text:
All Blog Posts Tagged 'freewill' - Atheist Nexus 2017-01-24T03:06:58Z http://atheistnexus.org/profiles/blog/feed?tag=freewill&xn_auth=no Comments on ZERO SUGAR DIET tag:atheistnexus.org,2017-01-16:2182797:BlogPost:2730632 2017-01-16T10:57:34.000Z John B Hodges http://atheistnexus.org/profile/JohnBHodges
ZERO SUGAR DIET is the latest book by David Zinczenko, with assistance by Stephen Perrine. Zinczenko is not a medical researcher or clinician; he is a professional writer and editor. He is the author of over twenty books on diet and health, including the EAT THIS, NOT THAT series, the ABS DIET series, and the ZERO BELLY series. He has been a high ranking editor of three magazines about diet and health. Both for his job and for his personal use, he "obsessively reads" the latest research on…

ZERO SUGAR DIET is the latest book by David Zinczenko, with assistance by Stephen Perrine. Zinczenko is not a medical researcher or clinician; he is a professional writer and editor. He is the author of over twenty books on diet and health, including the EAT THIS, NOT THAT series, the ABS DIET series, and the ZERO BELLY series. He has been a high ranking editor of three magazines about diet and health. Both for his job and for his personal use, he "obsessively reads" the latest research on this subject.

ZERO SUGAR DIET is written like a magazine article, full of anecdotes, factoids, helpful hints, "studies say" declarations, recipes, lists, and bullet points. Many diet books are like this. It is not anything like the books of Gary Taubes, WHY WE GET FAT and THE CASE AGAINST SUGAR, which I strongly recommend. Taubes writes like a scientist and a lawyer, clearly and fluently making an argument and explaining the science and history of the issue. Zinczenko is a salesman for a proposed diet.

On page 11 he writes: "In 2015, researchers at the University of Massachusetts compared two sets of dieters. One set had spent the previous year doing pretty much everything that I did: cut calories, reduce saturated fat, ate lots of fruit and vegetables, took the skin off their chicken, ate low-fat dairy items, cut sodium, ate more fish, reduced trans fats, cut back on sugar, and exercised a minimum of 150 minutes a week. The other group did none of these things. All they did was eat more fiber, at least 30 grams a day.
 Yet after a year, both groups showed nearly identical reductions in weight, blood pressure, cholesterol levels, blood sugar, and inflammation.
 My first reaction? I was mad. Car-flipping mad."

So, in this book he is proposing a diet very low in added sugars and with lots of fiber. His diet has two phases. Phase One is two weeks, Phase Two is thereafter.

He makes the distinction between natural sugar, that occurs naturally in the food, and added sugar, which is in many, many foods you will find in the supermarket and in restaurants. He proposes that for two weeks, you avoid all added sugar entirely. Each meal should include (1) a zero-sugar carbohydrate: vegetables (fresh or frozen), whole fruit (fresh or frozen), beans/legumes, unsweetened whole grains and cereals (brown rice, quinoa, oats), or nuts and seeds... (2) a "power protein", such as eggs, fish, plain Greek yoghurt, or lean meat (turkey, chicken, lean beef, roast pork) ... and a zero-added-sugar beverage (water, tea, milk, black coffee, or wine in moderation).

This two-week phase will probably drop your weight by ten pounds or so, but more importantly, it will end your cravings for sugar, show you that with enough fiber, at the end of the meal you do not crave dessert.

Phase two, you can resume buying packaged and processed food, with the proviso that it should contain more grams of fiber than grams of sugar. He has pages of lists, of commercial breads, crackers, soups, snacks, that actually meet this requirement. Most restaurant chains will have SOMETHING on their menu that will pass. You will probably continue to lose weight, but more slowly.

After the first two weeks, he also allows (at most) two "cheat meals" per week, when you can eat whatever.

My own comments: The very-low-sugar, high-fiber diet is interesting, because it offers an alternate explanation for why some other diets work. For example, there is a book called THE CHINA STUDY, which reports on a statistical, epidemiological study of many local populations in China, each with a somewhat different pattern of eating, which found that the less meat that a population ate, the more healthy they were. Vegans point to this study to argue for a totally plant-based diet. I note that the more plants you eat, the more fiber you will get. Meat consumption in China is strongly correlated with household income, and I will bet that household income is ALSO strongly correlated with SUGAR consumption. So the fact that the vegan diet WORKS, to reduce obesity and improve health, may not necessarily finger meat as unhealthy. Similarly for the Paleo diet. The basic idea of Paleo is that over LONG periods of time, by natural selection our species adapts to the foods we have been eating, so we may be better adapted to ancient foods and less well-adapted to more recent foods. (Especially foods invented in the last two hundred years, but to some degree even foods that were introduced with the invention of agriculture 10,000 years ago.) From my personal experience I can say that the Paleo diet also WORKS. But it is ALSO a very-low-sugar, substantial-fiber diet, so perhaps it is not necessary to quit eating grains, beans, and dairy.
 Ning CEO message tag:atheistnexus.org,2017-01-07:2182797:BlogPost:2730028 2017-01-07T22:37:11.000Z Chris http://atheistnexus.org/profile/ChrisGillespie
Has something changed with Ning?

It's had lags and hangs for years.

Istn't it the CEO's job to fix it.

Perhaps if email was sent to the CEO firstname.lastname@example.com, everytime there was a hang, or lag the CEO might find a pattern.

_____________________________________________…

Has something changed with Ning?

It's had lags and hangs for years.

Istn't it the CEO's job to fix it.

Perhaps if email was sent to the CEO email@example.com, everytime there was a hang, or lag the CEO might find a pattern.

_____________________________________________

A Message from Our CEO

Posted by Bryce Rubio on January 4, 2017 at 1:06pm

I want to take this opportunity to thank each and every Network Creator for your continued support! On behalf of the entire Ning Interactive team, I can tell you that we're motivated and inspired by the communities you've created and are dedicated to helping you and your networks succeed.

The past few years have been challenging, both to our employees and more so to you, our Network Creators, but I can confirm that's all in the past now. We're committed to developing our people, strengthening our platform, and reopening the lines of communication while rebuilding our own community here on Creators. We're excited for the future and the opportunity to work with you, and we hope to exceed your expectations.

Since taking ownership of Ning Interactive Inc. on October 1, 2016, we have focused on stabilizing our environment and fixing old, outstanding bugs. We canceled the rate increase that was scheduled to go into effect October 1st of last year and increased our billing and technical support hours to be 24/7. We're investing capital in infrastructure and human resources, all to ensure the success of our customers, platform, and scalability.

