait by mmalt) wrote:
>
> (coming in a bit late, partial piggy back and comments)
Good to see you, Stoney.
[]
> ]>I think you are right. I suspect it is true for many theists and it is
> ]>certainly true for me that my faith in God is predominantly about
> ]>creating meaning. This is so central to the way I think that it can
> ]>cause an obstacle when I try to empathize with atheists. And, of
> ]>course, empathy is essential in this situation.
>
> "Creating" meaning is generating a fiction the individual needs to
> reduce/eliminate a terror. The Cerebral Cortex is the 'story generator.'
> I would question 'why' a person would need to generate fiction rather than
> tracking down, and coming to terms with, the item(s) that are bothersome.
>
> The above is not (nor is anything in this post) an attack. Perhaps it
> would be helpful to ask each individual theist the question and get
> them to realize the fictional story they generate is a need *they*
> have and to get them to realize that *their* needs are not the needs
> of others.
I can't this working. In the theist's mind it is not a fictional story.
I think that most theists would feel attacked by this approach whether
it is meant as one or not.
> To put it another way the theist is thirsty so they get a drink of
> water. The atheist is not thirsty and has no need to drink and does
> not appreciate those trying to foist off their imaginary canteen.
It might be possible to convey the idea that from an atheist's
perspective theists believe in imaginary beings. I certainly won't
get anywhere telling people that they believe in imaginary beings.
[]
> ]>The time I spent on a.a in the past was largely for the purpose of
> ]>learning to understand atheists. I think that I have been able to get
> ]>past the labels and stereotypes and see the common humanity I share
> ]>with them. I did eventually learn to see atheists as individuals.
> ]>
> ]>However, it took me some time and effort. I'm trying to think of how
> ]>to communicate this in the short time available to train the
> ]>volunteers.
>
> One must be able to see 'outside the flock.' Are all theists carbon
> copies of each other? Since they are not, there is no reason not to
> see those outside the flock as individuals.
Perhaps I could give examples of stereotypes about groups that they
belong to as a way to increase their awareness of the limitations of
stereotypes.
> The only difference between an atheist and a Christian is a lack of
> belief concerning one particular imaginary buddy. The atheist lacks
> belief in one more imaginary critter than the theist.
If I used the word "imaginary" I would lose my audience.
> At this point you might bring is Maslov's heirarchy.
How exactly did you have in mind? I don't see how it applies.
[]
> ]>I wonder if asking these questions would get through to the
> ]>volunteers. I would not have been able to answer them until fairly
> ]>recently. When I imagined life without God, I could not see any
> ]>meaning. It was terrifying and distressing. I became a theist, not so
> ]>much because I believed God existed, but because of my horror at the
> ]>thought of God not existing.
>
> Again, *your* emotional reaction to an imaginary and undefined three letter
> string. Why the emotional reaction?
I think that asking this would make most theists feel threatened.
> What might help is the utilization/substitution of other deity
> constructs you lack belief in with the questions. Meaning eliminate
> the letter string g-o-d and put in Zeus, for instance. Discuss that
> and then help the students to realize that to those outside their
> religion that *their* particular critter *is* Zeus.
This, on the other hand, I think could work. It might give them a feel
for what atheists believe.
> When I was a theist, my horror and terror was about this monstrocity
> that not only knew my every thought but was writing each and every
> little thing down in a book and would extract a horrible and eternal
> retribution after my death rather than providing bits of assistance
> along the way.
I'm afraid that many theists would react to this by saying (or at
least thinking) that you had been taught about God wrong. I suspect
that they would be very tempted to tell you what (in their minds) God
is really like. I don't think it would get an empathy reaction.
> ]>Even now, when I am firmly convinced that atheists can lead good and
> ]>meaningful lives, I find it extremely difficult to imagine myself
> ]>living without God.
>
> Which is a lack in you.
I will grant you that.
> Do you have any difficulty in imagining yourself living without Zeus?
> Ra? Tiamat the Dragon? The Frost Giants? Once again, I think what
> would help is to explore items and generate 'credit' to something
> else and then explore. This, imo, pulls the emotions out and brings
> the intellect to the forefront.
This sounds more like an exercise to lead people to become atheists
than to help them to understand atheists.
> ]>I do agree with you on the goal. I want the volunteers to see that
> ]>they must not assume that atheists have no meaning in their lives.
> ]>I'm just doubtful that these questions will help them to see that.
>
> Questions can, as long as the emotions are kept out of the equation.
No, I want to reach them at an emotional level. They need a gut
understanding of the importance of accepting atheists as is. I don't
want them to rely on intellect.
Anyhow, thanks for all the ideas.
Jayne
Jayne Kulikauskas but replace spambait by mmalt
> Jayne Kulikauskas posted to alt.atheism:
>
>> Hi,
>
>> I am a theist who has posted here in the past. I dropped out in
>> January because I was having trouble making time for this newsgroup.
>
> Yeah, you left without answering all my questions!! :)
I had a great answer to one of them that involved translating the
names of the Greek pantheon and showing their relation to Jungian
archetypes. But you only ask more questions when I answer one. It's
like fighting the Hydra. <g>
> Just wanted to say Hi!!
Hi to you too.
Jayne
Jayne Kulikauskas but replace spambait by mmalt
[]
> An item from when I was going through management school in the military. It
> dealt with couseling and the rock/hardplace possibilities. Each of us at one
> point was the 'counselor' as well as the 'counselee.'
>
> Each person was given a 'scenario' and the 'counselee' was given about 10
> minutes to contemplate the situation s/he was in as "Adam/Adrienne Barnes."
>
> I don't recall the scenario from when I was the "couselee", but I do
> remember I had the "counselor" in tears because I was able to bring
> the scenario to life. Imo, bringing a scenario to 'life' is the key. A
> sterile exercise is a sterile exercise and is point-less square
> filling.
>
> During each item the others in the class are listening to the interchange,
> listening, observing techniques, action/reaction, and by-play.
I see this idea having a lot of potential. Simply the exercise of
role-playing an atheist would help them, but allowing the others
to critique the performance would make it even better.
Thanks.
Jayne
Jayne Kulikauskas but replace spambait by mmalt
> On Sat, 27 May 2000 18:23:02 EST, jay...@spambait.guild.org (Jayne
> Kulikauskas
> but replace spambait by mmalt) wrote:
[]
> ]>Thanks. This gives me an idea. It might worth while to compile a list
> ]>of "hot button" words that would tend to have negative connotations
> ]>for atheists. It's obvious that one wouldn't talk about gods, but
> ]>there may be more subtle things to watch out for. Any suggestions?
>
> (brainstorming)
>
> Faith, Salvation, Pascal's Wager, Heaven/Hell, their *testimony.*.
Ok. I'll keep these in mind. Thanks.
Jayne
Elroy Willis
> e...@airmail.net writes:
>> Jayne Kulikauskas posted to alt.atheism:
>>> Hi,
>>> I am a theist who has posted here in the past. I dropped out in
>>> January because I was having trouble making time for this newsgroup.
