Atheist/Agnostic/Secularist/Humanist/Pastafarian Thread

[Jake]

After seeing all the attention the Nye vs. Ham debate had, I wondered if there is a community here for this kind of catch-all. Normally this stuff has turned into useless arguments on Soxtalk, not entirely unlike the Nye vs Ham, but with its own thread we can talk about this, that, or the other thing without bothering our religious friends. It's possible we've had something like this before and it didn't work out, in which case feel free to delete!

 

I'll start with a picture from last night (an artist's rendering):

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Rowand44]

After seeing all the attention the Nye vs. Ham debate had, I wondered if there is a community here for this kind of catch-all. Normally this stuff has turned into useless arguments on Soxtalk, not entirely unlike the Nye vs Ham, but with its own thread we can talk about this, that, or the other thing without bothering our religious friends. It's possible we've had something like this before and it didn't work out, in which case feel free to delete!

 

I'll start with a picture from last night (an artist's rendering):

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hahaha that picture is great.

 

I thought about making a new thread when I asked about the debate last night but just didn't. I approve of this thread.

[Jake]

FWIW, in terms of Nye v Ham, I don't think you have to be an atheist to disagree w/ Ken Ham

[StrangeSox]

The evolution/creation "culture war" seems to have peaked around 2005/Dover. I've watched a bit of the debate, but I can't say I really understand the point of it.

 

I guess I could classify myself as an atheist, but people who make atheism a big part of their identity or essentially replace their previous religious fundamentalism with new atheist fundamentalism annoy the hell out of me. PZ Myers, Richard Dawkins and the whole atheist 'movement' is generally pretty awful.

[StrangeSox]

FWIW, in terms of Nye v Ham, I don't think you have to be an atheist to disagree w/ Ken Ham

Yep, anyone who isn't a young-earth christian biblical literalist disagrees with him. Catholic theology doesn't accept it, and other religions have their own creation stories.

[Kyyle23]

I was reading the transcript of their debate. yeesh. Bill Nye casts doubt of the ability of a family of 7 to build an Ark large enough to carry all of those animals and withstand a massive flood, and Hams response was "Well, I never met Noah, and neither have you Bill."

 

 

[StrangeSox]

I was reading the transcript of their debate. yeesh. Bill Nye casts doubt of the ability of a family of 7 to build an Ark large enough to carry all of those animals and withstand a massive flood, and Hams response was "Well, I never met Noah, and neither have you Bill."

That's the root of his entire argument and the "historical science" thing, really. "I wasn't personally there, therefore literally anything is possible." But if you're starting from the premise that miracles are real things that actually happened, then there's no reason to even argue about scientific proof of that position.

[StrangeSox]

 

[Jake]

The evolution/creation "culture war" seems to have peaked around 2005/Dover. I've watched a bit of the debate, but I can't say I really understand the point of it.

 

I guess I could classify myself as an atheist, but people who make atheism a big part of their identity or essentially replace their previous religious fundamentalism with new atheist fundamentalism annoy the hell out of me. PZ Myers, Richard Dawkins and the whole atheist 'movement' is generally pretty awful.

 

Yeah, I think that is why folks are trying to reach for other "names" like humanists, secularists, etc. because some atheists are such pricks. Of course, this is just how humans are. We have an evolutionary predilection for groupishness under certain circumstances, which is for instance why some of us become devout fans of a sports team. Similarly, some people will find that in religious or irreligious groups. Groups tend to be good at self-sustenance, but often suck at relating to people outside the group.

 

Interestingly, people who are politically left-liberal tend to test low on the personality traits that predict that sort of groupishness. Instead, they more often think in global terms, feeling a less intense fellowship with everyone instead of intense fellowship with a narrower group of people. This is why some say the Democratic party seems ineffectual or dispassionate compared to the right as well as why there are a lot fewer crazy atheists than there are atheists.

[ptatc]

The evolution/creation "culture war" seems to have peaked around 2005/Dover. I've watched a bit of the debate, but I can't say I really understand the point of it.

I guess I could classify myself as an atheist, but people who make atheism a big part of their identity or essentially replace their previous religious fundamentalism with new atheist fundamentalism annoy the hell out of me. PZ Myers, Richard Dawkins and the whole atheist 'movement' is generally pretty awful.

Not an atheist myself but one of the funniest/most aggravating to listen to is Penn Gillette. He once went on a rant going through Springsteen songs to find all of his "atheist" leanings. Absolutely, hysterical even though he was serious about it.

[witesoxfan]

That's the root of his entire argument and the "historical science" thing, really. "I wasn't personally there, therefore literally anything is possible." But if you're starting from the premise that miracles are real things that actually happened, then there's no reason to even argue about scientific proof of that position.

 

Otherwise known as the Carl Everett Theorem.

[Reddy]

FWIW, in terms of Nye v Ham, I don't think you have to be an atheist to disagree w/ Ken Ham

On ChristianToday.com there was a poll and 92% of respondents thought Nye won.

 

That tells you something right there.

[cabiness42]

On ChristianToday.com there was a poll and 92% of respondents thought Nye won.

 

That tells you something right there.

 

I've never been to that website, but I would venture to guess that the readership of that website is not at all representative of the general population of Christians.