As we start a new year, we're shifting our focus to features, functionality, and customer transparency. Below is a list of some (but by no means all) of our Ning 3.0, Q1 objectives for 2017:

Add Features: Events, Search, Chat, and Paid Access

Restart 2.0 to 3.0 migrations

Establish a new NC Council to participate in the creation of a new Product Roadmap

Successful implementation of at least two customer-driven features

Weekly status updates here on Creators

As CEO, I want to hear directly from you how we're doing in the following areas:

Customer Support: Are we doing better or worse? What aren't we doing that you would like to see?

Transparency & Communication: Are we communicating as much as you'd like? What else would you like to hear from us?

Existing Features & Functionality: Issues you've encountered using them, how they can be improved, etc.

Ning Network Design Tools: What tools can be improved? What additional tools are needed?

If there is anything that we can do to improve our service to you, I will listen. Send your feedback to email@example.com, and please be sure and include your network's URL in your message. I look forward to hearing from you!

Our developers also want to hear your perspective on which features and functionalities you find useful or would like to see in the future. We'll monitor your feedback for future consideration, using it to fine tune improvements to existing features and new features added to the Product Roadmap. In some cases, we may respond directly for further clarification. Message email@example.com, including your network's URL, to share your insights with the team.

In closing, we have much work ahead of us, not the least of which includes earning back your trust. However, with a new team and renewed focus, coupled with your restored trust and partnership, we're energized to make 2017 our best year yet!

You need to be a member of Ning Creators Network to add comments!

Join Ning Creators Network

 Meaning of life comes from normal activities like Love,Work & Play tag:atheistnexus.org,2017-01-07:2182797:BlogPost:2729795 2017-01-07T10:32:47.000Z V.N.K.Kumar http://atheistnexus.org/profile/VNKKumar

It's not that only Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, Florence Nightingale, Albert Einstein, Dalai Lama & such others could have a meaningful life and the rest of the humanity who somehow eke out a livelihood for themselves & their dependents can never have a meaningful life. Not everybody needs to do something of that magnitude to have a meaningful life.…

It's not that only Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, Florence Nightingale, Albert Einstein, Dalai Lama & such others could have a meaningful life and the rest of the humanity who somehow eke out a livelihood for themselves & their dependents can never have a meaningful life. Not everybody needs to do something of that magnitude to have a meaningful life.

My contention is that everyone can make his or her life meaningful, doing normal activities like Love, Work & Play.

Love

To sustain well-being, people need supportive, positive relationships and social belonging. Only a few misanthropes have denied that loving relationships are a major part of what gives life meaning. Most people value romantic interactions, family ties and friendships. The 99% of people who are not psychopathic are also capable of caring for people beyond their immediate circle, showing compassion for the suffering of others, whether it is the tsunami victims in Indonesia & Japan or the Victims of 9/11 in USA or the victims of 26/11 in Mumbai or the Delhi Gang-rape case of Damini, aka Nirbhayi.

Initial romantic love or infatuation may be driven by sexual desire and other personal goals but with mature love, another person comes to matter inherently, as do children, parents and close friends. Happiness is not our sole goal, since people often pursue love-induced activities that may not contribute much to happiness, such as caring for a disabled child (Autistic or brain damaged), spouse or parent. I know of one elderly lady in my family, who has nursed her husband struck by Alzheimer's, completely bedridden, for about a decade without complaining. That is love.

Work

A gentleman goes hiking near a stone quarry and sees a stone cutter hammering away at a big boulder and asks, " my dear sir, what are you doing?" To this the stone cutter replies, " I am reducing this boulder to smaller chunks. I get paid to do this. I have a family to support". The gentleman goes further and sees another worker chiseling away at the smaller chunks and asks the same question to which the worker says," Sir, I am doing my best to produce a standard brick of stone. I am the best stone-cutter in the entire county. I have a reputation to keep up to". The gentleman walks further and meets an old man giving finishing touches to the small blocks. He asks the same question to which the old man replies, "Sir, I think I am building a cathedral".

The first stone cutter is seeking financial satisfaction, the second personal satisfaction from his own efficiency & effectiveness, whereas the third man is seeking meaning in his activity through contributions to society at large.

Ideally if all the three kinds of satisfaction are achieved at work, it will make one's work-life very meaningful.

Play

Play is engaging in activity for enjoyment and recreation rather than for a serious or practical purpose. Listening to music and reading novels or non-fiction of your choice are clearly "Play" in this sense,

For most people, play supplements love & work as a source of meaning. At the beginning and end of life, work is not expected to be of primary importance. Retired people seem to be as happy as those working and no one expects young children to be doing very much in the way of work. Hence the protests against child-labour.

Even for adults there are many kinds of activities outside of work & personal relationships that people enjoy : Reading, Watching TV, Spending time with family & friends, Movies,Parties,Picnics,Computer-related activities, Exercise, Gardening, Music making/appreciation, Drama, sports etc.

VITAL NEEDS IN HUMANS

Besides our biological needs for oxygen, food, water & shelter, there are three psychological needs of competence, autonomy & Relatedness, which when fulfilled make our lives meaningful.

Competence : is people's need to feel effective in their activities by engaging in challenges and experiencing mastery in the physical & social worlds. The need for competence leads people to seek challenges appropriate to their capacities.

Autonomy : is people's need to feel that their activities are self-chosen and self-endorsed, enabling them to organize and regulate their own behaviour as an expression of their own interests & values.

Relatedness : is the need to feel a sense of closeness with others through attachments and feelings of security, belongingness & intimacy. It requires feeling connected to others whom we care for and who care for us.

HOW LOVE, WORK, & PLAY SATISFY OUR VITAL NEEDS & MAKE OUR LIVES MEANINGFUL

Activities in the realms of love, work and play can contribute enormously to satisfaction of the vital psychological needs of competence, autonomy and relatedness.

Work is highly relevant to competence when it is challenging yet doable, so that people can perceive that they are effective. The failure to satisfy the need for competence is a partial explanation of why menial jobs are so unpleasant. Play can contribute to a sense of competence when it involves challenging activities such as sports, music and hobbies.

Satisfying the need for competence requires a degree a challenge, making it clear why some pastimes, such as watching mindless TV soap operas need not be counted as generating much value. Love, construed broadly to include friendship and compassion as well as romantic involvement, is clearly the major way to satisfy the need for relatedness.

Play, of more frivolous sorts not tied to competence might also be justified as a distraction sometimes needed from the stresses associated with the more inherently valuable pursuits of love & work.

Thus, work, play & love are clearly consonant with the needs for Competence & Relatedness, but what about the proposed need for Autonomy ?

There is some evidence from research that work is more satisfying when it is self-chosen & self-regulated, suggesting that the most enjoyable kinds of work help to satisfy the need for autonomy.