>> Yeah, you left without answering all my questions!! :)
> I had a great answer to one of them that involved translating the
> names of the Greek pantheon and showing their relation to Jungian
> archetypes. But you only ask more questions when I answer one. It's
> like fighting the Hydra. <g>
Well, that's one reason my parents quit taking me to church (I think it
was a request from the sunday school teacher). He asks too many
questions!! :)
>> Just wanted to say Hi!!
> Hi to you too.
I won't ask you any more questions. Just wanted to say Hi.
Fish
to alt.atheism:
> Fish <fi...@infidels.org.god> writes:
>
> [Andrew's story]
>
> > I seriously question, Andrew, whether that intern had *your* best
> > interest at heart, or *HIS*:
> >
> >
> > =====================================================================
> > Situational and Dispositional Variables in Helping Behavior
> > (Darley & Batson, 1973)
> >
> >
> > In the parable of the good Samaritan, Jesus described a man who is
> > robbed, beaten, and left for dead at the side of a road. Two
> > "religious" individuals, a priest and a Levite, pass by but do not
> > stop to help. However, a Samaritan, a religious outcast, does (at some
> > cost to himself) give the robbery victim the help he needs. Jesus
> > wanted to make the point that people should model their behavior after
> > the Samaritan, not after "religious" people, who may be so caught up
> > in their thoughts that they don't see the needs of people around them.
>
> [details of study snipped]
>
> > Darley, J. M., & Batson, C. D. (1973) "From Jersualem to Jericho": A
> > study of situational and dispositional variables in helping behavior.
> > Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 27, 100-108.
>
> This was an extremely useful study for me, Fish. Thank you very much.
You're very welcome, Jayne. I personally find psychological studies to
be quite interesting and many times quite revealing (enlightening) as
well.
<snip>
> This is fascinating and I'm going try find this source. In case I
> can't, could you tell me if these dimensions are supposed to be
> mutually exclusive?
Not at all.
> I would describe myself as exhibiting most of the
> characteristics from both the intrinsic and quest columns. Is that
> possible?
Very. The authors state on pages 25-26:
"One criticism of intrinsic religion is that when measured, it is not
distinguishable from simple orthodoxy or religiosity. People for whom
their faith is very significant are likely to agree with the intrinsic
items. Quest religion might offer us a possible means of making this
distinction. Our reading of Allport and Batson suggests that a true
intrinsic orientation could combine a quest perspective with the other
elements now found in measures of intrinsic faith. For example, those
scoring high on intrinsic religion and high on quest may be "true"
intrinsics -- that is, if they also score low on extrinsic religion.
Scoring high on intrinsic religion and low on quest may illustrate a
simplistic religiosity or a narrow orthodoxy. This kind of thinking
might also be used to identify "pure" questers or intrinsics. Initial
work toward this end has been reported, but it used an old and
questionable form of the Quest scale, plus less refined indices of
intrinsic and extrinsic religion than are available today.[113]
Obviously, more research is necessary to access these possibilities."
NOTES
[113] McIntosh and Spilka (1990).
REFERENCES
McIntosh, D. N., & Spilka, B. (1990). Religion and physical health:
The role of personal faith and control beliefs. In M. L. Lynn & D. O.
Moberg (Eds.), *Research in the social scientific study of religion*
(Vol. 2, pp. 167-194). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
> Thank you very, very much for your input.
>
> Jayne
You're very welcome, Jayne.
Since you liked that study so much, perhaps this one might interest
you as well. :)
==================================================================
Religious Prosocial Motivation: Is It Altruistic or Egoistic?
(Batson et al., 1989)
In the first of two studies, participants were told that they could
volunteer to help out a 7-year-old boy with a rare genetic disorder,
but that even if they were willing to help, they would have to pass a
sort of physical fitness qualifying task before they could participate
in a walkathon. Some participants were led to believe that the
qualifying standard was relatively easy; others were told that it was
"extremely stringent." Batson et al. reasoned that when the standard
was described as difficult, it would be easy to volunteer because
there wasn't much chance that a participant would actually have to
follow through with the volunteer commitment. Consistent with their
expectations, the researchers found that an extrinsic orientation was
negatively correlated with volunteering for both the easy and
difficult qualifying standards (r = -.37, on average). Intrinsic
scores, however, did not correlate with volunteering when the standard
was easy, but they were positively correlated (r = .50) when the
standard was difficult. Although other interpretations are possible,
Batson et al. have suggested that this supports their contention that
intrinsically inclined people want to look like helpers, but only if
there is actually just a small chance of their having to carry through
with the assistance.
Quest scores did not correlate with helping in either the easy or
difficult conditions. Furthermore, those who volunteered were actually
asked to proceed with the qualifying task (stepping up and down from a
block for 30 seconds). There was evidence that intrinsically inclined
individuals tried harder in the difficult condition only if they had
not volunteered to help. Quest scores, on the other hand, were
positively related to performance on the qualifying task only for
those who had volunteered to help. Batson et al. have interpreted
these rather complex findings as being consistent with Batson's
earlier research findings. First, intrinsics' motivation for helping
stemmed from a personal need to appear helpful (without actually
having to help), rather than from the needs of others. Second,
questers' motivation for helping was really generated by the needs of
others, since they worked hardest when they thought it would be
difficult to qualify to help.
A second investigation reported in the same article focused on a
different helping context -- an undergraduate who was coping with a
family tragedy and needed help from others to support her siblings.
The pattern of correlations suggested that extrinsics were less likely
to volunteer and questers were more likely to volunteer when there was
little pressure to do so, but intrinsic scores were unrelated to
offering assistance under either high- or low-pressure conditions.
Batson, C. D., Oleson, K. C., Weeks, J. L., Healy, S. P., Reeves, P.
J., Jennings, P., & Brown, T. (1989). Religious prosocial motivation:
Is it altruistic or egoistic? Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 57, 873-884.
---------------
Hood, R., Spilka, B., Hunsberger, B., Gorsuch, R. (1996, p. 358). The
psychology of religion: An empirical approach (second edition), New
York: Guilford.
--
"Fish" (David B. Trout)
Alt.Atheism #623
ICQ# 25302291
fi...@infidels.org.god
(remove "god" to reply by email)
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
"The intelligent man portions his belief to the evidence" -- Hume
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Petteri Sulonen
jay...@spambait.guild.org (Jayne Kulikauskas but replace spambait by
mmalt) wrote:
I think a.a atheists are generally more vocal and "conscious" of their
atheism. I'd be willing to bet that the great majority of atheists in
general are simply not interested in the question -- they just don't think
of religion as something that applies to them (or hardly at all). If
someone defined the terms and asked them, they'd probably say "Yeah, well,
I guess I'm an atheist then" and forget about it. There are plenty of
people like that around, they're just not very noticeable. One of my best
friends is (probably) one: I've known him for over ten years, and we've
talked about just about everything under the sun -- but I still don't know
"what he is" in terms of religion. The subject just doesn't interest him.
He'd rather spend his time writing, reading, playing punk rock, taking
road trips to Indian reservations, or 'chasing trashy women' as he puts
it.
-- Petteri
Gutta cavat lapidem non vi, sed semper cadendo. |a.a #1442. EAC, Cmsr
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Remove spamblock and reply by e-mail, or I may not see your post.