[Soxbadger]

Im nothing. At a very young age I doubted all religions, simply because if religion X was right, part of my family was wrong and if religion y was right, the other part of my family was wrong. So did that mean no matter how good of a human I was, id go to hell (not hell) just because my family picked wrong (right)? I cant imagine that a "just" god would allow that. I couldnt imagine that if I was the greatest human being but a jew, Id go to hell, or if I was the worst and a christian id go to heaven. It just made no sense.

 

As I grew up I became more convinced of my rightness. Not just about religion, but also about god. If god exists, then he is all knowing and all powerful. If that is true, than predestination must be true, because he already knows the end, so everyone of my actions was already predetermined whether I liked it or not.

 

And I just dont accept that premise. So I believe that we are nothing more than a grain of sand on a very large beach. And maybe there is some sort of higher power that I cant understand, because well you cant create something from nothing.

 

But that is it, thats the only question. Where did it all come from? Maybe the answer is it always existed.

 

I generally dont fit in any box, because quite frankly I dont really care to be associated with others, and Im not trying to convince anyone of my ways.

[farmteam]

It's not often I agree with Pat Robertson.

[farmteam]

Yeah, I think that is why folks are trying to reach for other "names" like humanists, secularists, etc. because some atheists are such pricks. Of course, this is just how humans are. We have an evolutionary predilection for groupishness under certain circumstances, which is for instance why some of us become devout fans of a sports team. Similarly, some people will find that in religious or irreligious groups. Groups tend to be good at self-sustenance, but often suck at relating to people outside the group.

 

Interestingly, people who are politically left-liberal tend to test low on the personality traits that predict that sort of groupishness. Instead, they more often think in global terms, feeling a less intense fellowship with everyone instead of intense fellowship with a narrower group of people. This is why some say the Democratic party seems ineffectual or dispassionate compared to the right as well as why there are a lot fewer crazy atheists than there are atheists.[/url]

This is really interesting, what sort of studies have there been on this?

[Jake]

This is really interesting, what sort of studies have there been on this?

 

This comes most generally from the field of moral psychology. That isn't my field of expertise, so I can't speak to the absolute agreement of that field, but one of its most esteemed researchers is a man whose work I am quite familiar with. His name is Jonathan Haidt and if you're interested in a book, The Righteous Mind is what you're looking for. There are many good YouTube videos out there, including a TED talk, where he lays things out pretty accessibly. Bear in mind that he has had some new developments since his TED talk though, even though the core is largely the same. He has begun to tease out libertarians as a tertiary group to study beyond the more vague "liberal vs. conservative" binary.

 

Another fun place to go is YourMorals.org where you can take some of a whole bunch of surveys to see how you rank among your peers in this, that, and the other thing. By answering a few questions about your age, gender, and political beliefs (a couple of other things I can't remember too) you are also anonymously contributing to ongoing research. It is run by the same man, Haidt, and some other researchers. I think you can browse results without actually taking them too.

[Jake]

 

 

Edited February 6, 2014 by Jake

[Joxer_Daly]

Just had a look at the second video there. Interesting stuff alright. I think I'll have a look at The Righteous Mind, as recommended by your good self.

[Jake]

Just had a look at the second video there. Interesting stuff alright. I think I'll have a look at The Righteous Mind, as recommended by your good self.

 

It's pretty great and while he himself is an academic, it doesn't really read like an academic book. He starts by explaining the history of moral psychology, as learned by himself, in a way that is easy to get and is more of a narrative - he explains it as he learned it. Then he moves on to the interesting experiments he did. He then explains his own Moral Foundations Theory that came forth from that...followed by where he realized he was wrong/incomplete and the new things he did to make that right. Each chapter has a nice little wrap-up at the end, basically a sentence to a paragraph that recaps the bare bones things to remember.

 

One of the most personally beneficial parts of reading the book for me, which is what he would have intended, is it helped me to understand why it is that people don't agree with me about political things. In another thread, Alpha Dog is not happy with the idea of people leaving the work force because they are being given something for nothing, in his eyes. If I am to think of him in some ways morally similar to conservatives, I can see that he invests a lot of moral importance in parts of morality that I don't.

 

Haidt finds generally that of his six moral foundations (Care/harm, Fairness/cheating, Liberty/oppression, Loyalty/betrayal, Authority/subversion, Sanctity/degradation), conservatives tend to distribute their moral importance across all six of them. Left-liberals tend to be invested in only the first three, with a particular interest in Care/harm and Liberty/oppression. I'm guessing that Alpha Dog is much more sensitive to the notion of cheating the system than I am, which makes it less likely that he sees it as more a black-and-white Care/harm and Liberty/oppression problem as I do.

 

On another topic, you can see the Sanctity/degradation, something he also just calls Purity, area as crucial to many divisive discussions. This speaks to being conservative, in many ways. Gay marriage is "disgusting" in that it is too different to be comfortable. Conservatives, generally having this strong sense of Sanctity/degradation, will always react negatively to strong cultural change, particularly when it is unprecedented change. Liberals are hardly worried about degradation of society. Of interest, libertarians generally register practically nothing on the Sanctity/degradation area, which constitutes a key difference between them and conservatives and explains why they sometimes agree with left-liberals.

 

What is interesting to me is that his current job is at Columbia's business school, where he is trying to teach business ethics.