The problem with tedious jobs is not just that they do not permit feelings of effectiveness needed for competence, but also that they are controlled by others and hence do not permit people to choose for themselves & regulate their own behaviour. Games & entertainment are plausibly more satisfying when they are self-chosen. People don't like being told what they have to do for fun.

Religion & the Meaning of Life

For religious people, theology provides major sources of hope, both in their current lives and in a projected afterlife. People genuinely believe that God will provide, that things will work out for the best, that everything happens for a reason, that God loves them and cares for them, and that even if this life is a "vale of tears", it does not matter all that much, because an eternal afterlife will be wonderful. This implicit faith gives meaning to the lives of religious people.

My Take on this :

For the skeptics, religion cannot provide meaning in their lives because of the lack of evidence for a caring God or a redeeming afterlife. Immortality, Divine love & Eternal Bliss would be really nice but as I said to myself decades ago : " Kumar, you just have to bite the bullet and learn to live without these tantalizing & puerile delusions."

Fortunately, love, work and play are real & realizable, putting a substantially meaningful life within the reach of most people like me.

The reassurance provided by religion & spirituality that everything will work out in our favour is illusory. Seeking meaning through Religion is like searching for a black cat in a dark room, which is not there.

Anybody can have a meaningful life

But most people like I said before and I reiterate, have the intellectual & material resources to achieve meaningful lives through the moderately successful pursuit of love, work and play.

Perhaps one of the main reasons why religious people are happier is that attending mass prayers, Pravachans (Gospels) and identifying oneself as a member of a religious sect contributes to a sense of Community & belongingness. If so, spirituality is not a vital need but rather a stand-in for relatedness, which can be satisfied through secular communities like Recreation clubs, Book clubs, Music concerts Association, Yoga clubs,Elder citizen's council or Forum for public lectures etc.

 We wouldn't have existed if our ancestors weren't Paranoids! tag:atheistnexus.org,2017-01-07:2182797:BlogPost:2729608 2017-01-07T06:25:26.000Z V.N.K.Kumar http://atheistnexus.org/profile/VNKKumar
I am comfortable with not having answers to everything. By temperament, I have a high tolerance for ambiguity and uncertainty. Many people suffer Cognitive Dissonance with uncertainties and probabilistic world models, and thus they feel the need to close that loop with a definitive answer, regardless of how intellectually indefensible it may be.

This low tolerance for uncertainty in many others probably has an evolutionary origin related to the fact that in the Paleolithic environment…

I am comfortable with not having answers to everything. By temperament, I have a high tolerance for ambiguity and uncertainty. Many people suffer Cognitive Dissonance with uncertainties and probabilistic world models, and thus they feel the need to close that loop with a definitive answer, regardless of how intellectually indefensible it may be.

This low tolerance for uncertainty in many others probably has an evolutionary origin related to the fact that in the Paleolithic environment in which we evolved, it was almost always better to assume that everything has agency and intention. That is, there would have been a selective advantage to adopt the default position that other people, animals and even inanimate objects in the physical environment possess agency (capability of acting) and intention (acting in a manner that can affect you).

Making Type I errors - False positives (assuming something is real when it isn't) will not take you out of the gene-pool because they only make you more cautious, but making Type II errors- False negatives (assuming something is not real when it is) can result in you being too high a risk-taker and therefore a meal for an animal like a Sabre-toothed tiger that really does have agency and intention.

Imagine you are our ancestor living on the African savanna 100,000 years ago, and you encounter some ambiguous situation. For example, you heard some rustling noises nearby at night. Or you were walking in the forest, and a large fruit falling from a tree branch hits you on the head. What's going on?

In an ambiguous situation like this, you can either attribute the phenomenon to impersonal, inanimate, and unintentional forces (for example, wind blowing gently to make the rustling noises among the bushes and leaves, or a mature fruit falling by the force of gravity and hitting you on the head purely by accident) or to personal, animate, and intentional forces (for example, a predator hiding in the dark and getting ready to attack you, or an enemy hiding in the tree branches and throwing fruits at your head). The question is, which is it?

ERROR MANAGEMENT THEORY
 This theory suggests that, in your inference, you can make a "Type I" error of false positive or "Type II" error of false negative, and these two types of error carry vastly different consequences and costs.

1.The cost of a false-positive error is that you become 'PARANOID' (You are always looking around and behind your back for predators and enemies that don't exist).
2. The cost of a false-negative error is that you are 'DEAD' (being killed by a predator or an enemy when you least expect them.

Obviously, it's better to be PARANOID than DEAD, so evolution would have designed a mind that over-infers personal, animate, and intentional forces even when none exist.

Different theorists call this innate human tendency to commit false-positive errors rather than false-negative errors (and as a consequence be a bit paranoid) "animistic bias" or "the agency-detector mechanism." These theorists argue that the evolutionary origins of religious beliefs in supernatural forces may have come from such an innate cognitive bias to commit false-positive errors rather than false-negative errors, and thus over-infer personal, intentional, and animate forces behind otherwise perfectly natural phenomena.

You see a bush on fire. It could have been caused by an impersonal, inanimate, and unintentional force (lightning striking the bush and setting it on fire), or it could have been caused by a personal, animate, and intentional force (God trying to communicate with you, as in the Old Testament). The "animistic bias" or "agency-detector mechanism" predisposes you to opt for the latter explanation rather than the former. It predisposes you to see the hands of God at work behind natural, physical phenomena whose exact causes are unknown.

TO SUM UP:

It is perhaps better to be PARANOID and suffer from the God delusion! You would at least survive to pass your genes along !! Because of our Theistic Ancestors making a Type I Error (False positive) in their lives, they survived and gave birth to their children who in turn gave birth to their children and after virtually countless such reproductive lives, we were born to enjoy whatever joys & pleasures there are in this world.

One price they had to pay for this was that they became Paranoids & God believers. So belief in God(s) for our Ancestors was a byproduct of Type 1 error in their inferences. Thank goodness for that or else we wouldn't be alive & talking about all this now.

Considering that we are hard wired to believe in some sort of supernatural agents, is it possible for us to be true atheists?

Yes, because atheism is simply a propositional stance about the reality-outside-our-heads. It's like an optical illusion. No matter how much you know it's an illusion, you're still experience the sensation that, say, one line is longer than the other in the Müller-Lyer trick. Likewise atheists simply don't trust their "gut" feelings & their intuitions–about their supernatural experiences the same way that full-fledged believers do. The latter buy into the great ruse of God, whereas the former reject their senses as being a reliable gauge of reality.

END NOTE
We no longer face the kinds of environmental threats that our Paleolithic ancestors faced. We can now afford to give up belief in God(s), Heaven, soul, eternity and such illusions, make correct inferences of the realities surrounding us without making either Type I or Type II errors and lead a moral, productive, compassionate and meaningful life.

