Faith is Born from Fear

[AtheistBuddah]

lol Who pulled your tampon string?

Fear is a basic emotion. It's experienced by the most primitive part of the brain. The fear animals experience when running from a predator isn't so different from the fear humans experience.

OMG, you insulted me like a 5 year old bully, I don't know what to do other than laugh.

How do you know that the supposed fear you say animals experience is similar to what humans feel? Do you have a magical ability to read the minds of animals and humans?

We don't need any such ability because we can do one better. We can study their brains.

 

[AtheistBuddah]

All animals have a healthy fear of the unknown. Need an example? I have squirrels and one of them had the balls to come take a nut from my hand. The other ones saw it and they too now take from my hand. But the ones new to it are very nervous and as soon as they take the nut they run. The one who's been doing it the longest doesn't run in fact he's down right pushy.

And you know this because...

FYI, personal anecdotes are not evidence, something that many people have pointed out on this forum. Even if I took your post at face value, it is not in any way proof that animals fear the unknown. For all I know, you randomly grab squirrels that get close enough to take the nuts from your hand and bite their heads off. That would give the squirrels that you don't attack an actual reason to fear you, and have nothing to do with the unknown.

There are chickadees who land in my hand and will eat. Over millions of years they have lost the fear. The House Sparrows will never land in my hand. Maybe in a million years but not in my lifetime. No matter how much food I throw out to them, the blue jays, doves, cardinals won't land on my hand and they always run when I open the doorwall. They all have a healthy amount of fear. That keeps them safe.

Wait, I thought you said all animals have a fear of the unknown, now you claim that some don't. Seems a little inconsistent to me, but I am not an ignorant idiot who thinks he knows everything.

The fact that you argue such concepts makes me think you'll argue anything. I'm off tomorrow so until Saturday morning, f off. LOL. God is dead.

I didn't argue anything, I scoffed at the ignorant drivel that you posted. You actually managed to make my point for me when you tried to defend it, and are so stupid you didn't even notice.

Neuroscience and biology can easily explain why some animals seem to posses this fear while others, even of the same species don't. It is very likely that the squirrel that is the first to eat from the hand has a smaller, or less active amygdala therefore reducing the potency of the flight or fight response when faced with new and possibly threatening situations. The others likely follow suit because they've seen one of their own achieve positive results.

 

[Rikurzhen]

All those things are born in response to fear. Faith is just a more positive reaction but it is still a reaction. The first stage of grief of denial and faith is a denial of the inevitable truth. Nothing lasts forever. There is no such thing as eternal life.

Prove the bolded.

I can't, but its opposite can't be proven either so in that area we are at an impasse

That should mean that you need to be careful with your language and arguments. Be judicious, especially if you're looking for an intellectual brawl.

You're not actually at an impasse. You're telling people something, telling them that they're wrong and doing so in a brutally direct fashion. Don't you think it wise that you should be able to back up your claims when you assume that posture?

Here's the response you're going to get from a religious person. "Yes, there is an eternal life. I know it because I feel it in my communion with God." You see, that's faith. That's real to the person of faith. They're not lying to themselves, they're not stupid and thus oblivious to what is going on. They know what they feel. They're not telling you that YOU will fell or see that truth, they're telling you that THEY feel that truth. You asking them to prove their position is like asking them to prove that they love their children - these issues are not measurable. This is the folly of trying to use logic to undermine faith. Can you use logic to convince a parent to hate his child? Can you use logic to convince a man to hate his wife?

But hey, it'll be amusing to be a bystander watching you guys trying to use logic to address issues of faith. Have fun.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Does everyone here know what kind of paper the Village Voice is? I'm going to assume you do. Check out this column meant to help deprogram deep leftists from their reflexive criticisms of religious prayer. It's actually pretty sly and clever and should be of interest to both Atheists and religious believers. A man writes in furious because his grandmother suggested that the family pray for the man's brother who was diagnosed with cancer. Here's the response:

Dear Not Gonna Pray,

I'm deeply sorry to hear about your brother's diagnosis. I'm sending you my thoughts, and my heart goes out to your brother and your whole family. Guess what? That was me praying for you. I think the idea of "praying" is a lot less complicated, a lot more powerful, and a little different than you may realize. In fact, I'll bet you're already praying all the time and just don't realize it.

Prayer is a type of thought. It's a lot like meditation — a type of very concentrated mental focus with passionate emotion directed towards a concept or situation, or the lack thereof. But there's a special X-factor ingredient that makes "prayer" different than meditation or other types of thought. That X-factor is humility. This is the most seemingly contradictory aspect of prayer and what many people dislike about the feeling of praying. "Getting down on your knees" is not about lowering your power or being a weakling, it's about showing respect for the size and grandeur of what we call existence — it's about being humble in the presence of the vastness of life, space, and sensation, and acknowledging our extremely limited understanding of what it all really means. . . . . .

I want you to pray for your brother right now. As a gesture to your grandmother — who, if she didn't exist, neither would you. I want you to pray right now, just for the sake of challenging yourself. I want you to find a place alone, and kneel down — against all your stubborn tendencies telling you not to — and close your eyes and think of one concentrated thought: your brother.

I want you to think of your love for him. Your fear of him dying. Your feeling of powerlessness. Your feelings of anger and frustration. Your feelings of confusion. You don't need to ask to get anything. You don't need to try and fix anything. You don't need to get any answers. Just focus on every moment you've ever had with your brother. Reflect on every memory, from years ago, and even from just earlier today. Let the feelings wash over you. Let the feelings take you away from yourself. Let them bring you closer to him. Let yourself be overwhelmed by the unyielding and uncompromising emotion of him until you lose yourself in it.

Think about him more than you've ever thought about anyone before. Think about him more deeply and with more detail than you've ever thought about anything. Think about how incredible it is that you have a brother — that he exists at all. Focus on him until you feel like your soul is going to burst. Tell him in your heart and soul that you love him. Feel that love pouring out of you from all sides. Then get up and go be with him and your family. And you can tell your grandmother that you prayed for your brother.​

 

[AtheistBuddah]

which is not to say that atheists are not free to live empty lives if they choose to......

What you hyper-religious loons typically fail to understand is that most of humanity has come and gone before the invention of your gawds. To suggest that most of humanity has lived "empty lives" is simply moronic, but considering it comes from a hyper-religious loon, well, not really a surprise.

The real tragedy is that people like you apparently being unable to conduct their lives without the need to tremble in fear before angry gawds.

You are again equating belief in the supernatural as somehow providing a "meaning" for your life. For those like you; emotionally and intellectually wanting (a black hole of unfulfilled wants and desires), the happenstance of your religion may provide a haven for your emotional and intellectual failings. And more to the point, it assuages your fear of dying. Unfortunately, most people are not content with being corporeal. The Gawds who wave their hand to wind up the universe and then walk away offers little comfort and security for the emotionally crippled who have a compelling need to have their wishes granted that death is not the end of life. Equally unfortunate is that most people do not think beyond the paternal image of their gawds, and they certainly do not think to examine the accepted claims of what defines most gawds. If they did, they would (hopefully) pause and rethink their position.

This air of superiority of yours just rubs me the wrong way. Why do so many Atheists, and I'm one, use their lack of belief as a cudgel against believers and then do so in such a way as to elevate themselves as some form of superior being?

All of us find meaning to our lives or we quickly suicide, so why does it matter that some find meaning by envisioning a God and others find meaning in their family or in watching MSNBC? That meaning that is found is a neurochemical release in the brain which brings calmness or a sense of belonging. What does it matter what triggers that feeling?

People like you are the worst ambassadors for Atheism because you make us all seem obnoxious. Your tirade here isn't meant to explore the meaning of belief or the lack of belief, it's meant to give you an endorphin rush by fooling yourself into thinking that you're a more intelligent person that the rubes you're insulting. Belief in God doesn't indicate simplemindedness and lack of belief doesn't indicate one has a superior intellect. Food for thought:

Data on IR and ER from 35 pairs of monozygotic twins reared apart (MZA) and 37 pairs of dizygotic twins reared apart (DZA) were fitted to a biometric model and demonstrated significant heritability (0.43 and 0.39), with a model containing genetic plus environmental factors fitting significantly better than a model containing only an environmental component. Twin similarity could not be explained by placement on a self-reported measure of family Moral Religious Emphasis as measured by the Family Environment Scale.
​

So to paint this issue as one of people being fools or too scared to see the "truth" is silly. It's a cartoon version of what is playing out.

I agree that some atheists are too harsh on the religious and that in the end the net result of such actions are more negative than positive but I disagree with what you said about the source that people derive meaning being irrelevant. What triggers that feeling of belonging is important because our thoughts too often inspire our actions and religious dogma often inspires violent and/or oppressive actions.

 

[AtheistBuddah]

All those things are born in response to fear. Faith is just a more positive reaction but it is still a reaction. The first stage of grief of denial and faith is a denial of the inevitable truth. Nothing lasts forever. There is no such thing as eternal life.

Prove the bolded.

I can't, but its opposite can't be proven either so in that area we are at an impasse

That should mean that you need to be careful with your language and arguments. Be judicious, especially if you're looking for an intellectual brawl.

You're not actually at an impasse. You're telling people something, telling them that they're wrong and doing so in a brutally direct fashion. Don't you think it wise that you should be able to back up your claims when you assume that posture?

Here's the response you're going to get from a religious person. "Yes, there is an eternal life. I know it because I feel it in my communion with God." You see, that's faith. That's real to the person of faith. They're not lying to themselves, they're not stupid and thus oblivious to what is going on. They know what they feel. They're not telling you that YOU will fell or see that truth, they're telling you that THEY feel that truth. You asking them to prove their position is like asking them to prove that they love their children - these issues are not measurable. This is the folly of trying to use logic to undermine faith. Can you use logic to convince a parent to hate his child? Can you use logic to convince a man to hate his wife?

