Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
atheism on McLaughlin Group
4 views
Skip to first unread message
rumpelstiltskin
Apr 7, 2012, 3:03:28 PM4/7/12
to
About five minutes of McLaughlin Group was spent on atheism
today, starting with the recent "atheists rally", in D.C. as I recall,
which I only knew about before because I'd read about it in this
group. (Atheists aren't joiners, as I think mg said here recently.)
I was struck by the phrase "out of the closet" being used to
characterize telling other people that you're an atheist. Eleanor
Clift said that her late husband was an atheist, but that didn't
mean he wanted his mother in Cleveland who played the organ
at her church to know. It reminds me of my late friend Mike
who told his parents he was gay. His father was dealing with it,
but his mom freaked out, which was the opposite of what he'd
expected. He said later "I shouldn't have told them." Things
got smoothed over between Mike and his parents, but I'm sure
it was never the same. Then again, "the same" was false.
McLaughlin brought up Alameda's Pete Stark as the only
acknowledged atheist in congress, though American Atheists
had laid claim to 28, without naming names. Regarding the
reluctance of politicians to "come out", Tim Carney pointed out
that most Americans feel that if one is not eternally responsible
for whatever one does, then there's nothing to stop people
robbing and killing. That's not an immediately dismissible
argument, though it's iffy at least, morally, since it says that
a possible falsehood might be better than truth, and it fails
practically because religion really doesn't seem to stop
people from robbing and killing. Acknowledged atheists
are less likely to be in prison than religious people, though
that might only be because they're so much smarter.
The panel was asked when the first atheist president would
come up. I said "2048". Pat Buchanan then said "after 2050",
so Pat and I agree, as we often do. I'm not saying that Pat's
not a bigoted a******, I'm just saying that we often agree. The
panel's guesses ranged from 2050 to 2090.
today, starting with the recent "atheists rally", in D.C. as I recall,
which I only knew about before because I'd read about it in this
group. (Atheists aren't joiners, as I think mg said here recently.)
I was struck by the phrase "out of the closet" being used to
characterize telling other people that you're an atheist. Eleanor
Clift said that her late husband was an atheist, but that didn't
mean he wanted his mother in Cleveland who played the organ
at her church to know. It reminds me of my late friend Mike
who told his parents he was gay. His father was dealing with it,
but his mom freaked out, which was the opposite of what he'd
expected. He said later "I shouldn't have told them." Things
got smoothed over between Mike and his parents, but I'm sure
it was never the same. Then again, "the same" was false.
McLaughlin brought up Alameda's Pete Stark as the only
acknowledged atheist in congress, though American Atheists
had laid claim to 28, without naming names. Regarding the
reluctance of politicians to "come out", Tim Carney pointed out
that most Americans feel that if one is not eternally responsible
for whatever one does, then there's nothing to stop people
robbing and killing. That's not an immediately dismissible
argument, though it's iffy at least, morally, since it says that
a possible falsehood might be better than truth, and it fails
practically because religion really doesn't seem to stop
people from robbing and killing. Acknowledged atheists
are less likely to be in prison than religious people, though
that might only be because they're so much smarter.
The panel was asked when the first atheist president would
come up. I said "2048". Pat Buchanan then said "after 2050",
so Pat and I agree, as we often do. I'm not saying that Pat's
not a bigoted a******, I'm just saying that we often agree. The
panel's guesses ranged from 2050 to 2090.
High Miles
Apr 7, 2012, 4:33:16 PM4/7/12
to
a whole country.
Between that, and common bigotry, a lot of qualified people
miss their chance at all sorts of opportunities.
Occidental
Apr 7, 2012, 8:04:12 PM4/7/12
to
On Apr 7, 3:03 pm, rumpelstiltskin <rumpelstilts...@x.com> wrote:
> .. Tim Carney pointed out
believers have no real moral code. If you refrain from theft, rape and
murder *only* because of the fear of eternal damnation, then your
doing so is rooted in prudence, not goodness. However, if, as with
many atheists, you refrain because something tells you that such
actions are wrong, then your conduct is genuinely moral. In fact, it
could be argued that, among Christians at least, moral conduct is not
possible, and becomes possible only with conversion to atheism.