Yes --- meaningful life despite our mortality and finite existence. Some people think that our mortality means that our lives are meaningless. When we experience a good movie, play, or book, we can find meaning in them through realizing experiential values, despite the fact that there is an end to them. Why should our lives be any different? Think, think.
 Cognitive Dissonance, the pain that's finally gone tag:atheistnexus.org,2017-01-06:2182797:BlogPost:2729758 2017-01-06T02:20:57.000Z Milo Coots http://atheistnexus.org/profile/MiloCoots
First of all, thank you to those who viewed my first post and especially to those who commented. I feel truly gratified that you found value in reading about my experiences and are willing to share your own.

Cognitive Dissonance, "mental discord or inconsistency", is something I experienced regarding my Roman Catholic…

First of all, thank you to those who viewed my first post and especially to those who commented. I feel truly gratified that you found value in reading about my experiences and are willing to share your own.

Cognitive Dissonance, "mental discord or inconsistency", is something I experienced regarding my Roman Catholic instruction since at least 12 years old. I can only verify it goes back that far because the first instance I can recall questioning my religion was at my Confirmation. I remember thinking, 'This is a lot of ritual... is this necessary?' and 'am I old enough to reject Satan? I haven't had a chance to try all the cool stuff that God doesn't like.' Which now I understand is exactly why Confirmation is given to pre-teens.

I don't know if this is every Roman Catholic's experience, but I was taught to believe in the 'God of the Gaps', to borrow a term. God was supposed to exist in the mysteries of the world. Whenever there wasn't a clear explanation, God did it. And to a young child, the world is full of mysteries. Miracles were everywhere, therefore, undeniably God was there, too!

Every time I took a science class, the uncomfortable feeling that the Bible wasn't giving straight answers got a bit stronger. I watched a 'Christian Documentary' once that explained how the Noah's flood was caused by the collapse of enormous underground aquifers.* "That's amazing!" I thought at the time. "God created the world in such a way that he could easily flood it later." Something about that didn't make perfect sense to me, but the animations were cool and I didn't think too much more about it.

*This is tremendous bullshit, by the way. After several college courses in geology, structural geology and planetary sciences, I can say that with confidence.

A couple years later, I was a little older and saw another Christian documentary about the story of Moses and the Egyptian plagues. This one had a lot of plausible scientific reasons. For example, a volcano despoiled the Nile and darkened the sky. The frogs fled the nasty water, the beasts got sick and died, the fly population exploded, and the sickness spread more easily among the people. Even the Passover killing of the firstborn was said to be geologic outgassing that smothered people quickly in their sleep. It was a really well put together documentary, and I was impressed.

But by chance, I had also recently heard in my English class of something called Occam's Razor. The documentary was so complete... there really wasn't any 'gap' left to call any of it a 'miracle'. God didn't need an active hand in any of it. So in my perception, God was just walking Moses through a huge Rube Goldberg device he'd been setting up from the dawn of time.

As my education continued to add more knowledge, the gaps shrunk. It turns out we do have an understanding of how the earth was created, where humans came from, animals with cloven feet really are delicious... I tried to place these things into context with the Bible to make them agree, and struggled and struggled. One time I thought I'd solved it. "God is so great," I said, "He could create the universe in 6 days and make it seem super-old." But my theory still had holes. How could Noah's Ark be real? And, why the dinosaur bones? Why did Old Testament dudes have so many wives and concubines but priests today can't marry?

What finally got me to truly examine my faith were the moral questions that Atheists know very well. Why was god such a bastard in the Old Testament? Why did Jesus bring us eternal damnation? Will I be aware of those suffering in hell while I'm in Heaven? If so, will God take away my empathy? Why did the Church do more about hiding a scandal than protecting children?

And finally, the question that got me off the bandwagon. How is eternal damnation ever justified for finite crimes? Isn't that disproportionate to infinity? I did a lot of introspection on this matter; justice is very important to me. But it wasn't during this introspection that I came to the realization that gods aren't real. It was random, though I credit my introspection for preparing my mind for it. I was doing my normal routine and then I just stopped, physically, where I was standing and really believed, "The Roman Catholic god I've believed in my whole life... isn't real. No gods are real."

And I smiled and felt the incredibly joyful silence. The Cognitive Dissonance was gone. Then I knew peace.

 Why Do Intelligent, Well-Educated People Still Believe Nonsense? tag:atheistnexus.org,2017-01-05:2182797:BlogPost:2729823 2017-01-05T04:19:55.000Z V.N.K.Kumar http://atheistnexus.org/profile/VNKKumar

The first thing we have to realize is that intelligence is compartmental. By that I mean that people who employ sharp wit and critical thinking about one area of life (or even multiple areas) can still remain almost juvenile about a number of others.

Scientists who were/are religious

Galileo,…

The first thing we have to realize is that intelligence is compartmental. By that I mean that people who employ sharp wit and critical thinking about one area of life (or even multiple areas) can still remain almost juvenile about a number of others.

Scientists who were/are religious

Galileo, Newton were two famous examples of such intelligent people who were very religious. Coming to present times, Francis Collins is a living American physician-geneticist, noted for his landmark discoveries of disease genes, and his leadership of the Human Genome Project (HGP). He currently serves as the Director of the US National Institutes of Health. "The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief" is a bestselling book by Francis Collins in which he advocates theistic evolution. In the book, Collins describes briefly the process by which he became a Christian.

From Atheism to Christianity

Collins came to Christianity in a powerfully compelling way. He began as an atheist, someone who felt that "the truth was all there in…mathematical equations" and said "God seemed to be unnecessary" for a scientific explanation of the world. But, as he worked in medical school and was exposed to patients on their deathbeds, he became fascinated by several Christian patients, who seemed to have accepted their fate and were placing their lives in the hands of God.

One patient told him she was confident that her faith in Jesus would see her through; Collins began to envy the certainty of these patients and wonder if he, too, could not share in that confidence. A fellow practitioner at the medical school advised the eager student to read C.S. Lewis' celebrated book Mere Christianity. From then on, we are told, conversion was only a matter of time.

Collins considered searching all the world's religions for alternative approaches to spirituality, but it was hard to do so back then: "There was, folks, no Wikipedia of world religions at that point, and I couldn't figure out what on Earth [all the different faiths] were about."

So he read C.S. Lewis and allowed his inquiry to rest there. Collins was not yet satisfied – he remained an agnostic or at least a non-Christian for an extended time – but he was clearly content enough to make no investigation into any of the other major religions of the world. For months he mulled over what he had read in Lewis and asked himself if Christianity was the ultimate guide in his spiritual journey.