But hey, it'll be amusing to be a bystander watching you guys trying to use logic to address issues of faith. Have fun.

You're right. Sometimes it is easy to forget that. Thank you.
Though my opinion is formed from evidence and while I can't in all honesty claim 100% certainly, I do hold to the belief that there can be a greater percentage of certainty for the disbelief in God (or at least in the factuality of the Bible) than there can be for the belief in such things. But I agree that I should be more tactful when making that case. Lastly, I respond by saying, no, I can't use logic to undermine faith but I can use it to undermine the authenticity of what is written in scripture and hopefully illustrate my own reasons for abandoning my faith and giving them the choice to do so as well or not.

 

[AtheistBuddah]

Does everyone here know what kind of paper the Village Voice is? I'm going to assume you do. Check out this column meant to help deprogram deep leftists from their reflexive criticisms of religious prayer. It's actually pretty sly and clever and should be of interest to both Atheists and religious believers. A man writes in furious because his grandmother suggested that the family pray for the man's brother who was diagnosed with cancer. Here's the response:

Dear Not Gonna Pray,

I'm deeply sorry to hear about your brother's diagnosis. I'm sending you my thoughts, and my heart goes out to your brother and your whole family. Guess what? That was me praying for you. I think the idea of "praying" is a lot less complicated, a lot more powerful, and a little different than you may realize. In fact, I'll bet you're already praying all the time and just don't realize it.

Prayer is a type of thought. It's a lot like meditation — a type of very concentrated mental focus with passionate emotion directed towards a concept or situation, or the lack thereof. But there's a special X-factor ingredient that makes "prayer" different than meditation or other types of thought. That X-factor is humility. This is the most seemingly contradictory aspect of prayer and what many people dislike about the feeling of praying. "Getting down on your knees" is not about lowering your power or being a weakling, it's about showing respect for the size and grandeur of what we call existence — it's about being humble in the presence of the vastness of life, space, and sensation, and acknowledging our extremely limited understanding of what it all really means. . . . . .

I want you to pray for your brother right now. As a gesture to your grandmother — who, if she didn't exist, neither would you. I want you to pray right now, just for the sake of challenging yourself. I want you to find a place alone, and kneel down — against all your stubborn tendencies telling you not to — and close your eyes and think of one concentrated thought: your brother.

I want you to think of your love for him. Your fear of him dying. Your feeling of powerlessness. Your feelings of anger and frustration. Your feelings of confusion. You don't need to ask to get anything. You don't need to try and fix anything. You don't need to get any answers. Just focus on every moment you've ever had with your brother. Reflect on every memory, from years ago, and even from just earlier today. Let the feelings wash over you. Let the feelings take you away from yourself. Let them bring you closer to him. Let yourself be overwhelmed by the unyielding and uncompromising emotion of him until you lose yourself in it.

Think about him more than you've ever thought about anyone before. Think about him more deeply and with more detail than you've ever thought about anything. Think about how incredible it is that you have a brother — that he exists at all. Focus on him until you feel like your soul is going to burst. Tell him in your heart and soul that you love him. Feel that love pouring out of you from all sides. Then get up and go be with him and your family. And you can tell your grandmother that you prayed for your brother.​

I don't agree with the article's advice to go and focus on/pray for his brother as I think such intense emotion and contemplation would only make him feel worse in the event of his brother's death. I do however think that he should not object to his grandmother's wish to pray so long as she doesn't wish to do so to the exclusion of actual medicine. If all she wants to do is get together and pray for him while the doctors tend to him then that is fine and it harms no one. It would also not kill the person to humor his mother by joining hands with her and the rest of his family and closing his eyes for a moment or two.

 

[Rikurzhen]

which is not to say that atheists are not free to live empty lives if they choose to......

What you hyper-religious loons typically fail to understand is that most of humanity has come and gone before the invention of your gawds. To suggest that most of humanity has lived "empty lives" is simply moronic, but considering it comes from a hyper-religious loon, well, not really a surprise.

The real tragedy is that people like you apparently being unable to conduct their lives without the need to tremble in fear before angry gawds.

You are again equating belief in the supernatural as somehow providing a "meaning" for your life. For those like you; emotionally and intellectually wanting (a black hole of unfulfilled wants and desires), the happenstance of your religion may provide a haven for your emotional and intellectual failings. And more to the point, it assuages your fear of dying. Unfortunately, most people are not content with being corporeal. The Gawds who wave their hand to wind up the universe and then walk away offers little comfort and security for the emotionally crippled who have a compelling need to have their wishes granted that death is not the end of life. Equally unfortunate is that most people do not think beyond the paternal image of their gawds, and they certainly do not think to examine the accepted claims of what defines most gawds. If they did, they would (hopefully) pause and rethink their position.

This air of superiority of yours just rubs me the wrong way. Why do so many Atheists, and I'm one, use their lack of belief as a cudgel against believers and then do so in such a way as to elevate themselves as some form of superior being?

All of us find meaning to our lives or we quickly suicide, so why does it matter that some find meaning by envisioning a God and others find meaning in their family or in watching MSNBC? That meaning that is found is a neurochemical release in the brain which brings calmness or a sense of belonging. What does it matter what triggers that feeling?

People like you are the worst ambassadors for Atheism because you make us all seem obnoxious. Your tirade here isn't meant to explore the meaning of belief or the lack of belief, it's meant to give you an endorphin rush by fooling yourself into thinking that you're a more intelligent person that the rubes you're insulting. Belief in God doesn't indicate simplemindedness and lack of belief doesn't indicate one has a superior intellect. Food for thought:

Data on IR and ER from 35 pairs of monozygotic twins reared apart (MZA) and 37 pairs of dizygotic twins reared apart (DZA) were fitted to a biometric model and demonstrated significant heritability (0.43 and 0.39), with a model containing genetic plus environmental factors fitting significantly better than a model containing only an environmental component. Twin similarity could not be explained by placement on a self-reported measure of family Moral Religious Emphasis as measured by the Family Environment Scale.
​

So to paint this issue as one of people being fools or too scared to see the "truth" is silly. It's a cartoon version of what is playing out.

I agree that some atheists are too harsh on the religious and that in the end the net result of such actions are more negative than positive but I disagree with what you said about the source that people derive meaning being irrelevant. What triggers that feeling of belonging is important because our thoughts too often inspire our actions and religious dogma often inspires violent and/or oppressive actions.

Why make such a vague statement, knowing (you had to know) that someone was going to ask you "like what?"

I can help you. Look at the Religion of Liberalism's dogma on equality. This lead to the Killing Fields in Cambodia, the Cultural Revolution in China and The Gulag Archipelago in the Soviet Union. It takes a milder form here in the US - liberals aren't sending Americans to death camps yet but they are stripping them of their human rights and all in the service of their dogma on the issue of equality.

If you're going to make the argument that the feeling of belonging or sense of peace or feeling of love should be judged on the source of the feeling don't you think that you should give an example of a scenario where people seek to find soulful peace for themselves by being involved in "violent and/or oppressive actions." For instance, the adherents of the Religion of Liberalism push their dogma of equality and find self-satisfaction in thinking of themselves as enlightened and caring beings while simultaneous forcing people to engage in personal associations that they wish to avoid. See, this is an example of what you're talking about, right? Liberals shoving their religion into people's lives when it's not welcomed and their religion actually harms people by violating their human rights.

Now what did you have in mind when you wrote your comment?

 

[Rikurzhen]

Does everyone here know what kind of paper the Village Voice is? I'm going to assume you do. Check out this column meant to help deprogram deep leftists from their reflexive criticisms of religious prayer. It's actually pretty sly and clever and should be of interest to both Atheists and religious believers. A man writes in furious because his grandmother suggested that the family pray for the man's brother who was diagnosed with cancer. Here's the response:

Dear Not Gonna Pray,

I'm deeply sorry to hear about your brother's diagnosis. I'm sending you my thoughts, and my heart goes out to your brother and your whole family. Guess what? That was me praying for you. I think the idea of "praying" is a lot less complicated, a lot more powerful, and a little different than you may realize. In fact, I'll bet you're already praying all the time and just don't realize it.

Prayer is a type of thought. It's a lot like meditation — a type of very concentrated mental focus with passionate emotion directed towards a concept or situation, or the lack thereof. But there's a special X-factor ingredient that makes "prayer" different than meditation or other types of thought. That X-factor is humility. This is the most seemingly contradictory aspect of prayer and what many people dislike about the feeling of praying. "Getting down on your knees" is not about lowering your power or being a weakling, it's about showing respect for the size and grandeur of what we call existence — it's about being humble in the presence of the vastness of life, space, and sensation, and acknowledging our extremely limited understanding of what it all really means. . . . . .

I want you to pray for your brother right now. As a gesture to your grandmother — who, if she didn't exist, neither would you. I want you to pray right now, just for the sake of challenging yourself. I want you to find a place alone, and kneel down — against all your stubborn tendencies telling you not to — and close your eyes and think of one concentrated thought: your brother.

I want you to think of your love for him. Your fear of him dying. Your feeling of powerlessness. Your feelings of anger and frustration. Your feelings of confusion. You don't need to ask to get anything. You don't need to try and fix anything. You don't need to get any answers. Just focus on every moment you've ever had with your brother. Reflect on every memory, from years ago, and even from just earlier today. Let the feelings wash over you. Let the feelings take you away from yourself. Let them bring you closer to him. Let yourself be overwhelmed by the unyielding and uncompromising emotion of him until you lose yourself in it.