> .. Tim Carney pointed out
> that most Americans feel that if one is not eternally responsible
> for whatever one does, then there's nothing to stop people
> robbing and killing. That's not an immediately dismissible
> argument, though it's iffy at least, morally, since it says that
> a possible falsehood might be better than truth
My interpretation of this argument is that it demonstrates that
> for whatever one does, then there's nothing to stop people
> robbing and killing. That's not an immediately dismissible
> argument, though it's iffy at least, morally, since it says that
> a possible falsehood might be better than truth
believers have no real moral code. If you refrain from theft, rape and
murder *only* because of the fear of eternal damnation, then your
doing so is rooted in prudence, not goodness. However, if, as with
many atheists, you refrain because something tells you that such
actions are wrong, then your conduct is genuinely moral. In fact, it
could be argued that, among Christians at least, moral conduct is not
possible, and becomes possible only with conversion to atheism.
High Miles
Apr 7, 2012, 8:30:59 PM4/7/12
to
from one of their gods ?
Are they generous, or seeking to bribe their chosen deity ?
rumpelstiltskin
Apr 7, 2012, 8:31:24 PM4/7/12
to
(except for "conversion" to atheism! Since I'm nitpicking,
I might suggest "maturation" or "awakening" into
atheism instead.)
Occidental
Apr 7, 2012, 8:34:05 PM4/7/12
to
Jim_Higgins
Apr 7, 2012, 8:59:43 PM4/7/12
to
mg
Apr 8, 2012, 1:34:53 AM4/8/12
to
them to rape, pillage, kill and plunder, they rape, pillage, kill and
plunder. When their god tells them to stop, they stop. However, the
periods when they are behaving themselves always seem to
"coincidentally" coincide with situations where they're not in charge
and could wind up in jail for breaking the law. However, during the
periods when they are not killing, raping, pilliaging, and plundering,
etc., they always expect to receive great praise and accolades for
being normal, law-abiding citizens.
rumpelstiltskin
Apr 8, 2012, 2:16:56 AM4/8/12
to
tribe of monkeys if they think they can get away with it. We
really haven't evolved very far in the direction in which we like
to think we've evolved. The bible is full of killing off neighboring
tribes, of course. Jehovah even commands it, as I recall.
Haidt uses the metaphor of an elephant and a rider to
describe humans. The elephant is in charge. The rider just
provides justification for what the elephant (which I associate
with "desire" - close to what Haidt was saying, I think) wants
to do, plus some planning and scheming I guess. Haidt
picked an elephant rather than a horse specifically to
symbolize the relative strength of the two components.
Haidt also mentions that Hume wrote, approximately, that
"reason is always in the service of emotions, and should be."
That's the opposite of the Socratic/Platonic idea of the mind
being the summit of man's condition. I'd agree with Haidt
that Hume is right. The rider would not be able to decide to
do anything were it not for the emotions of the elephant which
give him a sense of "purpose", however chimerical. It's like
Brahman's early mistake, making the first humans perfect,
but all they did was sit under a tree near the river and
contemplate the infinite. He corrected that mistake with his
second batch of humans, filling their minds with desires, to
make them get busy and do something more interesting.
(That bit about Brahman is not in the Haidt.) I need to read
another book, so I can stop talking about that one.
rumpelstiltskin
Apr 8, 2012, 2:16:56 AM4/8/12
to
"I don't understand any of it. I never did."
I've mentioned before (often) my favourite dying words,
which were by Gertrude Stein if the story can be believed.
She looked up at the ceiling and said "What is the answer?"
Then she turned her head to the wall, asked "What is the
question?", and died.
"As flies to little boys are we are to the gods. They kill us
for their sport."
-- Shake, from "King Lear"
All this running around, skirt-chasing and trying to be
a suck-cess, what's it all about, Alfie?
rumpelstiltskin
Apr 8, 2012, 2:16:57 AM4/8/12
to
to describe the eternal reward that believers hope to get for
doing what God supposedly told 'em to do on earth.
flanier
Apr 8, 2012, 6:46:19 AM4/8/12
to
This, a most interesting thread.
This religion thing is a most wonderful invention and by 'wonderful' I
mean full of wonder. Sorta like voting for many Republicans....it's
wonderful.
Now doesn't that last remark bring us back to reality?
This religion thing is a most wonderful invention and by 'wonderful' I
mean full of wonder. Sorta like voting for many Republicans....it's
wonderful.
Now doesn't that last remark bring us back to reality?
rumpelstiltskin
Apr 8, 2012, 12:43:36 PM4/8/12
to
On Sun, 8 Apr 2012 03:46:19 -0700 (PDT), flanier <bfla...@gmail.com>
wrote:
As is often said, one can marvel at the what Natural
Selection has wrought in making and honing the exquisite
machine we call a mosquito, before one slaps it.
wrote:
Selection has wrought in making and honing the exquisite
machine we call a mosquito, before one slaps it.
mg
Apr 8, 2012, 12:55:12 PM4/8/12
to
so he invaded Iraq and the rider was George Bush who came up with, as
I recall, with about 30 different justifications for doing it.