What happened next is bizarre and surprising. On a hiking trip through the Canadian wilderness, the geneticist saw a frozen waterfall in three parts, thought that the three parts represented the holy Trinity (Father God, Son Jesus & the Holy spirit), and fell on his knees to accept God into his life.

Now, the idea that nature contains private coded messages from a supernatural being to an individual person is the antithesis of the scientific (indeed, rational) mindset. It is primitive, shamanistic, superstitious. The point of the scientific revolution was to do away with such animistic thinking.

How are these contradictions possible, you say?

They are possible because intelligence is compartmental. We must be ever on our guard against the "halo effect" which is that tendency to ascribe to individuals who are distinguished in one field, an authority which they do not deserve in others.

For example, just because Albert Einstein was an expert in astrophysics doesn't mean he was an authority in politics, philosophy, or metaphysics (if there is such a thing as an expert in that). It shouldn't lend much weight to either believers' or nonbelievers' arguments that this famous person or that one was "on the right side" on matters of religious belief.

Childhood Indoctrination is the Culprit

Another thing you must realize is that very intelligent people will believe very nonsensical things if you get to them young enough. When you grow up in an environment which takes for granted that a system of belief is sacred, your knowledge base and your critical thinking skills grow up around that belief structure in such a way as to leave it undisturbed. In fact, an argument could be made that without the checks and balances of the scientific method, human reasoning only serves to rationalize and validate the emotional content already in place in our psyches from our earliest years.

WE THINK IN ORDER TO RATIONALIZE WHAT WE ALREADY BELIEVE.

Have you ever seen a tree that's grown up around a fence post, enveloping it as if it is a part of the tree itself? That happens when the post was there before the tree was even a sapling. Intelligence and education are like that as well. If you can instill a belief structure in a developing mind early enough, all the reasoning powers of that individual will develop around those beliefs in such a way as to leave them undisturbed. Those critical thinking skills may even become proficient at challenging belief systems outside the one around which they grew, but it's a completely different skill set to learn to turn them inward, challenging the core beliefs which were already in place before those skills were developed.

And finally, people who did not grow up thoroughly enveloped by a community of faith will find it difficult to appreciate how heavily the social pressure to remain faithful keeps the fence-sitters amongst us from freely embracing our own cognitive dissonance.

My own predicament

I recall clearly how apprehensive I became in my late teens each time I collided with my own inner skeptic, realizing how costly it would be for me if my pursuit of reality ever led me outside the Hinduism fold. I knew long before I finally became honest with myself that I could lose everything, and for the most part I was right. When your whole life is built around an idea, challenging that idea shakes you to the core of who you are, both psychologically and socially.

For some of us, this threatens to demolish our entire world. So it is possible for highly intelligent people to believe in nonsense like god(s).

 For a Muslim male, Heaven is on Earth itself tag:atheistnexus.org,2017-01-04:2182797:BlogPost:2729396 2017-01-04T09:37:19.000Z V.N.K.Kumar http://atheistnexus.org/profile/VNKKumar
I don't understand why Muslim men are so eager to go to 'Jannat' through Jihad and get 72 virgins when they can have whatever they crave for on earth itself! Of course besides this they get the privilege of licking the deity's ass.

The following facts pertain to women and marriage in most of the Islamic world:

1. A man can have four wives

2 A man can divorce his wife in front of the judge without the woman's consent, even without her…

I don't understand why Muslim men are so eager to go to 'Jannat' through Jihad and get 72 virgins when they can have whatever they crave for on earth itself! Of course besides this they get the privilege of licking the deity's ass.

The following facts pertain to women and marriage in most of the Islamic world:

1. A man can have four wives

2 A man can divorce his wife in front of the judge without the woman's consent, even without her presence, but a woman cannot divorce a man without his consent.

3 According to some Islamic scholars, a temporary marriage, even for less than HALF AN HOUR, is allowed. [This is what the ISIS is doing to captured women in Syria]

4 According to some scholars, wife beating is allowed. Not all scholars agree, of course.

5 There is no joint property. Only man owns all property.

6 There is no specific minimum age for girls to marry today even 1400 years after Mohammad. In many Islamic countries, Muslims continue to marry underage girls, as young as 10.

7 Although Mohammad advised against it, he proclaimed that men were superior and in-charge ( just as Christianity and Judaism declared) and therefore many Muslims continue to mistreat women as personal property around the world. Christianity and Judaism have made some reforms but Islam deplorably lags behind in this.

" Women are not given the right to instigate divorce because they are prone to emotional and irrational decision making. A husband, however, can divorce his wife at any time he so wishes" -- Ayatollah Ali Moghtadai

No surprise in all this, since all the laws are made by the misogynistic & patriarchal MCPs, aka Sunni Imams or Shiite Ayatollahs!!!

 Experiences in leaving Catholicism behind tag:atheistnexus.org,2017-01-04:2182797:BlogPost:2729302 2017-01-04T00:11:50.000Z Milo Coots http://atheistnexus.org/profile/MiloCoots
My first post. My intention is to write these as a sort of stream of consciousness style record of my memories growing up as well as my feelings about my evolving perspective and how that affects my relationships, especially with family who are still religious.

Getting right into it, the memory that has been on my mind most…

My first post. My intention is to write these as a sort of stream of consciousness style record of my memories growing up as well as my feelings about my evolving perspective and how that affects my relationships, especially with family who are still religious.

Getting right into it, the memory that has been on my mind most recently is one from Catholic School. I think it was 9th or 10th grade (high school) and of course we had a religious studies period. On this particular day the instructor had a medical issue and couldn't complete the semester, so we had a volunteer fill in; the mother of one of the students in my class as it turned out.

So the lecture was going as usual, boring me so badly I struggled to keep awake, when this nice lady reached the subject of Mary and the immaculate conception. If you're not familiar, that is the belief that Mary herself was born without sin. She described this belief that of course we had all heard before and then did something unexpected; she paused for a moment and added her own commentary. She said "The immaculate conception isn't actually true", she -really- had my attention, now. "It was an idea made up by one of the popes when they were struggling for power against secular kings and queens in Europe."

And then the discussion went on like normal. The next day, we were told the lady was asked not to come back because she was teaching her own false ideas and not the Bible as True Catholics believed. After that, we didn't have an instructor and didn't have that class for another week until one could be found.

This was a profound lesson in my schooling for so many reasons. I will try to describe the ones most important to me now:

1. That a nice Christian woman can hold such faith that she volunteers to take on the religious studies class at her son's school, and the school officials were so afraid of their dogma not being recited to the letter that they'd rather not have the class at all. No Bible study in a Catholic school. In the eyes of many of the students there she was disgraced, even laughed at. What did the son feel about all this?

2. I started thinking the immaculate conception was a pretty far-fetched idea. After all, a seemingly intelligent and faithful mother thought so. But you know what? You can apply that to any of the supposed works of god in the Bible; where does the fairy tale end?