Think about him more than you've ever thought about anyone before. Think about him more deeply and with more detail than you've ever thought about anything. Think about how incredible it is that you have a brother — that he exists at all. Focus on him until you feel like your soul is going to burst. Tell him in your heart and soul that you love him. Feel that love pouring out of you from all sides. Then get up and go be with him and your family. And you can tell your grandmother that you prayed for your brother.​

I don't agree with the article's advice to go and focus on/pray for his brother as I think such intense emotion and contemplation would only make him feel worse in the event of his brother's death. I do however think that he should not object to his grandmother's wish to pray so long as she doesn't wish to do so to the exclusion of actual medicine. If all she wants to do is get together and pray for him while the doctors tend to him then that is fine and it harms no one. It would also not kill the person to humor his mother by joining hands with her and the rest of his family and closing his eyes for a moment or two.

Have you ever experienced emotional catharsis? Think back to puppy love. Your girl dumped you. You were crushed. You purged your emotions, "Why me" "Oh it hurts so much" "phew, now I feel better." Or maybe a death of a loved one. Or do you know any women? Seen a crying jag? Notice how they feel better afterwards?

The article isn't advising him to humor his grandmother, unless I misconstrued something, it's talking about developing an experience which arises from meditation or prayer. Humans are drug factories. We can change our state of consciousness by releasing hormones in our brains triggered by emotional states. Many people who pray feel, so I'm told, a sense of peace and calmness afterwards. They say God's love is washing over them. I think that they've just experienced a neurochemical bathing of their brain. they say that God triggered the nuerochemicals. I say ok. I'm more interested in what they felt than who pulled the trigger.

 

[AtheistBuddah]

which is not to say that atheists are not free to live empty lives if they choose to......

What you hyper-religious loons typically fail to understand is that most of humanity has come and gone before the invention of your gawds. To suggest that most of humanity has lived "empty lives" is simply moronic, but considering it comes from a hyper-religious loon, well, not really a surprise.

The real tragedy is that people like you apparently being unable to conduct their lives without the need to tremble in fear before angry gawds.

You are again equating belief in the supernatural as somehow providing a "meaning" for your life. For those like you; emotionally and intellectually wanting (a black hole of unfulfilled wants and desires), the happenstance of your religion may provide a haven for your emotional and intellectual failings. And more to the point, it assuages your fear of dying. Unfortunately, most people are not content with being corporeal. The Gawds who wave their hand to wind up the universe and then walk away offers little comfort and security for the emotionally crippled who have a compelling need to have their wishes granted that death is not the end of life. Equally unfortunate is that most people do not think beyond the paternal image of their gawds, and they certainly do not think to examine the accepted claims of what defines most gawds. If they did, they would (hopefully) pause and rethink their position.

This air of superiority of yours just rubs me the wrong way. Why do so many Atheists, and I'm one, use their lack of belief as a cudgel against believers and then do so in such a way as to elevate themselves as some form of superior being?

All of us find meaning to our lives or we quickly suicide, so why does it matter that some find meaning by envisioning a God and others find meaning in their family or in watching MSNBC? That meaning that is found is a neurochemical release in the brain which brings calmness or a sense of belonging. What does it matter what triggers that feeling?

People like you are the worst ambassadors for Atheism because you make us all seem obnoxious. Your tirade here isn't meant to explore the meaning of belief or the lack of belief, it's meant to give you an endorphin rush by fooling yourself into thinking that you're a more intelligent person that the rubes you're insulting. Belief in God doesn't indicate simplemindedness and lack of belief doesn't indicate one has a superior intellect. Food for thought:

Data on IR and ER from 35 pairs of monozygotic twins reared apart (MZA) and 37 pairs of dizygotic twins reared apart (DZA) were fitted to a biometric model and demonstrated significant heritability (0.43 and 0.39), with a model containing genetic plus environmental factors fitting significantly better than a model containing only an environmental component. Twin similarity could not be explained by placement on a self-reported measure of family Moral Religious Emphasis as measured by the Family Environment Scale.
​

So to paint this issue as one of people being fools or too scared to see the "truth" is silly. It's a cartoon version of what is playing out.

I agree that some atheists are too harsh on the religious and that in the end the net result of such actions are more negative than positive but I disagree with what you said about the source that people derive meaning being irrelevant. What triggers that feeling of belonging is important because our thoughts too often inspire our actions and religious dogma often inspires violent and/or oppressive actions.

Why make such a vague statement, knowing (you had to know) that someone was going to ask you "like what?"

I can help you. Look at the Religion of Liberalism's dogma on equality. This lead to the Killing Fields in Cambodia, the Cultural Revolution in China and The Gulag Archipelago in the Soviet Union. It takes a milder form here in the US - liberals aren't sending Americans to death camps yet but they are stripping them of their human rights and all in the service of their dogma on the issue of equality.

If you're going to make the argument that the feeling of belonging or sense of peace or feeling of love should be judged on the source of the feeling don't you think that you should give an example of a scenario where people seek to find soulful peace for themselves by being involved in "violent and/or oppressive actions." For instance, the adherents of the Religion of Liberalism push their dogma of equality and find self-satisfaction in thinking of themselves as enlightened and caring beings while simultaneous forcing people to engage in personal associations that they wish to avoid. See, this is an example of what you're talking about, right? Liberals shoving their religion into people's lives when it's not welcomed and their religion actually harms people by violating their human rights.

Now what did you have in mind when you wrote your comment?

What I had in mind were the many harmful examples of theocracy, such as the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the Protestant movement in Europe, and the Salem Witch Trials. The religious dogma that was the source of such feelings of peace and acceptance were also the source of these atrocities and we must be careful not to let such things happen again. Yet they continue to take place across the Middle East at the behest of yet another religious dogma. Religion can much good but currently its net negative influence outweighs its net positive influence on the world. In cases of religions like Jainism I make no complaints. I believe that their teachings of the supernatural are not more true than that of any other religion but the net result of their dogma is non-violence.

 

[AtheistBuddah]

Does everyone here know what kind of paper the Village Voice is? I'm going to assume you do. Check out this column meant to help deprogram deep leftists from their reflexive criticisms of religious prayer. It's actually pretty sly and clever and should be of interest to both Atheists and religious believers. A man writes in furious because his grandmother suggested that the family pray for the man's brother who was diagnosed with cancer. Here's the response:

Dear Not Gonna Pray,

I'm deeply sorry to hear about your brother's diagnosis. I'm sending you my thoughts, and my heart goes out to your brother and your whole family. Guess what? That was me praying for you. I think the idea of "praying" is a lot less complicated, a lot more powerful, and a little different than you may realize. In fact, I'll bet you're already praying all the time and just don't realize it.

Prayer is a type of thought. It's a lot like meditation — a type of very concentrated mental focus with passionate emotion directed towards a concept or situation, or the lack thereof. But there's a special X-factor ingredient that makes "prayer" different than meditation or other types of thought. That X-factor is humility. This is the most seemingly contradictory aspect of prayer and what many people dislike about the feeling of praying. "Getting down on your knees" is not about lowering your power or being a weakling, it's about showing respect for the size and grandeur of what we call existence — it's about being humble in the presence of the vastness of life, space, and sensation, and acknowledging our extremely limited understanding of what it all really means. . . . . .

I want you to pray for your brother right now. As a gesture to your grandmother — who, if she didn't exist, neither would you. I want you to pray right now, just for the sake of challenging yourself. I want you to find a place alone, and kneel down — against all your stubborn tendencies telling you not to — and close your eyes and think of one concentrated thought: your brother.

I want you to think of your love for him. Your fear of him dying. Your feeling of powerlessness. Your feelings of anger and frustration. Your feelings of confusion. You don't need to ask to get anything. You don't need to try and fix anything. You don't need to get any answers. Just focus on every moment you've ever had with your brother. Reflect on every memory, from years ago, and even from just earlier today. Let the feelings wash over you. Let the feelings take you away from yourself. Let them bring you closer to him. Let yourself be overwhelmed by the unyielding and uncompromising emotion of him until you lose yourself in it.

Think about him more than you've ever thought about anyone before. Think about him more deeply and with more detail than you've ever thought about anything. Think about how incredible it is that you have a brother — that he exists at all. Focus on him until you feel like your soul is going to burst. Tell him in your heart and soul that you love him. Feel that love pouring out of you from all sides. Then get up and go be with him and your family. And you can tell your grandmother that you prayed for your brother.​

I don't agree with the article's advice to go and focus on/pray for his brother as I think such intense emotion and contemplation would only make him feel worse in the event of his brother's death. I do however think that he should not object to his grandmother's wish to pray so long as she doesn't wish to do so to the exclusion of actual medicine. If all she wants to do is get together and pray for him while the doctors tend to him then that is fine and it harms no one. It would also not kill the person to humor his mother by joining hands with her and the rest of his family and closing his eyes for a moment or two.

Have you ever experienced emotional catharsis? Think back to puppy love. Your girl dumped you. You were crushed. You purged your emotions, "Why me" "Oh it hurts so much" "phew, now I feel better." Or maybe a death of a loved one. Or do you know any women? Seen a crying jag? Notice how they feel better afterwards?

The article isn't advising him to humor his grandmother, unless I misconstrued something, it's talking about developing an experience which arises from meditation or prayer. Humans are drug factories. We can change our state of consciousness by releasing hormones in our brains triggered by emotional states. Many people who pray feel, so I'm told, a sense of peace and calmness afterwards. They say God's love is washing over them. I think that they've just experienced a neurochemical bathing of their brain. they say that God triggered the nuerochemicals. I say ok. I'm more interested in what they felt than who pulled the trigger.

I understand that the writer of the article was advising prayer as a form of catharsis but I worry that it could backfire. Not all people process grief in the same way and such a catharsis could end up consuming this person were he to indulge it.

 

[Rikurzhen]

which is not to say that atheists are not free to live empty lives if they choose to......