Andrew Lias
Jayne Kulikauskas but replace spambait by mmalt <jay...@spambait.guild.org> wrote:
>Andrew Lias <anrw...@wco.digitus_invictus.com> writes:
>
>> In article <00527.065943....@mmalt.guild.org>,
>> Jayne Kulikauskas but replace spambait by mmalt <jay...@spambait.guild.org>
>> wrote:
>
>> Well, I did see it. I've just been a bit sick. Now that I've got my
>> health back,
>
>I'm glad that you are feeling better now.
You and me, both. :-)
>> let me first point you to a URL from the Song's of the
>> Phoenix site that I wrote on this very subject:
>>
>> http://www.wco.com/~anrwlias/phoenix/c59.htm
>>
>> That's for my "official" thoughts on the subject -- all of which are
>> a perfectly accurate representation of my views.
>
>I don't have web access again. I had it for a while and the first
>thing I did with it was to check out Songs of the Phoenix. It was
>quite inspiring. Anyhow, what I'm trying to say is, could you please
>email your official thoughts to me.
I'll post it at the end of this message, which I will attempt to cc to
you.
>> Now for a personal anecdote.
[...]
>May I have permission to quote all this. I can't think of a better
>way to convey it than to let them hear it in your own words.
Certainly.
>Very much so. Thanks, Andrew.
No problem.
At now for the repost from Phoenix. As a disclaimer, this composition is
directed specifically towards dealing with those suffering from suicidal
depression, but I think that the idea is easily transferrable to general
care.
--- begin ---
As you’ve probably noticed, this collection of poetry isn’t very friendly
to the whole concept of God or to religion in general.
Although I was, and am still, an atheist, I think that my feelings
towards religion, at this point in time, were closer to outright
anti-theism. Although they have substantially mellowed since them
(largely due, ironically enough, to my frequent participation in
talk.atheism), I do think that it is understandable how, during this
period, I could be so hostile to religious belief.
All too often when one is suffering from any sort of emotional difficulty
that leads to despondence and self-destructiveness, well meaning people
are apt to insist that the only real way to achieve mental health and
emotional happiness is through God. Sometimes, such as with Alcoholics
Anonymous, it doesn’t even seem to matter which god you believe in, just
so long as you have one.
This is neither the time nor place do debate the fine points of theology,
but I know, as a matter of fact, that religion is not a prerequisite for
happiness and, even at the lowest ebb of my life, I felt that it would be
a betrayal to all that I believe if I were to simply adopt a religion in
order to get a quick-fix of happiness. Because of this, it really
frustrated me to have to spend any amount of my mental energies fending
off efforts to convert me, particularly when I needed every single ounce
of energy that I had to direct towards my self-healing.
Now, before I get a slew of angry e-mails, I don’t have any objection to
anyone who feels that religion has been of help, or who believes that it
can be of help. If that’s what it takes to let you conquer your personal
demons, then more power to you. All that I ask, and all that I have ever
asked, is that people grant me the same respect in making up my mind on
these matters and I have granted them.
I will say, however, that trying to evangelize someone who is depressed
and emotionally vulnerable is something that is of such a contemptuous
nature that it is scarcely fathomable that any god worthy of the title
would endorse such measures. If you know someone in need of help who
does not want to join your faith, help them first. Once they are back on
their feet and capable of attending to other matters, then would be the
time to present them with an encouragement to join your faith.
--- end ---
Again, I hope this helps.
--
I'm giving the bird to spam; remove the middle finger to reply to me.
*-----------*------------------*-----------------------*------------*
Christian Fundamentalism: The doctrine that there is an absolutely
powerful, infinitely knowledgeable, universe spanning entity that is
deeply and personally concerned about my sex life.
*-----------*------------------*-----------------------*------------*
http://www.wco.com/~anrwlias
Andrew Lias
Fish <fi...@infidels.org.god> wrote:
>Andrew Lias posted the following to alt.atheism:
[Personal anecdote vis-a-vis praying intern]
>I seriously question, Andrew, whether that intern had *your* best
>interest at heart, or *HIS*:
[...]
It's a valid question and you raise reasonable points. All I can say to
that is that I *prefer* to give him the benefit of the doubt. The
alternative is to remain angry at him and that is something that I'd
rather not do any longer.
Greg Gyetko
> Greg Gyetko <ggy...@newbridge.com> writes:
>
> > What you're looking at, for the most part, is a person who wants one of
> > two things: to be left alone to comtemplate his life; or to have
> > someone with him to remember the better parts of his life.
> >
> > I can't speak absolutely for all atheists (obviously), but a part of
> > atheism is accepting that death is the end. The vast majority of
> > atheists, by the time they grow old, or by the time they've suffered
> > under debilitating diseases, have come to terms with the event of
> > death. Making life more comfortable, at this point, is merely a matter
> > of keeping pain to a minimum and having people around to remember the
> > accomplishments of one's life.
> >
> > Stress to the people that will deliver this care to atheists that this
> > is the most probably desire of an atheist. We are not open slates
> > waiting for a religion to be written upon us. We do not desire to "turn
> > back to god". We want a peaceful end to our existences as we remember
> > the lives that we have lived.
>
> You have explained this really well. Do you have any suggestions on
> how to present these ideas during training? Simply stating ideas is
> not as effective for learning as giving an exercise where people have
> to figure it out for themselves.
I would suggest, as others have mentioned, that you give the care-givers the
following scenario:
"You have a strong belief in god and the christian religion. Two years ago,
you found yourself to have cancer. Despite your prayers and the best medical
science can do, you realize that your life will soon end. You have accepted
this fact and now wish to end your life praying, speaking with those who
meant the most to you, and remembering your life fondly.
Now imagine that as you are doing so, a person of another religion - perhaps
Jehovah's witness or muslim, whatever - is given the task of taking care of
you. Suppose this person tells you that you are going to hell because you
believe the wrong religion. Or suppose that this person treats you with the
assumption that you've just "turned from Allah" and need to turn back to
him. Would this upset you? Imagine how your relaxation and acceptance of
death would be spoiled by such an attitude - even if the care-giver's
arguments are meaningless and unconvincing to you.
This is how an atheist will feel if you preach to him."
In a sense, this will cause your palliative care-givers to treat atheism as a
religion, a concept which I would normally approach with fangs bared. In
this case, however, I think the attitude of "don't disturb another's
'religion'" or philosophy of life, is a valid teaching instrument.
My 2 cents, hope it's useful.
Greg.
--
alt.atheism atheist #911, BAAWA Knight
"I'd worship Satan, but I'm going to hell anyway,
so why bother?."
EAC Homepage: http://eac.home.dhs.org
Greg Gyetko
> jay...@spambait.guild.org (Jayne Kulikauskas but replace spambait by mmalt)
> wrote:
>
> =It's still helpful. Do you (or anyone else) have ideas about other
> =ways that a.a atheists tend to differ from atheists in general?
>
> We tend to be more argumentative :-)
No we don't.
Jeffrey A. Young
>On Sun, 28 May 2000 10:23:33 GMT, drsin...@my-deja.com (Dr Sinister)
>wrote:
>
>Be aware of the fact that Sinister does not like a dialog.