3. It was true that the popes of the past had secular power struggles. I began to study history and found more of these occurrences. It taught me that despite being the leader of a huge church, the pope would sometimes do things motivated by worldly concerns, even if those concerns were simply the lives of their flock. I began to question the 'infallible' word of the popes. Even my dad once told me, "well, the popes are just men, but when they speak about doctrine then they are speaking the word of God." I doubted that since I had just been studying about the Church's policy of selling forgiveness. More recently I learned that the Church stagnated music of all things, in Europe because some pope chose to declare any music with more than one note played at a time immoral, which was then undone in the 15th or 16th century by another pope who had a nice piece written in his honor.

4. I think the most important lesson I learned that day was that people believe many different things, and I wanted to know why. I paid more attention when the following year I took a class in World Religions and got to learn a bit about Taoism, Buddhism, Islam, and others. I can only assume it was my own humility and lack of confidence (that was particularly crippling in my high school years) that made me seriously ask myself, Is my faith in my god any different from anyone else's? How do I know that -I'm- right and -they're- wrong?
 Confrontational Reality and Donald J. Trump tag:atheistnexus.org,2017-01-02:2182797:BlogPost:2729069 2017-01-02T17:00:00.000Z Loren Miller http://atheistnexus.org/profile/LorenMiller
It was a cold January afternoon in 2009 when USAir flight 1549 departed LaGuardia airport with 150 passengers, three flight attendants and pilot Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger and first officer Jeff Skiles at the controls of the Airbus 320. Beginning their climb to 15,000 feet, everything was ordinary and routine, just another milk run to Charlotte, North Carolina, right up to the point where Captain Sullenberger noted: "Birds." Hardly half a breath later, several dozen Canada geese…

It was a cold January afternoon in 2009 when USAir flight 1549 departed LaGuardia airport with 150 passengers, three flight attendants and pilot Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger and first officer Jeff Skiles at the controls of the Airbus 320. Beginning their climb to 15,000 feet, everything was ordinary and routine, just another milk run to Charlotte, North Carolina, right up to the point where Captain Sullenberger noted: "Birds." Hardly half a breath later, several dozen Canada geese intersected the flightpath of USAir 1549, impacting the nose, wings and most especially the two CFM turbofan engines, decimating them within seconds. The thrust which was the lifeblood of the aircraft was almost immediately lost, and with a mere 2,800 feet between himself and the ground, Captain Sullenberger was faced with an unprecedented situation, one wherein he would tap into his training and experience in piloting both powered aircraft and gliders to gain a successful resolution. Because of his expertise and that of his copilot and crew, the "Miracle on the Hudson" was far less miracle than the product of their background and history and utter determination not to let the circumstances they faced overpower them.

 Flight 1549 was a case of what one might call, "confrontational reality:" an emergent and inescapable situation which requires calm, considered action in a limited timeframe if a successful or at least optimal outcome can be expected. In such a scenario, there is no amount of negotiation or spin which will alter the situation or soften the consequences of ill-considered action. Attempting to do so can and frequently will result in fallout which isn't just untoward but positively deadly. A pet phrase of mine plays to this: "You can't argue with reality."

 Or at least you can't when you're directly confronted with it, and thus we come to the case of Donald John Trump. Throughout the presidential campaign and now as president-elect, Trump has played Monday-morning quarterback with American politics while being removed and uninvolved with them, at least for the moment. Behind a podium and on his Twitter account, Trump continues to kibitz on matters of national and international import, throwing out all manner of vacuous bon mots to those with their hands still on the controls of our government. As of 21 January, 2017, however, Trump's role as disconnected observer comes to an end. He ceases to be a bench-warmer and goes from there to arguably a man in the single most responsible position in the world.

 Kindly note that I did NOT say that he became a responsible man, but the man in a responsible position. Having listened to Trump's frequently problematic blathering during the campaign, I still can't help but wonder if he genuinely has a grasp of task he's set himself or all the issues and 330-plus million citizens he will then be answerable to. Even now as president-elect, "thoughtful" or "considered" do not seem to be characteristics of his verbal output, and his few attempts at coming across as more presidential have been colossal failures, from where I sit. Calling his policy-making "shoot from the hip" likely insults any gunslinger inclined to use that technique. Frankly, if Donald Trump's presidency is anything like his candidacy, one might well expect 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue to be re-designated as Bedlam West.

 Yet at some point during his presidency, it is virtually certain that Trump will be faced with the kind of emergent situation which challenged the crew of USAir 1549. The difference will be that the impact of whatever action he takes will likely go far beyond the 155 passengers and crew which Sully was entrusted with, conceivably beyond the population of our country and several others. To date, we've seen nothing in him which reflects the cool, professional attitude Captain Sullenberger evinced during the 208 seconds which challenged him or the determination and resolve which characterized 13 days of the Kennedy presidency during October of 1962 and events occurring 90 miles due south of Key West, Florida. It would be nice to think that when the occasion became piled high with difficulty that Trump would rise with the occasion. After all, at that time, he will be the leader of the free world.

 And the buck will stop with Trump.
 Atheism requires religion to prosper. tag:atheistnexus.org,2017-01-01:2182797:BlogPost:2729029 2017-01-01T17:44:41.000Z Jerry Wesner http://atheistnexus.org/profile/JerryWesner
The atheist movement seems to be losing ground as its adherents grow in number. I propose that this will continue until everybody who counts has no supernatural beliefs, and atheism as a movement is dead.

Here's why. How many of you grew up religious? (You may put your hand down.) How many grew up in a culture saturated with religion? How many, listening to adult conversation, remember on a first meeting "So what church do you go to?" I suspect quite a few.

Do you still…

The atheist movement seems to be losing ground as its adherents grow in number. I propose that this will continue until everybody who counts has no supernatural beliefs, and atheism as a movement is dead.

Here's why. How many of you grew up religious? (You may put your hand down.) How many grew up in a culture saturated with religion? How many, listening to adult conversation, remember on a first meeting "So what church do you go to?" I suspect quite a few.

Do you still live in that culture? If so, you probably feel very much in the minority there in your red state. You have in mind how you will answer, and you may use that plan several times a week.

But if you live in a secular culture, surrounded by people to whom religion is an afterthought, if that, it's different. How long do you go without hearing any of the religion words: church, god, believe, pray, jesus, heaven, and the like? Quite a while? How often do you hear atheist, agnostic, unbeliever, unchurched? Rarely?
Now picture a culture in which most church buildings have become bingo parlors, or bars, vacant lots, or Walmarts. How important is being an atheist now? What do you teach your children about religion?