What you hyper-religious loons typically fail to understand is that most of humanity has come and gone before the invention of your gawds. To suggest that most of humanity has lived "empty lives" is simply moronic, but considering it comes from a hyper-religious loon, well, not really a surprise.

The real tragedy is that people like you apparently being unable to conduct their lives without the need to tremble in fear before angry gawds.

You are again equating belief in the supernatural as somehow providing a "meaning" for your life. For those like you; emotionally and intellectually wanting (a black hole of unfulfilled wants and desires), the happenstance of your religion may provide a haven for your emotional and intellectual failings. And more to the point, it assuages your fear of dying. Unfortunately, most people are not content with being corporeal. The Gawds who wave their hand to wind up the universe and then walk away offers little comfort and security for the emotionally crippled who have a compelling need to have their wishes granted that death is not the end of life. Equally unfortunate is that most people do not think beyond the paternal image of their gawds, and they certainly do not think to examine the accepted claims of what defines most gawds. If they did, they would (hopefully) pause and rethink their position.

This air of superiority of yours just rubs me the wrong way. Why do so many Atheists, and I'm one, use their lack of belief as a cudgel against believers and then do so in such a way as to elevate themselves as some form of superior being?

All of us find meaning to our lives or we quickly suicide, so why does it matter that some find meaning by envisioning a God and others find meaning in their family or in watching MSNBC? That meaning that is found is a neurochemical release in the brain which brings calmness or a sense of belonging. What does it matter what triggers that feeling?

People like you are the worst ambassadors for Atheism because you make us all seem obnoxious. Your tirade here isn't meant to explore the meaning of belief or the lack of belief, it's meant to give you an endorphin rush by fooling yourself into thinking that you're a more intelligent person that the rubes you're insulting. Belief in God doesn't indicate simplemindedness and lack of belief doesn't indicate one has a superior intellect. Food for thought:

Data on IR and ER from 35 pairs of monozygotic twins reared apart (MZA) and 37 pairs of dizygotic twins reared apart (DZA) were fitted to a biometric model and demonstrated significant heritability (0.43 and 0.39), with a model containing genetic plus environmental factors fitting significantly better than a model containing only an environmental component. Twin similarity could not be explained by placement on a self-reported measure of family Moral Religious Emphasis as measured by the Family Environment Scale.
​

So to paint this issue as one of people being fools or too scared to see the "truth" is silly. It's a cartoon version of what is playing out.

I agree that some atheists are too harsh on the religious and that in the end the net result of such actions are more negative than positive but I disagree with what you said about the source that people derive meaning being irrelevant. What triggers that feeling of belonging is important because our thoughts too often inspire our actions and religious dogma often inspires violent and/or oppressive actions.

Why make such a vague statement, knowing (you had to know) that someone was going to ask you "like what?"

I can help you. Look at the Religion of Liberalism's dogma on equality. This lead to the Killing Fields in Cambodia, the Cultural Revolution in China and The Gulag Archipelago in the Soviet Union. It takes a milder form here in the US - liberals aren't sending Americans to death camps yet but they are stripping them of their human rights and all in the service of their dogma on the issue of equality.

If you're going to make the argument that the feeling of belonging or sense of peace or feeling of love should be judged on the source of the feeling don't you think that you should give an example of a scenario where people seek to find soulful peace for themselves by being involved in "violent and/or oppressive actions." For instance, the adherents of the Religion of Liberalism push their dogma of equality and find self-satisfaction in thinking of themselves as enlightened and caring beings while simultaneous forcing people to engage in personal associations that they wish to avoid. See, this is an example of what you're talking about, right? Liberals shoving their religion into people's lives when it's not welcomed and their religion actually harms people by violating their human rights.

Now what did you have in mind when you wrote your comment?

What I had in mind were the many harmful examples of theocracy, such as the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the Protestant movement in Europe, and the Salem Witch Trials. The religious dogma that was the source of such feelings of peace and acceptance were also the source of these atrocities and we must be careful not to let such things happen again. Yet they continue to take place across the Middle East at the behest of yet another religious dogma. Religion can much good but currently its net negative influence outweighs its net positive influence on the world. In cases of religions like Jainism I make no complaints. I believe that their teachings of the supernatural are not more true than that of any other religion but the net result of their dogma is non-violence.

Religion is always anchored within a culture, so the actions taken are within the norms of the culture and the times. Do you see Christian Fundamentalists today hacking off anyone's head? The Christians of today have strong faith in God, just like the Christians of yesteryear and yet they don't behave the same. What you're indicting is more properly Medieval European culture. Go watch Mel Gibson's punishment in Braveheart. Notice the spectators? Notice the popcorn venders (ok, maybe there weren't any). It just seems silly for you to be afraid of American Christians launching a Spanish Inquisition.

I think you've boxed yourself into a corner here. The examples you cite are different in nature from the example I cited regarding the adherents of the Religion of Liberalism and their actions. A liberal finds satisfaction from promoting equality even as he stomps all over people's human rights. Those involved in the Spanish Inquisition weren't finding deep peace from the act of torture. Most of those ordering the torture were doing so in order to stamp out heresy - this was an administrative act by the Church.

What is a contemporary Christian expression of dogma which harms the public and is done by Christians so that they enhance their sense of peace? Liberals following their religion harm the public when they praise and advocate equality and do so by stomping on people's human rights. What are Christians doing to match that horror?

You claim that there are net negative effects of religion, so what do you suggest we do about Liberalism? How can we stamp it out? If not stamp it out, how do we reform liberals so that they practice their religion in their own lives but not shove it down everyone's throat?

 

[AtheistBuddah]

which is not to say that atheists are not free to live empty lives if they choose to......

What you hyper-religious loons typically fail to understand is that most of humanity has come and gone before the invention of your gawds. To suggest that most of humanity has lived "empty lives" is simply moronic, but considering it comes from a hyper-religious loon, well, not really a surprise.

The real tragedy is that people like you apparently being unable to conduct their lives without the need to tremble in fear before angry gawds.

You are again equating belief in the supernatural as somehow providing a "meaning" for your life. For those like you; emotionally and intellectually wanting (a black hole of unfulfilled wants and desires), the happenstance of your religion may provide a haven for your emotional and intellectual failings. And more to the point, it assuages your fear of dying. Unfortunately, most people are not content with being corporeal. The Gawds who wave their hand to wind up the universe and then walk away offers little comfort and security for the emotionally crippled who have a compelling need to have their wishes granted that death is not the end of life. Equally unfortunate is that most people do not think beyond the paternal image of their gawds, and they certainly do not think to examine the accepted claims of what defines most gawds. If they did, they would (hopefully) pause and rethink their position.

This air of superiority of yours just rubs me the wrong way. Why do so many Atheists, and I'm one, use their lack of belief as a cudgel against believers and then do so in such a way as to elevate themselves as some form of superior being?

All of us find meaning to our lives or we quickly suicide, so why does it matter that some find meaning by envisioning a God and others find meaning in their family or in watching MSNBC? That meaning that is found is a neurochemical release in the brain which brings calmness or a sense of belonging. What does it matter what triggers that feeling?

People like you are the worst ambassadors for Atheism because you make us all seem obnoxious. Your tirade here isn't meant to explore the meaning of belief or the lack of belief, it's meant to give you an endorphin rush by fooling yourself into thinking that you're a more intelligent person that the rubes you're insulting. Belief in God doesn't indicate simplemindedness and lack of belief doesn't indicate one has a superior intellect. Food for thought:

Data on IR and ER from 35 pairs of monozygotic twins reared apart (MZA) and 37 pairs of dizygotic twins reared apart (DZA) were fitted to a biometric model and demonstrated significant heritability (0.43 and 0.39), with a model containing genetic plus environmental factors fitting significantly better than a model containing only an environmental component. Twin similarity could not be explained by placement on a self-reported measure of family Moral Religious Emphasis as measured by the Family Environment Scale.
​

So to paint this issue as one of people being fools or too scared to see the "truth" is silly. It's a cartoon version of what is playing out.

I agree that some atheists are too harsh on the religious and that in the end the net result of such actions are more negative than positive but I disagree with what you said about the source that people derive meaning being irrelevant. What triggers that feeling of belonging is important because our thoughts too often inspire our actions and religious dogma often inspires violent and/or oppressive actions.

Why make such a vague statement, knowing (you had to know) that someone was going to ask you "like what?"

I can help you. Look at the Religion of Liberalism's dogma on equality. This lead to the Killing Fields in Cambodia, the Cultural Revolution in China and The Gulag Archipelago in the Soviet Union. It takes a milder form here in the US - liberals aren't sending Americans to death camps yet but they are stripping them of their human rights and all in the service of their dogma on the issue of equality.

If you're going to make the argument that the feeling of belonging or sense of peace or feeling of love should be judged on the source of the feeling don't you think that you should give an example of a scenario where people seek to find soulful peace for themselves by being involved in "violent and/or oppressive actions." For instance, the adherents of the Religion of Liberalism push their dogma of equality and find self-satisfaction in thinking of themselves as enlightened and caring beings while simultaneous forcing people to engage in personal associations that they wish to avoid. See, this is an example of what you're talking about, right? Liberals shoving their religion into people's lives when it's not welcomed and their religion actually harms people by violating their human rights.

Now what did you have in mind when you wrote your comment?

What I had in mind were the many harmful examples of theocracy, such as the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the Protestant movement in Europe, and the Salem Witch Trials. The religious dogma that was the source of such feelings of peace and acceptance were also the source of these atrocities and we must be careful not to let such things happen again. Yet they continue to take place across the Middle East at the behest of yet another religious dogma. Religion can much good but currently its net negative influence outweighs its net positive influence on the world. In cases of religions like Jainism I make no complaints. I believe that their teachings of the supernatural are not more true than that of any other religion but the net result of their dogma is non-violence.