Poisoning the Well. Fallacy.
Ad Hominem. Fallacy.
>He always argues both sides of a question from his own perspective.
Poisoning the Well. Fallacy.
False Generalization. Fallacy.
Ad Hominem. Fallacy.
>He likes to strawman a discussion by putting idiotic words in other
>people's mouths.
Poisoning the Well. Fallacy.
Strawman. Fallacy.
Ad Hominem. Fallacy.
>No matter what he says, later he makes it look like
>you agreed with his strawmen.
Etc.
Jeff
"There are no *real* mathematical entities. Period.
Is that clear enough for you?"
-- Michael Moore, nonexistent alt.atheist idiot #1446
isa...@my-deja.com
Your welcome
I think the profession of pallitive care is amoungst the most empathetic
endeavors that humans can participate in. Therefore I wish you...uh..
.uh...Godspeed (jeez, you don't know how much that hurt).
You need to be supportive of the dying person WHILE coming to terms with
your own eventual demise. How one wishes to cope with this
inevitability (be it religious or mythical) is their own business. The
difficulty I have is when theists try to make it my business.
Not to scare you more but at one time I couldn't envision a life without
god either, now I find it liberating and thought provoking, which is
like you said a good thing.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Tukla Ratte
replace spambait by mmalt wrote:
> tukla...@yahoo.com (Tukla Ratte) writes:
>
> > On Thu, 25 May 2000 20:27:10 EST, in alt.atheism, Jayne Kulikauskas but
> > replace spambait by mmalt wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I am a theist who has posted here in the past. I dropped out in
> >> January because I was having trouble making time for this newsgroup.
> >> I still don't have time, but now I need your help. (It is ok to help
> >> me because Tukla marked me as a friendly. Hi Tukla <scratches
> >> behind ears>
> >
> > <purr purr purr>
> >
> >>Better sniff me and see if it has worn off.)
> >
> > Later. Keep scritching. Ooo. <purr purr>
> >
> > Hi, Jayne!
>
> <more scratching behind ears>
> I missed you, you big furry monster. Hey, are those new bat wings?
<extends wings to full span, knocking over a chair> Yeah, you like 'em?
Wanna go for a ride later?
--
Tukla, Eater of Theists, Squeaker of Chew Toys
Director, EAC Animoid Shocktroop Division
Defender of the Honor of She Who Leads the EAC
atheist #1347, Official Mascot of Alt.Atheism
BAAWA Knight, Bat-Winged Calico Angora Punk Rat
Tukla's Net: http://www.tukla.net/
Tukla Ratte
> Mike Smith wrote:
>
> > jay...@spambait.guild.org (Jayne Kulikauskas but replace spambait by mmalt)
> > wrote:
> >
> > =It's still helpful. Do you (or anyone else) have ideas about other
> > =ways that a.a atheists tend to differ from atheists in general?
> >
> > We tend to be more argumentative :-)
>
> No we don't.
Yes we do!
Elroy Willis
> Jayne Kulikauskas wrote:
>> <more scratching behind ears>
>> I missed you, you big furry monster. Hey, are those new bat wings?
> <extends wings to full span, knocking over a chair> Yeah, you like 'em?
> Wanna go for a ride later?
Make sure to wear a helmet, Jayne!! Tukla smashed my head into a bunch
of ceilings and stuff last time he took me for a ride!
stoney
but replace spambait by mmalt) wrote:
]>stoney <sto...@stoneynet.net> writes:
]>
]>> On Fri, 26 May 2000 13:48:10 EST, jay...@spambait.guild.org (Jayne
]>> Kulikauskas
]>> but replace spambait by mmalt) wrote:
]>>
]>> (coming in a bit late, partial piggy back and comments)
]>
]>Good to see you, Stoney.
And you as well, Jayne. I hope things are going well for you.
]>[]
]>> ]>I think you are right. I suspect it is true for many theists and it is
]>> ]>certainly true for me that my faith in God is predominantly about
]>> ]>creating meaning. This is so central to the way I think that it can
]>> ]>cause an obstacle when I try to empathize with atheists. And, of
]>> ]>course, empathy is essential in this situation.
]>>
]>> "Creating" meaning is generating a fiction the individual needs to
]>> reduce/eliminate a terror. The Cerebral Cortex is the 'story generator.'
]>> I would question 'why' a person would need to generate fiction rather than
]>> tracking down, and coming to terms with, the item(s) that are bothersome.
]>>
]>> The above is not (nor is anything in this post) an attack. Perhaps it
]>> would be helpful to ask each individual theist the question and get
]>> them to realize the fictional story they generate is a need *they*
]>> have and to get them to realize that *their* needs are not the needs
]>> of others.
]>
]>I can't this working. In the theist's mind it is not a fictional story.
]>I think that most theists would feel attacked by this approach whether
]>it is meant as one or not.
]>
]>> To put it another way the theist is thirsty so they get a drink of
]>> water. The atheist is not thirsty and has no need to drink and does
]>> not appreciate those trying to foist off their imaginary canteen.
]>
]>It might be possible to convey the idea that from an atheist's
]>perspective theists believe in imaginary beings. I certainly won't
]>get anywhere telling people that they believe in imaginary beings.
Certainly. Keep in mind they are working at learning of the persons perspective
they are trying to help. You understood the point and that's the whole point to
the response. (big grin)
]>[]
]>> ]>The time I spent on a.a in the past was largely for the purpose of
]>> ]>learning to understand atheists. I think that I have been able to get
]>> ]>past the labels and stereotypes and see the common humanity I share
]>> ]>with them. I did eventually learn to see atheists as individuals.
]>> ]>
]>> ]>However, it took me some time and effort. I'm trying to think of how
]>> ]>to communicate this in the short time available to train the
]>> ]>volunteers.
]>>
]>> One must be able to see 'outside the flock.' Are all theists carbon
]>> copies of each other? Since they are not, there is no reason not to
]>> see those outside the flock as individuals.
]>
]>Perhaps I could give examples of stereotypes about groups that they
]>belong to as a way to increase their awareness of the limitations of
]>stereotypes.
Yes.
]>> The only difference between an atheist and a Christian is a lack of
]>> belief concerning one particular imaginary buddy. The atheist lacks
]>> belief in one more imaginary critter than the theist.
]>
]>If I used the word "imaginary" I would lose my audience.
The only reason I used the various 'trigger's like imaginary and the like is for
emphasis so, hopefully, the point being made would be seen easier. (which
worked) Rephrase it however you like. The point is for them to be able to
understand the difference.
]>> At this point you might bring is Maslov's heirarchy.
]>
]>How exactly did you have in mind? I don't see how it applies.
As I recall Maslov's studies brought to light the factors common to all humans.
I don't have my old textbook available so I can't post the levels. (First most
imporant thing-when this is satisfied then the next level comes into play, etc.)
This is the 'common ground' all people have and a base can be built from it.