How often are they asked about their supernatural beliefs? My guess is if they are, it's in relation to the newest imitation Harry Potter series.

So atheism as a movement is dead. That doesn't mean nobody's a non-believer. Quite the contrary; almost nobody worships any more.

We won. Somebody pick up the ball and we'll go home.

A better world? I would think so.

Your thoughts?
 A New Year and a New Beginning tag:atheistnexus.org,2017-01-01:2182797:BlogPost:2729220 2017-01-01T16:00:00.000Z Daniel W http://atheistnexus.org/profile/Daniel57
New Year's resolutions are passé. I don't know any one who makes them, any more. Some claim that such resolutions don't work at all. So why make them?

I don't think it hurts to sit down and ponder the events of the past year, or years, in a context of what works, what doesn't work, what lessons can we learn, and what can guide us to a better life today and forward. We only live once. During the daily routines, requirements, goals, demands, and jostle of daily life, the…

New Year's resolutions are passé. I don't know any one who makes them, any more. Some claim that such resolutions don't work at all. So why make them?

I don't think it hurts to sit down and ponder the events of the past year, or years, in a context of what works, what doesn't work, what lessons can we learn, and what can guide us to a better life today and forward. We only live once. During the daily routines, requirements, goals, demands, and jostle of daily life, the practice of reflection can easily be placed on a back burner, to simmer and boil dry, forgotten permanently.

One thing feels certain. If we don't think about how to live, then life will be more random and out of control. If we do think about how to live better, then we are more likely to take a more active role in the course of our lives. It's true that bad things still happen to everyone, and if we are lucky, good things happen too. But I prefer to have an active role in the course of my life. I prefer an evidence-based life. I prefer to try to do things better, more effectively, and plan for the future while living better in the present.

So today, Jan 1, 2017, I again reflect on events that are personal, as well as community, and national, and global. What can I do to guide my thoughts and efforts for the coming year? What will direct how I live, and in some way positively influence how others live, in 2017 and beyond?

1. I will try to live positively. I know that big things happen beyond my control. I also know that I can live a better life if I don't give up in despair. Sometimes through dumb luck, sometimes through decisions, sometimes through stubborn effort, I know, I've made it this far. The best evidence is that if I keep trying my best, this part of life can be good. I still mourn the loss of purpose and role, that came with retirement, and continue to work on knowing that I did the best that I could. Cancer treatment continues to fatigue, fog the brain sometimes - if I am being honest, almost always - cause muscles to stiffen and protest. So I can't do an iron-man marathon. Who, in their right mind, wants to do that anyway? I can do what I want to do, with adjustment and planning.

2. I will be understanding of my own, and others, limitations. I've always been pretty good at understanding the limitations of others. My own are a struggle. Determination does not always overcome all obstacles. The ant does not always move the rubber tree plant. Accept it, be happy, laugh about those limitations, but do not let them stop me.

3. I will be thoughtful and creative, and positive, in overcoming obstacles.  A journey doesn't just start with the first step. It proceeds one step at a time. I know, I need a sense of accomplishment at many points between here and there. It's not just the goal at the end, but each step that needs to be acknowledged and celebrated. I know, I have many limitations, and more than a few short years ago. So, I will try to view each endeavor as a book of many chapters, and get through each chapter one at a time, happy to accomplish each step, and learn from each step what needs to happen next, and how.

4. I will not let others get me down.  I understand how disillusioning it is to lose, and how hard it is to know that the world is dominated by forces that do not share my values. I know that my life, and all others, is ephemeral. But does it make it better to be negative? Will negativity make others want to emulate me, lift themselves up to a better place, make positive changes in their lives? Will negativity lead me to plant a tree that takes 3 or 5 years to bear the first apple, or plant a tree whose shade I might enjoy in 10 years, if I live that long? Or should I just give up, and in 3 years, if I am given that time, just say, "I might have tasted that apple if I planted the tree 3 years ago" and in 10 years "I could have had a beautiful tree there if I hadn't given up?" I don't need to respond to everything that I disagree with, just learn and move on. I will not nit-pick, and I won't protest others who do.

5. I will let go of what I can't control. Most of the big picture, and some of the small picture, are just beyond anything a normal, ordinary, person can influence. Maybe bad things will get worse, or maybe there are counterbalancing forces and random events that will influence the equilibrium in a direction that I prefer. Regardless, if I make myself unhappy by focusing on the negative, then I'm unhappy. If I enjoy the tastes and pleasures that are here, now, and prepare as best I can for tomorrow, then life is better in the here and now.

So that is my reflection for the start of 2017. Maybe, tomorrow the banks will go under, Mt. St. Helens will blow to the west and wipe out my world, North Korea will send missiles our way, Exxon-Mobile will merge with Mega-Pharma with Monsanto - Dow with Apple with Comcast and make us all into minion serfs of the master corporation. Maybe the people will be fed up and revolt. But in the mean time, I will try to life a good life, learn from yesterday's challenges and failures, and successes, adjust as best I can, and be happy.

"Justice is the only worship.
 Love is the only priest.
 Ignorance is the only slavery.
 Happiness is the only good.
 The time to be happy is now,
 The place to be happy is here,
 The way to be happy is to make others so."

Robert Green Ingersoll.
 The Science of the Soul tag:atheistnexus.org,2016-12-31:2182797:BlogPost:2728224 2016-12-31T02:30:00.000Z V.N.K.Kumar http://atheistnexus.org/profile/VNKKumar
Let us say a woman patient was hemorrhaging badly. She felt weak, cold, and the pain in her abdomen was excruciating. A nurse ran out to fetch the doctor, but by the time they arrived she knew she was slipping away. The doctor was shouting instructions when quite suddenly the pain stopped. She felt free—and found herself floating above the drama, looking down at the bustle of activity around her now still body.

"We've lost her," she heard the doctor say, but the woman was already…

Let us say a woman patient was hemorrhaging badly. She felt weak, cold, and the pain in her abdomen was excruciating. A nurse ran out to fetch the doctor, but by the time they arrived she knew she was slipping away. The doctor was shouting instructions when quite suddenly the pain stopped. She felt free—and found herself floating above the drama, looking down at the bustle of activity around her now still body.

"We've lost her," she heard the doctor say, but the woman was already moving on and upwards, into a tunnel of light. She first felt a pang of anxiety at leaving her husband and children, but it was soon overwhelmed by a feeling of profound peace; a feeling that it would all be okay. At the end of the tunnel, a figure of pure radiance was waiting with arms wide open.

But the doctors try one last protocol and the woman regains consciousness. This is called a NDE (Near Death experience). This, or something like it, is how millions imagine what it will be like to die.

This is an attractive view and a great consolation to those who have lost loved ones or who are contemplating their own mortality. Many also believe this view to be beyond the realm of science, to concern a different dimension into which no microscope can peer.