Religion is always anchored within a culture, so the actions taken are within the norms of the culture and the times. Do you see Christian Fundamentalists today hacking off anyone's head? The Christians of today have strong faith in God, just like the Christians of yesteryear and yet they don't behave the same. What you're indicting is more properly Medieval European culture. Go watch Mel Gibson's punishment in Braveheart. Notice the spectators? Notice the popcorn venders (ok, maybe there weren't any). It just seems silly for you to be afraid of American Christians launching a Spanish Inquisition.

I think you've boxed yourself into a corner here. The examples you cite are different in nature from the example I cited regarding the adherents of the Religion of Liberalism and their actions. A liberal finds satisfaction from promoting equality even as he stomps all over people's human rights. Those involved in the Spanish Inquisition weren't finding deep peace from the act of torture. Most of those ordering the torture were doing so in order to stamp out heresy - this was an administrative act by the Church.

What is a contemporary Christian expression of dogma which harms the public and is done by Christians so that they enhance their sense of peace? Liberals following their religion harm the public when they praise and advocate equality and do so by stomping on people's human rights. What are Christians doing to match that horror?

You claim that there are net negative effects of religion, so what do you suggest we do about Liberalism? How can we stamp it out? If not stamp it out, how do we reform liberals so that they practice their religion in their own lives but not shove it down everyone's throat?

What I worry about is a slow and incremental backpedaling to a culture with those same social norms as a result of Christian supremacy in this country. I don't really see it as much of a certainty, rather I am pleased to say that the opposite seems more likely, however I am still aware of what the likely consequences could be of Christian hardliners achieving the marriage of church and state that they desire.

 

[Rikurzhen]

which is not to say that atheists are not free to live empty lives if they choose to......

What you hyper-religious loons typically fail to understand is that most of humanity has come and gone before the invention of your gawds. To suggest that most of humanity has lived "empty lives" is simply moronic, but considering it comes from a hyper-religious loon, well, not really a surprise.

The real tragedy is that people like you apparently being unable to conduct their lives without the need to tremble in fear before angry gawds.

You are again equating belief in the supernatural as somehow providing a "meaning" for your life. For those like you; emotionally and intellectually wanting (a black hole of unfulfilled wants and desires), the happenstance of your religion may provide a haven for your emotional and intellectual failings. And more to the point, it assuages your fear of dying. Unfortunately, most people are not content with being corporeal. The Gawds who wave their hand to wind up the universe and then walk away offers little comfort and security for the emotionally crippled who have a compelling need to have their wishes granted that death is not the end of life. Equally unfortunate is that most people do not think beyond the paternal image of their gawds, and they certainly do not think to examine the accepted claims of what defines most gawds. If they did, they would (hopefully) pause and rethink their position.

This air of superiority of yours just rubs me the wrong way. Why do so many Atheists, and I'm one, use their lack of belief as a cudgel against believers and then do so in such a way as to elevate themselves as some form of superior being?

All of us find meaning to our lives or we quickly suicide, so why does it matter that some find meaning by envisioning a God and others find meaning in their family or in watching MSNBC? That meaning that is found is a neurochemical release in the brain which brings calmness or a sense of belonging. What does it matter what triggers that feeling?

People like you are the worst ambassadors for Atheism because you make us all seem obnoxious. Your tirade here isn't meant to explore the meaning of belief or the lack of belief, it's meant to give you an endorphin rush by fooling yourself into thinking that you're a more intelligent person that the rubes you're insulting. Belief in God doesn't indicate simplemindedness and lack of belief doesn't indicate one has a superior intellect. Food for thought:

Data on IR and ER from 35 pairs of monozygotic twins reared apart (MZA) and 37 pairs of dizygotic twins reared apart (DZA) were fitted to a biometric model and demonstrated significant heritability (0.43 and 0.39), with a model containing genetic plus environmental factors fitting significantly better than a model containing only an environmental component. Twin similarity could not be explained by placement on a self-reported measure of family Moral Religious Emphasis as measured by the Family Environment Scale.
​

So to paint this issue as one of people being fools or too scared to see the "truth" is silly. It's a cartoon version of what is playing out.

I agree that some atheists are too harsh on the religious and that in the end the net result of such actions are more negative than positive but I disagree with what you said about the source that people derive meaning being irrelevant. What triggers that feeling of belonging is important because our thoughts too often inspire our actions and religious dogma often inspires violent and/or oppressive actions.

Why make such a vague statement, knowing (you had to know) that someone was going to ask you "like what?"

I can help you. Look at the Religion of Liberalism's dogma on equality. This lead to the Killing Fields in Cambodia, the Cultural Revolution in China and The Gulag Archipelago in the Soviet Union. It takes a milder form here in the US - liberals aren't sending Americans to death camps yet but they are stripping them of their human rights and all in the service of their dogma on the issue of equality.

If you're going to make the argument that the feeling of belonging or sense of peace or feeling of love should be judged on the source of the feeling don't you think that you should give an example of a scenario where people seek to find soulful peace for themselves by being involved in "violent and/or oppressive actions." For instance, the adherents of the Religion of Liberalism push their dogma of equality and find self-satisfaction in thinking of themselves as enlightened and caring beings while simultaneous forcing people to engage in personal associations that they wish to avoid. See, this is an example of what you're talking about, right? Liberals shoving their religion into people's lives when it's not welcomed and their religion actually harms people by violating their human rights.

Now what did you have in mind when you wrote your comment?

What I had in mind were the many harmful examples of theocracy, such as the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the Protestant movement in Europe, and the Salem Witch Trials. The religious dogma that was the source of such feelings of peace and acceptance were also the source of these atrocities and we must be careful not to let such things happen again. Yet they continue to take place across the Middle East at the behest of yet another religious dogma. Religion can much good but currently its net negative influence outweighs its net positive influence on the world. In cases of religions like Jainism I make no complaints. I believe that their teachings of the supernatural are not more true than that of any other religion but the net result of their dogma is non-violence.

Religion is always anchored within a culture, so the actions taken are within the norms of the culture and the times. Do you see Christian Fundamentalists today hacking off anyone's head? The Christians of today have strong faith in God, just like the Christians of yesteryear and yet they don't behave the same. What you're indicting is more properly Medieval European culture. Go watch Mel Gibson's punishment in Braveheart. Notice the spectators? Notice the popcorn venders (ok, maybe there weren't any). It just seems silly for you to be afraid of American Christians launching a Spanish Inquisition.

I think you've boxed yourself into a corner here. The examples you cite are different in nature from the example I cited regarding the adherents of the Religion of Liberalism and their actions. A liberal finds satisfaction from promoting equality even as he stomps all over people's human rights. Those involved in the Spanish Inquisition weren't finding deep peace from the act of torture. Most of those ordering the torture were doing so in order to stamp out heresy - this was an administrative act by the Church.

What is a contemporary Christian expression of dogma which harms the public and is done by Christians so that they enhance their sense of peace? Liberals following their religion harm the public when they praise and advocate equality and do so by stomping on people's human rights. What are Christians doing to match that horror?

You claim that there are net negative effects of religion, so what do you suggest we do about Liberalism? How can we stamp it out? If not stamp it out, how do we reform liberals so that they practice their religion in their own lives but not shove it down everyone's throat?

What I worry about is a slow and incremental backpedaling to a culture with those same social norms as a result of Christian supremacy in this country. I don't really see it as much of a certainty, rather I am pleased to say that the opposite seems more likely, however I am still aware of what the likely consequences could be of Christian hardliners achieving the marriage of church and state that they desire.

This is like being worried about the candle you're holding falling into the lifeboat and burning it down while the lifeboat is overloaded with people and in danger of sinking during a storm where the waves are crashing into the open lifeboat. In other words, a misplaced worry.

The bigger threat comes from the Religion of Liberalism becoming more totalitarian. Why aren't you fighting the imposition of liberal religious dogma on the populace? Is it because you agree with those religious principles? Where's that anti-religious viewpoint of yours?

 

[AtheistBuddah]

which is not to say that atheists are not free to live empty lives if they choose to......

What you hyper-religious loons typically fail to understand is that most of humanity has come and gone before the invention of your gawds. To suggest that most of humanity has lived "empty lives" is simply moronic, but considering it comes from a hyper-religious loon, well, not really a surprise.

The real tragedy is that people like you apparently being unable to conduct their lives without the need to tremble in fear before angry gawds.

You are again equating belief in the supernatural as somehow providing a "meaning" for your life. For those like you; emotionally and intellectually wanting (a black hole of unfulfilled wants and desires), the happenstance of your religion may provide a haven for your emotional and intellectual failings. And more to the point, it assuages your fear of dying. Unfortunately, most people are not content with being corporeal. The Gawds who wave their hand to wind up the universe and then walk away offers little comfort and security for the emotionally crippled who have a compelling need to have their wishes granted that death is not the end of life. Equally unfortunate is that most people do not think beyond the paternal image of their gawds, and they certainly do not think to examine the accepted claims of what defines most gawds. If they did, they would (hopefully) pause and rethink their position.

This air of superiority of yours just rubs me the wrong way. Why do so many Atheists, and I'm one, use their lack of belief as a cudgel against believers and then do so in such a way as to elevate themselves as some form of superior being?

All of us find meaning to our lives or we quickly suicide, so why does it matter that some find meaning by envisioning a God and others find meaning in their family or in watching MSNBC? That meaning that is found is a neurochemical release in the brain which brings calmness or a sense of belonging. What does it matter what triggers that feeling?