]>[]
]>> ]>I wonder if asking these questions would get through to the
]>> ]>volunteers. I would not have been able to answer them until fairly
]>> ]>recently. When I imagined life without God, I could not see any
]>> ]>meaning. It was terrifying and distressing. I became a theist, not so
]>> ]>much because I believed God existed, but because of my horror at the
]>> ]>thought of God not existing.
]>>
]>> Again, *your* emotional reaction to an imaginary and undefined three letter
]>> string. Why the emotional reaction?
]>
]>I think that asking this would make most theists feel threatened.
Again, the point was to illustrate atheists lack the emotional tug theists have.
Atheists, if they want life to have a *meaning*, assign and change said
*meaning* as they wish. Such is something the theist volunteers need to
understand.
]>> What might help is the utilization/substitution of other deity
]>> constructs you lack belief in with the questions. Meaning eliminate
]>> the letter string g-o-d and put in Zeus, for instance. Discuss that
]>> and then help the students to realize that to those outside their
]>> religion that *their* particular critter *is* Zeus.
]>
]>This, on the other hand, I think could work. It might give them a feel
]>for what atheists believe.
Not *believe*. It's a lack of belief. There is a vast difference they must
understand or their effectiveness, via what you are trying to do, will be nil.
My question is how will you be able to transmit an understanding you lack to the
students?
]>> When I was a theist, my horror and terror was about this monstrocity
]>> that not only knew my every thought but was writing each and every
]>> little thing down in a book and would extract a horrible and eternal
]>> retribution after my death rather than providing bits of assistance
]>> along the way.
]>
]>I'm afraid that many theists would react to this by saying (or at
]>least thinking) that you had been taught about God wrong. I suspect
]>that they would be very tempted to tell you what (in their minds) God
]>is really like. I don't think it would get an empathy reaction.
No. Here I was telling you a little about me. Others have indicated the same
feeling. Just providing a little information.
]>> ]>Even now, when I am firmly convinced that atheists can lead good and
]>> ]>meaningful lives, I find it extremely difficult to imagine myself
]>> ]>living without God.
]>>
]>> Which is a lack in you.
]>
]>I will grant you that.
You misunderstand. It's another point the theist volunteers must understand in
order to be effective.
]>> Do you have any difficulty in imagining yourself living without Zeus?
]>> Ra? Tiamat the Dragon? The Frost Giants? Once again, I think what
]>> would help is to explore items and generate 'credit' to something
]>> else and then explore. This, imo, pulls the emotions out and brings
]>> the intellect to the forefront.
]>
]>This sounds more like an exercise to lead people to become atheists
]>than to help them to understand atheists.
Not at all. Once again I'll remind you of this requoted from above:
]>> What might help is the utilization/substitution of other deity
]>> constructs you lack belief in with the questions. Meaning eliminate
]>> the letter string g-o-d and put in Zeus, for instance. Discuss that
]>> and then help the students to realize that to those outside their
]>> religion that *their* particular critter *is* Zeus.
]>
]>This, on the other hand, I think could work. It might give them a feel
]>for what atheists believe.
/end quote
The same item applies here, as was intended throughout the post. It is not a
conversion routine, but a method to understand the atheist mindset in order to
be effective. It is to enable the volunteer to best help the individual. I'll
remind you about another posters anger at the care worker when they were
recovering.
]>> ]>I do agree with you on the goal. I want the volunteers to see that
]>> ]>they must not assume that atheists have no meaning in their lives.
]>> ]>I'm just doubtful that these questions will help them to see that.
]>>
]>> Questions can, as long as the emotions are kept out of the equation.
]>
]>No, I want to reach them at an emotional level. They need a gut
]>understanding of the importance of accepting atheists as is. I don't
]>want them to rely on intellect.
They will, but one must bring in the intellect and reduce the emotions *first*
otherwise the point(s) your are trying to get them to understand will be missed.
You reduce the emotions and let the intellect rise to dominance first.
Intellectual exercise or thought experiment, if you will.
You see, even you reacted emotionally and rejected various points "as
conversion" attempts and accepted the same points when phrased differently. The
same reaction will be generated by the students if you don't first put things in
a purely intellectual, non-emotional, mode/method for them to grasp things.
Utilizing Zeus, Ra, etc., is one way of doing that.
]>Anyhow, thanks for all the ideas.
You're quite welcome. :) It's quite difficult to deal with such a complex
project via such a limited medium as this.
]>Jayne
Stoney
stoney
but replace spambait by mmalt) wrote:
]>stoney <sto...@stoneynet.net> writes:
]>
]>[]
]>> An item from when I was going through management school in the military. It
But first they have to have the intellectual understanding as I was trying to
illustrate in my prior post.
]>Thanks.
You're very welcome.
]>Jayne
Stoney
stoney
but replace spambait by mmalt) wrote:
]>"Niall McAuley" <Niall....@eei.ericsson.es.invalid> writes:
]>
]>> Jayne Kulikauskas but replace spambait by mmalt wrote in message
]>> <00529.072950....@mmalt.guild.org>...
]>
]>[]
]>>>Could you make a guess on what proportion
]>>>of atheists hold these various positions?
]>>
]>>
]>> Not really. Alt.atheism probably has more than its share of
]>> materialists: such people tend to be more sure of their
]>> footing and hence more vocal and argumentative.
]>>
]>> In Real Life, I meet more vague afterlife believers
]>> than I see around here, but that isn't very precise.
]>> Sorry.
]>
]>It's still helpful. Do you (or anyone else) have ideas about other
]>ways that a.a atheists tend to differ from atheists in general?
No idea since atheism is a lack of belief in god(s)/goddess(es) the topic
doesn't come up much. I have no reason to discuss skiing either, since I don't
ski either.
]>Jayne
Stoney
stoney
but replace spambait by mmalt) wrote:
]>"Niall McAuley" <Niall....@eei.ericsson.es.invalid> writes:
]>
]>> Jayne Kulikauskas but replace spambait by mmalt wrote in message
]>> <00525.202710....@mmalt.guild.org>...
]>>>Hi,
]>>
]>> Hello again, Jayne.
]>
]>Hi, Niall. Thanks for helping out.
]>
]>> [among a lot of snippage]
]>>>The majority of clients at my agency have AIDS. The next most common
]>>>illness is cancer.
]>> [snip]
]>>>One of my projects is to design a training program for volunteers to
]>>>help prepare them to meet the spiritual needs of clients.
]>>
]>> I would be happy to have any of your volunteers visit my death-bed
]>> if they could follow one simple rule: listen to what I say, and accept
]>> that I mean it.
]>
]>The existing training already has a lot of emphasis on listening, but
]>I think it needs work on the accepting that they mean it. I can see
]>this being especially important when dealing with atheists. I've
]>noticed a tendency, both in real life and on the net, for theists to
]>be condescending to atheists. There is a fundamental lack of respect
]>-- an attitude of "I know you better than you know yourself."
]>Somehow, I want the volunteers to get past this.
Which means they have to understand the difference. If they don't then their
effectiveness will be vastly diminished.
]>> You needn't worry about hitting hot-buttons, causing unintended
]>> offense by mentioning God, religion, magic underwear or whatever,
]>> as long as you cut it out if I ask you to, and believe me if I tell you
]>> that I don't want to discuss it.