An interesting thing about George Bush, though, was that he was
condemned by his Methodist church for the war. So what's an good ole's
elephant rider like George Bush supposed to do in a situation like
that? As I recall, he switched religions. Problem solved. :-)
Werner
Apr 8, 2012, 1:38:17 PM4/8/12
to
Anything can be argued. But let me ask you about some prominent atheists. Didn't Stalin and Mao kill many tens of millions? Pot Pol killed millions of Cambodians for which religion? Look at fucking Castro. How many people were killed by that turd? And what's this inviting the Pope to Cuba about?
Morality is malleable. As the economy deteriorates we shall see how morality evolves. I saw a program on CNN today about a new epidemic of fraud where billions of dollars are fraudulently claimed on stolen identities. another example of The Tragedy Of The Commons.
http://www.EndIt.info/how.html
Morality is malleable. As the economy deteriorates we shall see how morality evolves. I saw a program on CNN today about a new epidemic of fraud where billions of dollars are fraudulently claimed on stolen identities. another example of The Tragedy Of The Commons.
http://www.EndIt.info/how.html
Islander
Apr 8, 2012, 1:48:41 PM4/8/12
to
the histories of those countries you will find a history of violence.
They simply added a chapter.
rumpelstiltskin
Apr 8, 2012, 4:30:37 PM4/8/12
to
On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 10:55:12 -0600, mg <mgke...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 07 Apr 2012 23:16:56 -0700, rumpelstiltskin
<snip>
>On Sat, 07 Apr 2012 23:16:56 -0700, rumpelstiltskin
>> Haidt also mentions that Hume wrote, approximately, that
>>"reason is always in the service of emotions, and should be."
>>That's the opposite of the Socratic/Platonic idea of the mind
>>being the summit of man's condition. I'd agree with Haidt
>>that Hume is right. The rider would not be able to decide to
>>do anything were it not for the emotions of the elephant which
>>give him a sense of "purpose", however chimerical. It's like
>>Brahman's early mistake, making the first humans perfect,
>>but all they did was sit under a tree near the river and
>>contemplate the infinite. He corrected that mistake with his
>>second batch of humans, filling their minds with desires, to
>>make them get busy and do something more interesting.
>>(That bit about Brahman is not in the Haidt.) I need to read
>>another book, so I can stop talking about that one.
>
>An example of that is the Republican elephant who wanted oil profits
>so he invaded Iraq and the rider was George Bush who came up with, as
>I recall, with about 30 different justifications for doing it.
the analogy. The way he was using it, the elephant and the
rider are two aspects (emotion/force and rationalization/planning)
of the same being.
mg
Apr 9, 2012, 12:10:59 AM4/9/12
to
On Apr 8, 2:30 pm, rumpelstiltskin <rumpelstilts...@x.com> wrote:
Since Bush comes from an oil family (and banking family), it wouldn't
be too hard to use the single-person analogy. One could also use it
with Cheney since, with Halliburton, he benefited enormously, while,
at the same time, I'm sure that he felt like he was torturing people
for patriotic reasons. It really is amazing how people are so totally
able to brain wash themselves into thinking they are doing the right
thing when the real motivation was based on emotion or self-interest,
etc. We currently blame the right wing for doing that, but in another
time, it could just as easily be the left wing who does it.
be too hard to use the single-person analogy. One could also use it
with Cheney since, with Halliburton, he benefited enormously, while,
at the same time, I'm sure that he felt like he was torturing people
for patriotic reasons. It really is amazing how people are so totally
able to brain wash themselves into thinking they are doing the right
thing when the real motivation was based on emotion or self-interest,
etc. We currently blame the right wing for doing that, but in another
time, it could just as easily be the left wing who does it.
rumpelstiltskin
Apr 9, 2012, 4:57:27 AM4/9/12
to
On Sun, 8 Apr 2012 21:10:59 -0700 (PDT), mg <mgke...@yahoo.com>
<snip>
>Since Bush comes from an oil family (and banking family), it wouldn't
>be too hard to use the single-person analogy. One could also use it
>with Cheney since, with Halliburton, he benefited enormously, while,
>at the same time, I'm sure that he felt like he was torturing people
>for patriotic reasons. It really is amazing how people are so totally
>able to brain wash themselves into thinking they are doing the right
>thing when the real motivation was based on emotion or self-interest,
>etc. We currently blame the right wing for doing that, but in another
>time, it could just as easily be the left wing who does it.