People like you are the worst ambassadors for Atheism because you make us all seem obnoxious. Your tirade here isn't meant to explore the meaning of belief or the lack of belief, it's meant to give you an endorphin rush by fooling yourself into thinking that you're a more intelligent person that the rubes you're insulting. Belief in God doesn't indicate simplemindedness and lack of belief doesn't indicate one has a superior intellect. Food for thought:

Data on IR and ER from 35 pairs of monozygotic twins reared apart (MZA) and 37 pairs of dizygotic twins reared apart (DZA) were fitted to a biometric model and demonstrated significant heritability (0.43 and 0.39), with a model containing genetic plus environmental factors fitting significantly better than a model containing only an environmental component. Twin similarity could not be explained by placement on a self-reported measure of family Moral Religious Emphasis as measured by the Family Environment Scale.
​

So to paint this issue as one of people being fools or too scared to see the "truth" is silly. It's a cartoon version of what is playing out.

I agree that some atheists are too harsh on the religious and that in the end the net result of such actions are more negative than positive but I disagree with what you said about the source that people derive meaning being irrelevant. What triggers that feeling of belonging is important because our thoughts too often inspire our actions and religious dogma often inspires violent and/or oppressive actions.

Why make such a vague statement, knowing (you had to know) that someone was going to ask you "like what?"

I can help you. Look at the Religion of Liberalism's dogma on equality. This lead to the Killing Fields in Cambodia, the Cultural Revolution in China and The Gulag Archipelago in the Soviet Union. It takes a milder form here in the US - liberals aren't sending Americans to death camps yet but they are stripping them of their human rights and all in the service of their dogma on the issue of equality.

If you're going to make the argument that the feeling of belonging or sense of peace or feeling of love should be judged on the source of the feeling don't you think that you should give an example of a scenario where people seek to find soulful peace for themselves by being involved in "violent and/or oppressive actions." For instance, the adherents of the Religion of Liberalism push their dogma of equality and find self-satisfaction in thinking of themselves as enlightened and caring beings while simultaneous forcing people to engage in personal associations that they wish to avoid. See, this is an example of what you're talking about, right? Liberals shoving their religion into people's lives when it's not welcomed and their religion actually harms people by violating their human rights.

Now what did you have in mind when you wrote your comment?

What I had in mind were the many harmful examples of theocracy, such as the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the Protestant movement in Europe, and the Salem Witch Trials. The religious dogma that was the source of such feelings of peace and acceptance were also the source of these atrocities and we must be careful not to let such things happen again. Yet they continue to take place across the Middle East at the behest of yet another religious dogma. Religion can much good but currently its net negative influence outweighs its net positive influence on the world. In cases of religions like Jainism I make no complaints. I believe that their teachings of the supernatural are not more true than that of any other religion but the net result of their dogma is non-violence.

Religion is always anchored within a culture, so the actions taken are within the norms of the culture and the times. Do you see Christian Fundamentalists today hacking off anyone's head? The Christians of today have strong faith in God, just like the Christians of yesteryear and yet they don't behave the same. What you're indicting is more properly Medieval European culture. Go watch Mel Gibson's punishment in Braveheart. Notice the spectators? Notice the popcorn venders (ok, maybe there weren't any). It just seems silly for you to be afraid of American Christians launching a Spanish Inquisition.

I think you've boxed yourself into a corner here. The examples you cite are different in nature from the example I cited regarding the adherents of the Religion of Liberalism and their actions. A liberal finds satisfaction from promoting equality even as he stomps all over people's human rights. Those involved in the Spanish Inquisition weren't finding deep peace from the act of torture. Most of those ordering the torture were doing so in order to stamp out heresy - this was an administrative act by the Church.

What is a contemporary Christian expression of dogma which harms the public and is done by Christians so that they enhance their sense of peace? Liberals following their religion harm the public when they praise and advocate equality and do so by stomping on people's human rights. What are Christians doing to match that horror?

You claim that there are net negative effects of religion, so what do you suggest we do about Liberalism? How can we stamp it out? If not stamp it out, how do we reform liberals so that they practice their religion in their own lives but not shove it down everyone's throat?

I also argue that you cannot know the state of mind of either Liberals or Spanish Inquisitors with regards to whether or not they enjoy their actions towards others (i.e. torture and subjugation) That is something that neither of us can really speak to. And a contemporary dogma that harms the public (though admittedly in a far less atrocious way) is the prohibition via the law of same sex marriage. Their sense of peace is enhanced by this because they bevel that they are preserving the moral fabric of society by doing so and yet it denies a particular set of people the legal benefits of getting married. I now make a counter request of you to give an example of a Liberal groups actions that clearly demonstrates the negative effects of their dogma. And I don't think that we should stamp out Liberalism any more than we should stamp out religion. Rather we should encourage the formation of a "kinder gentler" form of both religion and Liberalism.

 

[AtheistBuddah]

which is not to say that atheists are not free to live empty lives if they choose to......

What you hyper-religious loons typically fail to understand is that most of humanity has come and gone before the invention of your gawds. To suggest that most of humanity has lived "empty lives" is simply moronic, but considering it comes from a hyper-religious loon, well, not really a surprise.

The real tragedy is that people like you apparently being unable to conduct their lives without the need to tremble in fear before angry gawds.

You are again equating belief in the supernatural as somehow providing a "meaning" for your life. For those like you; emotionally and intellectually wanting (a black hole of unfulfilled wants and desires), the happenstance of your religion may provide a haven for your emotional and intellectual failings. And more to the point, it assuages your fear of dying. Unfortunately, most people are not content with being corporeal. The Gawds who wave their hand to wind up the universe and then walk away offers little comfort and security for the emotionally crippled who have a compelling need to have their wishes granted that death is not the end of life. Equally unfortunate is that most people do not think beyond the paternal image of their gawds, and they certainly do not think to examine the accepted claims of what defines most gawds. If they did, they would (hopefully) pause and rethink their position.

This air of superiority of yours just rubs me the wrong way. Why do so many Atheists, and I'm one, use their lack of belief as a cudgel against believers and then do so in such a way as to elevate themselves as some form of superior being?

All of us find meaning to our lives or we quickly suicide, so why does it matter that some find meaning by envisioning a God and others find meaning in their family or in watching MSNBC? That meaning that is found is a neurochemical release in the brain which brings calmness or a sense of belonging. What does it matter what triggers that feeling?

People like you are the worst ambassadors for Atheism because you make us all seem obnoxious. Your tirade here isn't meant to explore the meaning of belief or the lack of belief, it's meant to give you an endorphin rush by fooling yourself into thinking that you're a more intelligent person that the rubes you're insulting. Belief in God doesn't indicate simplemindedness and lack of belief doesn't indicate one has a superior intellect. Food for thought:

Data on IR and ER from 35 pairs of monozygotic twins reared apart (MZA) and 37 pairs of dizygotic twins reared apart (DZA) were fitted to a biometric model and demonstrated significant heritability (0.43 and 0.39), with a model containing genetic plus environmental factors fitting significantly better than a model containing only an environmental component. Twin similarity could not be explained by placement on a self-reported measure of family Moral Religious Emphasis as measured by the Family Environment Scale.
​

So to paint this issue as one of people being fools or too scared to see the "truth" is silly. It's a cartoon version of what is playing out.

I agree that some atheists are too harsh on the religious and that in the end the net result of such actions are more negative than positive but I disagree with what you said about the source that people derive meaning being irrelevant. What triggers that feeling of belonging is important because our thoughts too often inspire our actions and religious dogma often inspires violent and/or oppressive actions.

Why make such a vague statement, knowing (you had to know) that someone was going to ask you "like what?"

I can help you. Look at the Religion of Liberalism's dogma on equality. This lead to the Killing Fields in Cambodia, the Cultural Revolution in China and The Gulag Archipelago in the Soviet Union. It takes a milder form here in the US - liberals aren't sending Americans to death camps yet but they are stripping them of their human rights and all in the service of their dogma on the issue of equality.

If you're going to make the argument that the feeling of belonging or sense of peace or feeling of love should be judged on the source of the feeling don't you think that you should give an example of a scenario where people seek to find soulful peace for themselves by being involved in "violent and/or oppressive actions." For instance, the adherents of the Religion of Liberalism push their dogma of equality and find self-satisfaction in thinking of themselves as enlightened and caring beings while simultaneous forcing people to engage in personal associations that they wish to avoid. See, this is an example of what you're talking about, right? Liberals shoving their religion into people's lives when it's not welcomed and their religion actually harms people by violating their human rights.

Now what did you have in mind when you wrote your comment?

What I had in mind were the many harmful examples of theocracy, such as the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the Protestant movement in Europe, and the Salem Witch Trials. The religious dogma that was the source of such feelings of peace and acceptance were also the source of these atrocities and we must be careful not to let such things happen again. Yet they continue to take place across the Middle East at the behest of yet another religious dogma. Religion can much good but currently its net negative influence outweighs its net positive influence on the world. In cases of religions like Jainism I make no complaints. I believe that their teachings of the supernatural are not more true than that of any other religion but the net result of their dogma is non-violence.

Religion is always anchored within a culture, so the actions taken are within the norms of the culture and the times. Do you see Christian Fundamentalists today hacking off anyone's head? The Christians of today have strong faith in God, just like the Christians of yesteryear and yet they don't behave the same. What you're indicting is more properly Medieval European culture. Go watch Mel Gibson's punishment in Braveheart. Notice the spectators? Notice the popcorn venders (ok, maybe there weren't any). It just seems silly for you to be afraid of American Christians launching a Spanish Inquisition.

I think you've boxed yourself into a corner here. The examples you cite are different in nature from the example I cited regarding the adherents of the Religion of Liberalism and their actions. A liberal finds satisfaction from promoting equality even as he stomps all over people's human rights. Those involved in the Spanish Inquisition weren't finding deep peace from the act of torture. Most of those ordering the torture were doing so in order to stamp out heresy - this was an administrative act by the Church.

What is a contemporary Christian expression of dogma which harms the public and is done by Christians so that they enhance their sense of peace? Liberals following their religion harm the public when they praise and advocate equality and do so by stomping on people's human rights. What are Christians doing to match that horror?