]>
]>The volunteers need to follow the cues from the clients. Obviously,
]>each one is an individual. Still, I think it is helpful to know about
]>things to watch out for. If the volunteers go in knowing that certain
]>phrases are sometimes offensive to atheists, then they will be more
]>sensitive to the cues of the particular individual
]>
]>> If I was in the mood, I might be quite happy to discuss such
]>> matters with a religious volunteer, as long as I thought they
]>> would stop if I ask them to.
]>>
]>> Prayers and even moderate amounts of holy water do not actually
]>> hurt, and I might be in the humour to let the religious people
]>> think they are helping. They do often mean well.
]>
]>I think that when people are very sick they sometimes lose the sense
]>of perspective they would need to take that approach. You are an
]>especially mature person and able to tolerate clumsy but well-meaning
]>attempts to help. However, I do not want to ask that of our clients.
Indeed, all their energy is wrapped up in just surviving there is nothing left
to deal with anything else.
]>Jayne
Stoney
stoney
but replace spambait by mmalt) wrote:
Don't forget the lack-of-beliefs that others have. There is a vast difference
there that has to be understood. Bald is not a hair colour.
]>Jayne
Stoney
Rick Gillespie
Niall McAuley <Niall....@eei.ericsson.es.invalid> wrote:
>Jayne Kulikauskas but replace spambait by mmalt wrote in message
><00528.181435....@mmalt.guild.org>...
>>Is lack of belief in an afterlife directly implied by lack of belief
>>in gods or is something that just usually accompanies it?
>
>Someone who is an atheist because they are a materialist,
>empiricist, rationalist or the like will not believe in afterlives
>either.
IIRC, the BAAWA founder believed in an afterlife. But at my age
I don't always RC :-)
Rick Gillespie
Niall McAuley
news:8h1d54$118$1...@fcnews.fc.hp.com...
I remember it as a fond hope, an admittedly
irrational but inextinguishable fanciful dream,
but as you say, it's not today nor yesterday that
Tony wrote of this.
I get ideas like that too. I often imagine that cats are
not really cleverer than humans, despite the evidence.
--
Niall #36 [real address ends in net, not ten.invalid]
Niall McAuley
news:wQM0OVdW2+nzqC...@4ax.com...
> I have no reason to discuss skiing either, since I don't
> ski either.
Excellent hang over cure, skiing. Only thing close is surfing
in the Atlantic, which is a bit easier for me since the ocean
comes right to the coast, whereas the Alps are a bit of a
distance away.
Natalie Overstreet Ramsey
:> On Sat, 27 May 2000 18:23:02 EST, jay...@spambait.guild.org (Jayne
:> Kulikauskas
:> but replace spambait by mmalt) wrote:
: []
:> ]>Thanks. This gives me an idea. It might worth while to compile a list
:> ]>of "hot button" words that would tend to have negative connotations
:> ]>for atheists. It's obvious that one wouldn't talk about gods, but
:> ]>there may be more subtle things to watch out for. Any suggestions?
Faith, as Stoney mentioned, would be a big one, but I suspect
that, in the context of dying, statements like "There's a purpose
to all things" would drive me simply batty.
There are damned few one-size-fits-all solutions for atheists, of course,
as you're well aware from your time here. However, I might suggest
counseling your volunteers to stay away from platitudes. The sort
of platitudes that get offered up in the US (and in Canada, I assume,
though one can never tell ;-) when someone is dying often rest on
an unspoken assumption of Christianity, regardless of the actual
wording.
To explore the broader question of how to provide for the spiritual
needs of atheists and agnostics, I suspect that there are plenty of
each who would be irritated by even the most well-meaning volunteer
who wanted to "help with your spiritual needs" -- many of us tend
to have a knee-jerk reaction and feel on some level that we're going
to end up in a confrontation, which is stressful to say the least.
Perhaps it would be better to help with their emotional or psychological
needs? (I hasten to add, of course, that there are plenty of
atheists and agnostics who don't mind the s-word, for example the
late Carl Sagan.)
Natalie
--
Natalie Overstreet Ramsey ----------------------- <nat...@cos.agilent.com>
Please cc all responses via email * I am not speaking for Agilent Technologies.
Liz
alt.atheism wrote:
>On Mon, 29 May 2000 19:05:05 EST, jay...@spambait.guild.org (Jayne Kulikauskas
>but replace spambait by mmalt) wrote:
>
>]>stoney <sto...@stoneynet.net> writes:
>]>
>]>> On Fri, 26 May 2000 13:48:10 EST, jay...@spambait.guild.org (Jayne
>]>> Kulikauskas
>]>> but replace spambait by mmalt) wrote:
>]>>
[-----]
>]>> "Creating" meaning is generating a fiction the individual needs to
>]>> reduce/eliminate a terror. The Cerebral Cortex is the 'story generator.'
>]>> I would question 'why' a person would need to generate fiction rather than
>]>> tracking down, and coming to terms with, the item(s) that are bothersome.
>]>>
>]>> The above is not (nor is anything in this post) an attack. Perhaps it
>]>> would be helpful to ask each individual theist the question and get
>]>> them to realize the fictional story they generate is a need *they*
>]>> have and to get them to realize that *their* needs are not the needs
>]>> of others.
>]>
>]>I can't this working. In the theist's mind it is not a fictional story.
>]>I think that most theists would feel attacked by this approach whether
>]>it is meant as one or not.
[-----]
>]>It might be possible to convey the idea that from an atheist's
>]>perspective theists believe in imaginary beings. I certainly won't
>]>get anywhere telling people that they believe in imaginary beings.
>
>Certainly. Keep in mind they are working at learning of the persons perspective
>they are trying to help. You understood the point and that's the whole point to
>the response. (big grin)
Snip nice bit of role-playing. Impressive, stoney. :) Wow. Push
those "hot" buttons.
Überwench #658
Dame Liz the Undaunted BAAWA
Liz
Overstreet Ramsey) in alt.atheism wrote:
>Piggybacking...
>
>:> On Sat, 27 May 2000 18:23:02 EST, jay...@spambait.guild.org (Jayne
>:> Kulikauskas
>:> but replace spambait by mmalt) wrote:
>
>: []
>:> ]>Thanks. This gives me an idea. It might worth while to compile a list
>:> ]>of "hot button" words that would tend to have negative connotations
>:> ]>for atheists. It's obvious that one wouldn't talk about gods, but
>:> ]>there may be more subtle things to watch out for. Any suggestions?
>
>Faith, as Stoney mentioned, would be a big one, but I suspect
>that, in the context of dying, statements like "There's a purpose
>to all things" would drive me simply batty.
If anyone said that to me, I would sit up in my deathbed and, as my
final act, choke the person with my IV cord and say, "Purpose that!"
But that's just me.
Liz #658 BAAWA
Many...freely confess that they believe what it makes them
feel good to believe. Evidence doesn't play much of a role.
They are alleviating their fear of randomness by identifying
regularities that are not there. - Murray Gell-Mann
Fish
> In article <MPG.139c098d9...@news.earthlink.net>,
> Fish <fi...@infidels.org.god> wrote:
> >Andrew Lias posted the following to alt.atheism:
>
> [Personal anecdote vis-a-vis praying intern]
>
> >I seriously question, Andrew, whether that intern had *your* best
> >interest at heart, or *HIS*:
> [...]