One of Haidt's main early points is that our rider is so good
at rationalizing the lying and cheating that our elephant wants
to do, that we succeed in convincing ourselves of our purity
even when we do something we'd never do if somebody else
were watching.
"All men are bad, and in their badness reign."
- Shakespeare, sonnet 121
That sonnet was in my mind frequently as I read
the Haidt, particularly part 1 (of 3) of the book.
<snip>
>Since Bush comes from an oil family (and banking family), it wouldn't
>be too hard to use the single-person analogy. One could also use it
>with Cheney since, with Halliburton, he benefited enormously, while,
>at the same time, I'm sure that he felt like he was torturing people
>for patriotic reasons. It really is amazing how people are so totally
>able to brain wash themselves into thinking they are doing the right
>thing when the real motivation was based on emotion or self-interest,
>etc. We currently blame the right wing for doing that, but in another
>time, it could just as easily be the left wing who does it.
at rationalizing the lying and cheating that our elephant wants
to do, that we succeed in convincing ourselves of our purity
even when we do something we'd never do if somebody else
were watching.
"All men are bad, and in their badness reign."
- Shakespeare, sonnet 121
That sonnet was in my mind frequently as I read
the Haidt, particularly part 1 (of 3) of the book.
GLOBALIST
Apr 10, 2012, 4:44:31 PM4/10/12
to
> Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot had nothing to do with atheism. If you read
> the histories of those countries you will find a history of violence.
> They simply added a chapter.
======================================
> the histories of those countries you will find a history of violence.
> They simply added a chapter.
How soon they forget?...AETHISM was the state religion. If you were not
an atheists were denied any advancement. People had to sneak around. Even Putin was brought to Church as a baby to be baptized as a baby.
You are saying that the Russian and Chinese people were always violent and murderous. Your beloved America ain't doing so hot lately.
Maybe you forgot that the state sponsored atheims "murdered" MILLIONS.
Russian churches were burned, monks and nuns were murdered or sentenced to Siberia.
You assholes still will not admit how the people of China and Russia and Cuba are telling ATHEISM
GLOBALIST
Apr 10, 2012, 4:59:13 PM4/10/12
to
> You assholes still will not admit how the people of China and Russia and Cuba are telling ATHEISM to fuck off, as we speak. Millions and millions of Chinese have reconnected with Religion. The Russian Orthodox Churches are packed and restoring their ancient glory.
The Utopia of the Atheistic prophets crumbled into a
pile of banal horseshit. It attempted to wash the spirit out of the
Russian people, their culture, their art , their creativity.
Been there and done that and it SUCKED big time.
mg
Apr 10, 2012, 7:30:48 PM4/10/12
to
On Apr 9, 2:57 am, rumpelstiltskin <rumpelstilts...@x.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Apr 2012 21:10:59 -0700 (PDT), mg <mgkel...@yahoo.com>
There are two psychological experiments that come to mind. In one of
them, back in the 50's, I think, they had some students read some
material on the bad health effects of cigarettes. Then they gave them
a test to assess how strongly they believed the material. The non-
smokers totally believed and the smokers didn't. With the second
experiment, I can't remember the details, but a professor had the
students assess the talents of three contestants that appeared before
the class. However, before the test started, the professor paid half
the class money to vote for one particular candidate. Then he tested
their degree of conviction and certainty in whether they had indeed
voted for the most talented contestant. The students who were bribed
were very adamant and very certain they had voted for the correct one.
The students who weren't bribed were totally flexible and willing to
entertain the possibility that they had voted wrong.
> On Sun, 8 Apr 2012 21:10:59 -0700 (PDT), mg <mgkel...@yahoo.com>
them, back in the 50's, I think, they had some students read some
material on the bad health effects of cigarettes. Then they gave them
a test to assess how strongly they believed the material. The non-
smokers totally believed and the smokers didn't. With the second
experiment, I can't remember the details, but a professor had the
students assess the talents of three contestants that appeared before
the class. However, before the test started, the professor paid half
the class money to vote for one particular candidate. Then he tested
their degree of conviction and certainty in whether they had indeed
voted for the most talented contestant. The students who were bribed
were very adamant and very certain they had voted for the correct one.
The students who weren't bribed were totally flexible and willing to
entertain the possibility that they had voted wrong.
0 new messages