You claim that there are net negative effects of religion, so what do you suggest we do about Liberalism? How can we stamp it out? If not stamp it out, how do we reform liberals so that they practice their religion in their own lives but not shove it down everyone's throat?

What I worry about is a slow and incremental backpedaling to a culture with those same social norms as a result of Christian supremacy in this country. I don't really see it as much of a certainty, rather I am pleased to say that the opposite seems more likely, however I am still aware of what the likely consequences could be of Christian hardliners achieving the marriage of church and state that they desire.

This is like being worried about the candle you're holding falling into the lifeboat and burning it down while the lifeboat is overloaded with people and in danger of sinking during a storm where the waves are crashing into the open lifeboat. In other words, a misplaced worry.

The bigger threat comes from the Religion of Liberalism becoming more totalitarian. Why aren't you fighting the imposition of liberal religious dogma on the populace? Is it because you agree with those religious principles? Where's that anti-religious viewpoint of yours?

I agree with some liberal principles (though I won't enumerate them as that is a conversation for another thread) though I am often more open to compromise in many areas (such as abortion) or at least open to discussion before coming down on one side or another. In truth I usually hold two separate opinions on any given subject. The ideological opinion and the practical opinion.

 

[Rikurzhen]

And a contemporary dogma that harms the public (though admittedly in a far less atrocious way) is the prohibition via the law of same sex marriage. Their sense of peace is enhanced by this because they bevel that they are preserving the moral fabric of society by doing so and yet it denies a particular set of people the legal benefits of getting married.

But that's not a religious argument. I'm not religious and I utterly reject the notion of homosexual marriage and I don't invoke any religious mumbo-jumbo to support my position, besides, homosexuals have always had the right to get married. Rock Hudson was married, so too was Dr. Sally Ride.

I now make a counter request of you to give an example of a Liberal groups actions that clearly demonstrates the negative effects of their dogma. And I don't think that we should stamp out Liberalism any more than we should stamp out religion. Rather we should encourage the formation of a "kinder gentler" form of both religion and Liberalism.

Sure. Liberals are very keen on promoting equality. There have been a few cases in the news lately of business owners being forced into associations with people that they simply didn't want to associate with. These association were forced onto people because liberals are seeking to make homosexuals feel normal. These actions make liberals feel good about themselves, they believe that they have good motives, that they are pure of heart, that they are on their side of righteousness. Meanwhile, this quest for forced niceness comes at the cost of the actual, very real, human right of free association.

Another toxic liberal action is the promotion of multiculturalism onto society because they value diversity. The world is a big and wonderful place, I've traveled to many countries and experienced much cultural diversity. Any liberal who has a deep longing for experiencing diversity has the world before them ready to serve it up but instead liberals desire to force that diversity onto unwilling people. The phenomenon of white flight is a reaction to unwanted diversity. The cost of family formation is getting higher and higher as people seek ever better housing near good schools, where the quality of schools is largely a function of low minority population. Fleeing bad schools means that housing costs for families are higher than they should be. Look back at American history and you see that housing costs were cheaper, people were able to afford to start families earlier in life and have more children because this was affordable. Liberals are actually changing family dynamics through the negative externalities arising from imposing their religious dogma onto society. These are very personal costs being inflicted upon people so that liberals can feel good about themselves as they champion their religious value of diversity. All the empirical evidence accumulated across history shows the destructive effects of diversity and yet liberal religious faith in this dogma is so strong that it blinds them to the evidence. A religious liberal will no sooner reject the dogma of diversity than a Christian will reject the divinity of Christ. It's unthinkable for a liberal to reject it, even when they read something like this:

A bleak picture of the corrosive effects of ethnic diversity has been revealed in research by Harvard University’s Robert Putnam, one of the world’s most influential political scientists.

His research shows that the more diverse a community is, the less likely its inhabitants are to trust anyone – from their next-door neighbour to the mayor. . . .

The core message of the research was that, “in the presence of diversity, we hunker down”, he said. “We act like turtles. The effect of diversity is worse than had been imagined. And it’s not just that we don’t trust people who are not like us. In diverse communities, we don’t trust people who do look like us.”
​

A rationalist, which Atheists purport to be, would accept this information and change his thinking, he'd throw off the religious dogma of liberalism, reject its precepts because they were based on faith and invalidated by empiricism. If a rationalist thought about the points in this article, his rejection of liberal dogma would be further confirmed:

But as Britain becomes more diverse that common culture is being eroded.

And therein lies one of the central dilemmas of political life in developed societies: sharing and solidarity can conflict with diversity. This is an especially acute dilemma for progressives who want plenty of both solidarity (high social cohesion and generous welfare paid out of a progressive tax system) and diversity (equal respect for a wide range of peoples, values and ways of life). The tension between the two values is a reminder that serious politics is about trade-offs. It also suggests that the left's recent love affair with diversity may come at the expense of the values and even the people that it once championed.

It was the Conservative politician David Willetts who drew my attention to the "progressive dilemma". Speaking at a roundtable on welfare reform, he said: "The basis on which you can extract large sums of money in tax and pay it out in benefits is that most people think the recipients are people like themselves, facing difficulties that they themselves could face. If values become more diverse, if lifestyles become more differentiated, then it becomes more difficult to sustain the legitimacy of a universal risk-pooling welfare state. People ask: 'Why should I pay for them when they are doing things that I wouldn't do?' This is America versus Sweden. You can have a Swedish welfare state provided that you are a homogeneous society with intensely shared values. In the United States you have a very diverse, individualistic society where people feel fewer obligations to fellow citizens. Progressives want diversity, but they thereby undermine part of the moral consensus on which a large welfare state rests." . . .

Moreover, modern liberal societies cannot be based on a simple assertion of group identity - the very idea of the rule of law, of equal legal treatment for everyone regardless of religion, wealth, gender or ethnicity, conflicts with it. On the other hand, if you deny the assumption that humans are social, group-based primates with constraints, however imprecise, on their willingness to share, you find yourself having to defend some implausible positions: for example, that we should spend as much on development aid as on the NHS, or that Britain should have no immigration controls at all. The implicit "calculus of affinity" in media reporting of disasters is easily mocked - two dead Britons will get the same space as 200 Spaniards or 2,000 Somalis. Yet every day we make similar calculations in the distribution of our own resources. Even a well-off, liberal-minded Briton who already donates to charities will spend, say, £200 on a child's birthday party, knowing that such money could, in the right hands, save the life of a child in the third world. The extent of our obligation to those to whom we are not connected through either kinship or citizenship is in part a purely private, charitable decision. . . .

Yet it is also true that Scandinavian countries with the biggest welfare states have been the most socially and ethnically homogeneous states in the west. By the same token, the welfare state has always been weaker in the individualistic, ethnically divided US compared with more homogeneous Europe. And the three bursts of welfarist legislation that the US did see - Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal, Harry Truman's Fair Deal and Lyndon Johnson's Great Society - came during the long pause in mass immigration between the first world war and 1968. . . .

In their 2001 Harvard Institute of Economic Research paper "Why Doesn't the US Have a European-style Welfare State?", Alberto Alesina, Edward Glaeser and Bruce Sacerdote argue that the answer is that too many people at the bottom of the pile in the US are black or Hispanic. Across the US as a whole, 70% of the population are non-Hispanic whites - but of those in poverty only 46% are non-Hispanic whites. So a disproportionate amount of tax income spent on welfare is going to minorities. The paper also finds that US states that are more ethnically fragmented than average spend less on social services. The authors conclude that Americans think of the poor as members of a different group, whereas Europeans still think of the poor as members of the same group. Robert Putnam, the analyst of social capital, has also found a link between high ethnic mix and low trust in the US. There is some British evidence supporting this link, too. Researchers at Mori found that the average level of satisfaction with local authorities declines steeply as the extent of ethnic fragmentation increases. Even allowing for the fact that areas of high ethnic mix tend to be poorer, Mori found that ethnic fractionalisation still had a substantial negative impact on attitudes to local government.

Finally, Sweden and Denmark may provide a social laboratory for the solidarity/diversity trade-off in the coming years. Starting from similar positions as homogeneous countries with high levels of redistribution, they have taken rather different approaches to immigration over the past few years. Although both countries place great stress on integrating outsiders, Sweden has adopted a moderately multicultural outlook. It has also adapted its economy somewhat, reducing job protection for older native males in order to create more low-wage jobs for immigrants in the public sector. About 12% of Swedes are now foreign-born, and it is expected that by 2015 about 25% of under-18s will be either foreign-born or the children of the foreign-born. This is a radical change and Sweden is adapting to it rather well. (The first clips of mourning Swedes after the murder of the foreign minister Anna Lindh were of crying immigrants expressing their sorrow in perfect Swedish.) But not all Swedes are happy about it.

Denmark has a more restrictive and "nativist" approach to immigration. Only 6% of the population is foreign-born, and native Danes enjoy superior welfare benefits to incomers. If the solidarity/diversity trade-off is a real one and current trends continue, then one would expect in, say, 20 years that Sweden will have a less redistributive welfare state than Denmark; or rather that Denmark will have a more developed two-tier welfare state with higher benefits for insiders, while Sweden will have a universal but less generous system.
​

When a rationalist is confronted with this proposition: "The basis on which you can extract large sums of money in tax and pay it out in benefits is that most people think the recipients are people like themselves, facing difficulties that they themselves could face. If values become more diverse, if lifestyles become more differentiated, then it becomes more difficult to sustain the legitimacy of a universal risk-pooling welfare state" he would consider both values and pick one because he realizes that it's impossible to have both, but those who cling to the Religion of Liberalism believe with the most heartfelt conviction that you can have a high sharing state and a very racially and culturally diverse state and everything will turn out fine. This is the equivalent of believing in angels.