>
> It's a valid question and you raise reasonable points. All I can say to
> that is that I *prefer* to give him the benefit of the doubt. The
> alternative is to remain angry at him and that is something that I'd
> rather not do any longer.
Understood. Not all religious people behave like that afterall.
Nevertheless, I thought the study was quite revealing and given your
experience quite pertinent as well.
--
"Fish" (David B. Trout)
Alt.Atheism #623
ICQ# 25302291
fi...@infidels.org.god
(remove "god" to reply by email)
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
"When a clear head leads the way,
a warm heart can safely follow."
-- Marilyn Vos Savant
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Panama Floyd
>mmalt)
>Date: 5/29/00 6:01 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <00529.170115....@mmalt.guild.org>
>
>ech...@donotspam.com (Liz) writes:
>
>[]
>> I didn't feel knocked. :) God-talk in general doesn't bother me
>> either. God-talk-as-if-belief-were-a-foregone-conclusion-for-
>> everybody is irritating to me. It would be especially irritating if I
>> were confined to a bed in a hospice and couldn't absent myself from
>> the source. When someone is very ill, she can control so little of
>> her own life. The patient's existence is ruled by doctors and
>> schedules for medicines and even the most personal functions require
>> the assistance of health care workers. It is difficult enough to
>> cope with this loss of control without having to deal with someone's
>> careless assumptions seemingly assaulting the last bastion of control,
>> that of one's thoughts.
I think I can comprehend what Liz is saying here...my only two life experiences
that give me enough "data" to even *start* to imagine my own death is my dad's
death (where the health care workers kept mentioning "going to a better place",
in the two weeks I slept in the ICU waiting room as he came closer to death..I
cannot describe my anger verbally, but should mention it *may* be the reason I
do not seek medical help for myself unless it's an emergency-so says my
"shrink"), and the week I spent in a hospital when I was first diagnosed with
asthma. I'd ignored the earlier symptoms, and had also contracted
phenumonia..lungs about 1/8th full (I was there for a little longer than a
week, with an IV, and albuterol treatments every 4hr).
The folks there enjoyed my company, and would often talk about "praying" for
me, etc. I was using every bit of strength (strength that could have been
applied to my own efforts fighting the disease!) to be polite to them, since
they "meant well".
Being awakened in the middle of the night was a different story.
The overnight shift nurse assigned to my room was an agnostic...and it was
probably the main reason I didn't become an "unreasonable patient" at 4am. I
was (physically) sick, and (mentally) tired. One "bless ya" or "I'm prayin' "
from her, and I'd have ripped the IV out, and cursed them all as I attempted to
leave the place. The other reason was that the first time she woke me up, I
ranted about having to expend effort upon ignoring the the theistic behavior of
the "day shift" (IIRC, "..so, medicine *still* works better than Jesus, eh? I
can wake up for *that*..." was what I said. I was miserable, to the point of no
longer caring about what other people would think..and I knew that I was
nowhere near death. If I knew my life was ending, I would have "cracked" much
sooner). She listened, and agreed with half of what I said. You're on the right
path with encouraging listening without judging. It was just "dumb luck" for me
that the lady entrusted with my care held similar views to my own. If you can
find a way to eliminate the "luck" factor, I'll once again thank you.
>
>This is a very good point. The idea about the importance of leaving
>the clients in control is already taught. I think it might be
>effective to show that respect for other's beliefs is an extension of
>that.
Jayne, this post is in no way indended as a flame, insult, etc. I hope you will
see it as an example of the problems your volunteers will face (provided your
good work is being done in the US, of course..in any other "western" country,
this might not be an issue at all, since your volunteers would share the lack
of theism of their patients).
The examples I've provided above would seem to show how difficult your task is,
since trained *professional* health workers committed the errors & solutions
suggested at within my examples. To find a way to help any volunteer do better
work than a professional must be a monumental task!
You have not only my respect, but my admiration for even attempting such a
thing.
But please recall...you just *did* it...again:
> I think it might be
>effective to show that respect for other's beliefs is an extension of
>that.
Was it Liz that mentioned how easy it is to utter a phrase without even knowing
you've said it? I realize that you are not at work now (at least, I hope not,
anyway! <g>), and would never have uttered the phrase (which implies atheism is
a "belief") to a patient...but the thing flew from your fingers even before you
realized it. In this environment, with both of us healthy, and respecting
others' way of living & speaking, I would let the "belief" phrase pass without
comment. Hey....folks say "bless you" every day, when I sneeze. They mean well,
even if the words themselves are not what I care to hear.
But....If I knew I was near to the end of my life (a life filled with defending
my very existence against people who, IMO see existence as less valuable than
some sort of ersatz "afterlife"), I'd probably have become a raging monster
upon hearing it.
I'd just be tired of hearing about that stuff, Jayne...I already am, it's just
that since I'm still healthy, I can control myself. If I was sick, I don't know
if I could or not.
I am guilty of the same behavior..while stressed about the failure of my
equipment at work last week, I uttered "god damn!". I grew up in an xian home,
and used a term common when things went wrong within it. When you're under
stress, you fall back upon your basic programming. Unfortunately, my basic
programming contains the virus of Southern Baptist influence. Folks down here
have been saying "god damn" when they're angry for ages.
I hope this example will provide yet another example of how the atheist
feels....when you say "regardless of belief", I can discard it. You were
mad/tired/etc., and didn't mean it...I won't spout semantics at you for
uttering the phrase.
When I said "god damn" at work, however, 5 people turned around and said "..oh,
see...you *do* believe in god!, instead of working to fix what was going wrong.
Their desire to see another human accept the thing that I see as a fairy tale
was greater than their desire to solve the problem.
After a lifetime of living with *that* kind of reaction from the theists I live
among, I'll probably be a real bastard when I'm in a hospital/hospice, dying.
I've got nothing left to lose, and everything to gain by insulting folks who
are theistic.
That is the mountain you must climb, if you wish your hospice to provide
comfort to the dying atheist.
I thank you, and respect you for attempting it. If you are successful...please
tell me. It would be a comfortable place for me to die.
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta
aa# maybe soon...
EAC Reclamation Committee Chair (..Soylent Green is people!!...)
"The altar cloth of one aeon is the doormat of the next."
-Mark Twain, Notebook, 1898
I'm the EAC, and I vote!!
stoney
]>On Tue, 30 May 2000 10:54:23 -0700, stoney <sto...@stoneynet.net> in
]>alt.atheism wrote:
]>
]>>On Mon, 29 May 2000 19:05:05 EST, jay...@spambait.guild.org (Jayne
Kulikauskas
]>>but replace spambait by mmalt) wrote:
]>>
]>>]>stoney <sto...@stoneynet.net> writes:
]>>]>
]>>]>> On Fri, 26 May 2000 13:48:10 EST, jay...@spambait.guild.org (Jayne
]>>]>> Kulikauskas
]>>]>> but replace spambait by mmalt) wrote:
]>>]>>
]>[-----]
]>>]>> "Creating" meaning is generating a fiction the individual needs to
]>>]>> reduce/eliminate a terror. The Cerebral Cortex is the 'story generator.'
]>>]>> I would question 'why' a person would need to generate fiction rather
than
]>>]>> tracking down, and coming to terms with, the item(s) that are bothersome.
]>>]>>
]>>]>> The above is not (nor is anything in this post) an attack. Perhaps it
]>>]>> would be helpful to ask each individual theist the question and get
]>>]>> them to realize the fictional story they generate is a need *they*
]>>]>> have and to get them to realize that *their* needs are not the needs
]>>]>> of others.
]>>]>
]>>]>I can't this working. In the theist's mind it is not a fictional story.
]>>]>I think that most theists would feel attacked by this approach whether
]>>]>it is meant as one or not.
]>
]>[-----]
]>>]>It might be possible to convey the idea that from an atheist's
]>>]>perspective theists believe in imaginary beings. I certainly won't
]>>]>get anywhere telling people that they believe in imaginary beings.
]>>
]>>Certainly. Keep in mind they are working at learning of the persons
perspective
]>>they are trying to help. You understood the point and that's the whole point
to
]>>the response. (big grin)
]>
]>Snip nice bit of role-playing. Impressive, stoney. :) Wow. Push
]>those "hot" buttons.
(blushing) This is the stuff I like, trying to help someone crack a problem.
Stoney
stoney
<gnmc...@eircom.ten.invalid> wrote:
]>stoney <sto...@stoneynet.net> wrote in message
]>news:wQM0OVdW2+nzqC...@4ax.com...
]>> I have no reason to discuss skiing either, since I don't
]>> ski either.
]>
]>Excellent hang over cure, skiing. Only thing close is surfing
]>in the Atlantic, which is a bit easier for me since the ocean
]>comes right to the coast, whereas the Alps are a bit of a
]>distance away.
That may be, but vertigo and skiing don't go together.
There are times where it's all I can do to just walk.
As for hangovers...the night before take a couple of B-6 and B-12 vitamins along
with two multi's. Alcohol does a genocidal operation on the B-6 and B-12's in
the body.
Stoney
stoney
]>Piggybacking...
]>
]>:> On Sat, 27 May 2000 18:23:02 EST, jay...@spambait.guild.org (Jayne
]>:> Kulikauskas
]>:> but replace spambait by mmalt) wrote:
]>
]>: []
]>:> ]>Thanks. This gives me an idea. It might worth while to compile a list
]>:> ]>of "hot button" words that would tend to have negative connotations
]>:> ]>for atheists. It's obvious that one wouldn't talk about gods, but
]>:> ]>there may be more subtle things to watch out for. Any suggestions?
]>
]>Faith, as Stoney mentioned, would be a big one, but I suspect
]>that, in the context of dying, statements like "There's a purpose
]>to all things" would drive me simply batty.
I'd probably come unglued with rage, if I had the strength.
]>There are damned few one-size-fits-all solutions for atheists, of course,
]>as you're well aware from your time here. However, I might suggest
]>counseling your volunteers to stay away from platitudes. The sort
]>of platitudes that get offered up in the US (and in Canada, I assume,
]>though one can never tell ;-) when someone is dying often rest on
]>an unspoken assumption of Christianity, regardless of the actual
]>wording.
Indeed.
]>To explore the broader question of how to provide for the spiritual
]>needs of atheists and agnostics, I suspect that there are plenty of
]>each who would be irritated by even the most well-meaning volunteer
]>who wanted to "help with your spiritual needs" -- many of us tend
]>to have a knee-jerk reaction and feel on some level that we're going
]>to end up in a confrontation, which is stressful to say the least.
]>Perhaps it would be better to help with their emotional or psychological
]>needs? (I hasten to add, of course, that there are plenty of
]>atheists and agnostics who don't mind the s-word, for example the
]>late Carl Sagan.)
Yes, but, I think, in those cases the term 'spirituality' is stripped of the
Christian hijacking.
]>Natalie
Stoney
stoney
]>On 30 May 2000 16:38:12 GMT, nat...@cos.agilent.com (Natalie
]>Overstreet Ramsey) in alt.atheism wrote:
]>
]>>Piggybacking...
]>>
]>>:> On Sat, 27 May 2000 18:23:02 EST, jay...@spambait.guild.org (Jayne
]>>:> Kulikauskas
]>>:> but replace spambait by mmalt) wrote:
]>>
]>>: []
]>>:> ]>Thanks. This gives me an idea. It might worth while to compile a list
]>>:> ]>of "hot button" words that would tend to have negative connotations
]>>:> ]>for atheists. It's obvious that one wouldn't talk about gods, but
]>>:> ]>there may be more subtle things to watch out for. Any suggestions?
]>>
]>>Faith, as Stoney mentioned, would be a big one, but I suspect
]>>that, in the context of dying, statements like "There's a purpose
]>>to all things" would drive me simply batty.
]>
]>If anyone said that to me, I would sit up in my deathbed and, as my
]>final act, choke the person with my IV cord and say, "Purpose that!"
]>
]>But that's just me.
Really. What would they do then-take away your birthday?
Stoney
Jayne Kulikauskas but replace spambait by mmalt
> Jayne Kulikauskas but replace spambait by mmalt posted the following
> to alt.atheism:
[]
>> This was an extremely useful study for me, Fish. Thank you very much.
>
> You're very welcome, Jayne. I personally find psychological studies to
> be quite interesting and many times quite revealing (enlightening) as
> well.
You've discovered my weakness. I am fascinated by psychology of
religion.
[]
> Since you liked that study so much, perhaps this one might interest
> you as well. :)
>
>
> ==================================================================
> Religious Prosocial Motivation: Is It Altruistic or Egoistic?
> (Batson et al., 1989)
Wow! Do you ever know how to show a girl a good time!
>
> In the first of two studies, participants were told that they could
> volunteer to help out a 7-year-old boy with a rare genetic disorder,
> but that even if they were willing to help, they would have to pass a
> sort of physical fitness qualifying task before they could participate
[kewl studies snipped]
Now I'm itching to test the net.preachers here to see where they fall
on the Intrinsic, Extrinsic and Quest scales. I'd guess they would be
high Intrinsic, low others. They seem to me like the people who
wanted to go through the motions of helping regardless if it was
wanted, needed or effective.
Jayne
Jayne Kulikauskas but replace spambait by mmalt
> Your welcome
>
> I think the profession of pallitive care is amoungst the most empathetic
> endeavors that humans can participate in. Therefore I wish you...uh..
> .uh...Godspeed (jeez, you don't know how much that hurt).
Take it easy. You could do serious damage to yourself that way. <g>
> You need to be supportive of the dying person WHILE coming to terms with
> your own eventual demise. How one wishes to cope with this
> inevitability (be it religious or mythical) is their own business. The
> difficulty I have is when theists try to make it my business.
>
> Not to scare you more but at one time I couldn't envision a life without
> god either, now I find it liberating and thought provoking, which is
> like you said a good thing.
I'm glad that it has been that way for you.
Jayne