 

[AtheistBuddah]

And a contemporary dogma that harms the public (though admittedly in a far less atrocious way) is the prohibition via the law of same sex marriage. Their sense of peace is enhanced by this because they bevel that they are preserving the moral fabric of society by doing so and yet it denies a particular set of people the legal benefits of getting married.

But that's not a religious argument. I'm not religious and I utterly reject the notion of homosexual marriage and I don't invoke any religious mumbo-jumbo to support my position, besides, homosexuals have always had the right to get married. Rock Hudson was married, so too was Dr. Sally Ride.

I now make a counter request of you to give an example of a Liberal groups actions that clearly demonstrates the negative effects of their dogma. And I don't think that we should stamp out Liberalism any more than we should stamp out religion. Rather we should encourage the formation of a "kinder gentler" form of both religion and Liberalism.

Sure. Liberals are very keen on promoting equality. There have been a few cases in the news lately of business owners being forced into associations with people that they simply didn't want to associate with. These association were forced onto people because liberals are seeking to make homosexuals feel normal. These actions make liberals feel good about themselves, they believe that they have good motives, that they are pure of heart, that they are on their side of righteousness. Meanwhile, this quest for forced niceness comes at the cost of the actual, very real, human right of free association.

Another toxic liberal action is the promotion of multiculturalism onto society because they value diversity. The world is a big and wonderful place, I've traveled to many countries and experienced much cultural diversity. Any liberal who has a deep longing for experiencing diversity has the world before them ready to serve it up but instead liberals desire to force that diversity onto unwilling people. The phenomenon of white flight is a reaction to unwanted diversity. The cost of family formation is getting higher and higher as people seek ever better housing near good schools, where the quality of schools is largely a function of low minority population. Fleeing bad schools means that housing costs for families are higher than they should be. Look back at American history and you see that housing costs were cheaper, people were able to afford to start families earlier in life and have more children because this was affordable. Liberals are actually changing family dynamics through the negative externalities arising from imposing their religious dogma onto society. These are very personal costs being inflicted upon people so that liberals can feel good about themselves as they champion their religious value of diversity. All the empirical evidence accumulated across history shows the destructive effects of diversity and yet liberal religious faith in this dogma is so strong that it blinds them to the evidence. A religious liberal will no sooner reject the dogma of diversity than a Christian will reject the divinity of Christ. It's unthinkable for a liberal to reject it, even when they read something like this:

A bleak picture of the corrosive effects of ethnic diversity has been revealed in research by Harvard University’s Robert Putnam, one of the world’s most influential political scientists.

His research shows that the more diverse a community is, the less likely its inhabitants are to trust anyone – from their next-door neighbour to the mayor. . . .

The core message of the research was that, “in the presence of diversity, we hunker down”, he said. “We act like turtles. The effect of diversity is worse than had been imagined. And it’s not just that we don’t trust people who are not like us. In diverse communities, we don’t trust people who do look like us.”
​

A rationalist, which Atheists purport to be, would accept this information and change his thinking, he'd throw off the religious dogma of liberalism, reject its precepts because they were based on faith and invalidated by empiricism. If a rationalist thought about the points in this article, his rejection of liberal dogma would be further confirmed:

But as Britain becomes more diverse that common culture is being eroded.

And therein lies one of the central dilemmas of political life in developed societies: sharing and solidarity can conflict with diversity. This is an especially acute dilemma for progressives who want plenty of both solidarity (high social cohesion and generous welfare paid out of a progressive tax system) and diversity (equal respect for a wide range of peoples, values and ways of life). The tension between the two values is a reminder that serious politics is about trade-offs. It also suggests that the left's recent love affair with diversity may come at the expense of the values and even the people that it once championed.

It was the Conservative politician David Willetts who drew my attention to the "progressive dilemma". Speaking at a roundtable on welfare reform, he said: "The basis on which you can extract large sums of money in tax and pay it out in benefits is that most people think the recipients are people like themselves, facing difficulties that they themselves could face. If values become more diverse, if lifestyles become more differentiated, then it becomes more difficult to sustain the legitimacy of a universal risk-pooling welfare state. People ask: 'Why should I pay for them when they are doing things that I wouldn't do?' This is America versus Sweden. You can have a Swedish welfare state provided that you are a homogeneous society with intensely shared values. In the United States you have a very diverse, individualistic society where people feel fewer obligations to fellow citizens. Progressives want diversity, but they thereby undermine part of the moral consensus on which a large welfare state rests." . . .

Moreover, modern liberal societies cannot be based on a simple assertion of group identity - the very idea of the rule of law, of equal legal treatment for everyone regardless of religion, wealth, gender or ethnicity, conflicts with it. On the other hand, if you deny the assumption that humans are social, group-based primates with constraints, however imprecise, on their willingness to share, you find yourself having to defend some implausible positions: for example, that we should spend as much on development aid as on the NHS, or that Britain should have no immigration controls at all. The implicit "calculus of affinity" in media reporting of disasters is easily mocked - two dead Britons will get the same space as 200 Spaniards or 2,000 Somalis. Yet every day we make similar calculations in the distribution of our own resources. Even a well-off, liberal-minded Briton who already donates to charities will spend, say, £200 on a child's birthday party, knowing that such money could, in the right hands, save the life of a child in the third world. The extent of our obligation to those to whom we are not connected through either kinship or citizenship is in part a purely private, charitable decision. . . .

Yet it is also true that Scandinavian countries with the biggest welfare states have been the most socially and ethnically homogeneous states in the west. By the same token, the welfare state has always been weaker in the individualistic, ethnically divided US compared with more homogeneous Europe. And the three bursts of welfarist legislation that the US did see - Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal, Harry Truman's Fair Deal and Lyndon Johnson's Great Society - came during the long pause in mass immigration between the first world war and 1968. . . .

In their 2001 Harvard Institute of Economic Research paper "Why Doesn't the US Have a European-style Welfare State?", Alberto Alesina, Edward Glaeser and Bruce Sacerdote argue that the answer is that too many people at the bottom of the pile in the US are black or Hispanic. Across the US as a whole, 70% of the population are non-Hispanic whites - but of those in poverty only 46% are non-Hispanic whites. So a disproportionate amount of tax income spent on welfare is going to minorities. The paper also finds that US states that are more ethnically fragmented than average spend less on social services. The authors conclude that Americans think of the poor as members of a different group, whereas Europeans still think of the poor as members of the same group. Robert Putnam, the analyst of social capital, has also found a link between high ethnic mix and low trust in the US. There is some British evidence supporting this link, too. Researchers at Mori found that the average level of satisfaction with local authorities declines steeply as the extent of ethnic fragmentation increases. Even allowing for the fact that areas of high ethnic mix tend to be poorer, Mori found that ethnic fractionalisation still had a substantial negative impact on attitudes to local government.

Finally, Sweden and Denmark may provide a social laboratory for the solidarity/diversity trade-off in the coming years. Starting from similar positions as homogeneous countries with high levels of redistribution, they have taken rather different approaches to immigration over the past few years. Although both countries place great stress on integrating outsiders, Sweden has adopted a moderately multicultural outlook. It has also adapted its economy somewhat, reducing job protection for older native males in order to create more low-wage jobs for immigrants in the public sector. About 12% of Swedes are now foreign-born, and it is expected that by 2015 about 25% of under-18s will be either foreign-born or the children of the foreign-born. This is a radical change and Sweden is adapting to it rather well. (The first clips of mourning Swedes after the murder of the foreign minister Anna Lindh were of crying immigrants expressing their sorrow in perfect Swedish.) But not all Swedes are happy about it.

Denmark has a more restrictive and "nativist" approach to immigration. Only 6% of the population is foreign-born, and native Danes enjoy superior welfare benefits to incomers. If the solidarity/diversity trade-off is a real one and current trends continue, then one would expect in, say, 20 years that Sweden will have a less redistributive welfare state than Denmark; or rather that Denmark will have a more developed two-tier welfare state with higher benefits for insiders, while Sweden will have a universal but less generous system.
​

When a rationalist is confronted with this proposition: "The basis on which you can extract large sums of money in tax and pay it out in benefits is that most people think the recipients are people like themselves, facing difficulties that they themselves could face. If values become more diverse, if lifestyles become more differentiated, then it becomes more difficult to sustain the legitimacy of a universal risk-pooling welfare state" he would consider both values and pick one because he realizes that it's impossible to have both, but those who cling to the Religion of Liberalism believe with the most heartfelt conviction that you can have a high sharing state and a very racially and culturally diverse state and everything will turn out fine. This is the equivalent of believing in angels.

That's quite a long post lol
I'm very interested to hear about your reasons for being opposed to the practice of homosexuality (not from a personal standpoint, obviously. I myself have no personal desire to have sex with another man, so that I can understand) what I don't understand is do you not want others to do so? And if not, then why not? And there are in fact, many states that do not allow homosexuals to marry within their borders and do not acknowledge the legality of same sex marriages no matter where they took place. This then limits where gay couples can and can't live which is just as much a violation of free association as the example you listed.

As for the many examples you listed I do not have time to read all of them at the moment, but I fully intend to and would enjoy having a more in depth conversation about them.

 

[PostmodernProph]

which is not to say that atheists are not free to live empty lives if they choose to......

Who says that atheists lead empty lives? I resent the notion that I need your fairy tale character in order for my life to have meaning and worth and I also resent the notion that I as an atheist am devoid of morality (not that you said that second part I was just speaking in general that time)

who said it?.....me.....you quoted me doing it......you can resent me saying you have an empty life all you want.....resentment is a free bonus that comes along with having an empty life......

 

[PostmodernProph]

The Loss of Upward Mobility in the U.S. TIME.com

Just curious, which state has the highest level of income inequality?

Probably Texas.

my guess is the state that has both Hollywood and Redlands.....