The evidence of science, when brought together with an ancient argument, provides a very powerful case against the existence of a soul that can carry forward your essence once your body fails. The case runs like this: with modern brain-imaging technology, we can now see how specific, localized brain injuries damage or even destroy aspects of a person's mental life.

Countless examples of such dysfunction have been documented—to the point that every part of the mind can now be seen to fail when some part of the brain fails. The neuroscientist Antonio Damasio has studied many such cases. He records a stroke victim, for example, who had lost any capacity for emotion; patients who lost all creativity following brain surgery; and others who lost the ability to make decisions. One man with a brain tumor lost what we might call his moral character, becoming irresponsible and disregarding of social norms.

The Enigma
 The crux of the challenge then is this: those who believe they have a soul that survives bodily death typically believe that this soul will enable them to see, think, feel, love, reason and do many other things necessary for a happy afterlife. But if we each have a soul that enables us to see, think and feel after the total destruction of the body, why, in the cases of dysfunction documented by neuroscientists, do these souls not enable us to see, think and feel when only a small portion of the brain is destroyed?

To make the argument clear, we can take the example of sight. If either your eyes or the optic nerves in your brain are sufficiently damaged, you will go blind. This tells us very clearly that the faculty of sight is dependent upon functioning eyes and optic nerves.

Yet curiously, when many people imagine their soul leaving their body, they imagine being able to see, like the woman cited above, looking down on her own corpse surrounded by frantic doctors.

They believe, therefore, that their soul can see. But if the soul can see when the entire brain and body have stopped working, why, in the case of people with damaged optic nerves, can't it see when only part of the brain and body have stopped working? In other words, if blind people have a soul that can see, why are they blind?

Even eminent a Christian theologian as Saint Thomas Aquinas believed this question had no satisfactory answer. Without its body—without eyes, ears and nose—he thought the soul would be deprived of all senses, waiting blindly for the resurrection of the flesh to make it whole again.
 Aquinas concluded that the body-less soul would have only those powers that (in his view) were not dependent upon bodily organs: faculties such as reason and understanding.

But now we can see that these faculties are just as dependent upon a bodily organ—the brain—as sight is upon the eyes.

Enigma unraveled
 Unlike in Aquinas's day, we can now keep many people with brain damage alive and use neuro-imaging to observe the correlations between that damage and their behavior. And what we observe is that the destruction of certain parts of the brain can destroy those cognitive faculties once thought to belong to the soul. So if he had had the evidence of neuroscience in front of him, we can only imagine that Aquinas himself would have concluded that these faculties also stop when the brain stops.

In fact, evidence now shows that everything the soul is supposed to be able to do—think, remember, love—fails when some relevant part of the brain fails. Even consciousness itself—otherwise there would be no general anesthetics. A syringe full of chemicals is sufficient to extinguish all awareness. For anyone who believes that consciousness can survive bodily death—this is an embarrassing fact. If the soul can sustain our consciousness after death, when the brain has shut down permanently, why can it not do so when the brain has shut down temporarily?

People often discount evidence that contradicts their firmly held beliefs.

A TV Station & a TV Set
 Some defenders of the soul have, of course, attempted to answer this question. They argue, for example, that the soul needs a functioning body in this world, but not in the next. One view is that the soul is like a broadcaster and the body like a receiver—something akin to a television station and a TV set. (Though as our body is also the source of our sensory input, we have to imagine the TV set also has a camera on top feeding images to the distant station.)

We know that if we damage our TV set, we get a distorted picture. And if we break the set, we get no picture at all. The naive observer would believe the program was therefore gone. But we know that it is really still being transmitted; that the real broadcaster is actually elsewhere. Similarly, the soul could still be sending its signal even though the body is no longer able to receive it.

This response sounds seductive, but helps little
 First, it does not really address the main argument at all: Most believers expect their soul to be able to carry forward their mental life with or without the body; this is like saying that the TV signal sometimes needs a TV set to transform it into the picture, but once the set is kaput, can make the picture all by itself. But if it can make the picture all by itself, why does it sometimes act through an unreliable set?

Second, changes to our bodies impact on our minds in ways not at all analogous to how damage to a TV set changes its output, even if we take into account damage to the camera too. The TV analogy claims there is something that remains untouched by such damage, some independent broadcaster preserving the real program even if it is distorted by bad reception. But this is precisely what the evidence of neuroscience undermines. Whereas damage to the TV set or camera might make the signal distorted or fuzzy, damage to our brains much more profoundly alters our minds. As we noted above, such damage can even change our moral views, emotional attachments, and the way we reason.

END NOTE
 Which suggests we are nothing like a television; but much more like, for example, a music box or Digital Walkman: the music is not coming from elsewhere, but from the workings within the box/walkman itself. When the box/walkman is damaged, the music is impaired; and if the box/Walkman is entirely destroyed, then the music stops for good.

There is much about consciousness that we still do not understand. We are only beginning to decipher its mysteries, and may never fully succeed. But all the evidence we have suggests that the wonders of the mind—even near-death and out of body experiences—are the effect of neurons firing. Contrary to the beliefs of the vast majority of people on Earth, from Hindus to New Age spiritualists, consciousness depends upon the brain and shares its fate to the end.

Hence science says there is no such thing as a soul, spirit, atma, mind or consciousness. The mind/soul is just what the brain does.
 Drug Deaths tag:atheistnexus.org,2016-12-28:2182797:BlogPost:2727401 2016-12-28T18:44:37.000Z Daniel W http://atheistnexus.org/profile/Daniel57
During the past couple of days, the annual holiday death toll included two more well known entertainment figures - Carrie Fisher and George Michael. I think it would be a public service for press to discuss potential roles of drugs in their deaths, rather than treating it almost as a random event "found dead" and "massive heart attack". There is no harm in discussing their drug addictions at the outset, even if it's speculation. For what it's worth, drugs like cocaine have long term high…

During the past couple of days, the annual holiday death toll included two more well known entertainment figures - Carrie Fisher and George Michael. I think it would be a public service for press to discuss potential roles of drugs in their deaths, rather than treating it almost as a random event "found dead" and "massive heart attack". There is no harm in discussing their drug addictions at the outset, even if it's speculation. For what it's worth, drugs like cocaine have long term high risk for heart attack even when the victim has not used the drug in months or years.

We live in an era with death by drugs has a greater toll than guns, cars, and falling. I can't say that Fisher and Michael were killed by drugs, but it's always a good bet when a major music, movie, or TV industry person dies an untimely death, that drugs are the reason. Fisher died of a massive heart attack. Cocaine use is a major cause of heart attacks. Fisher was open about cocaine abuse. A similar scenario of drug abuse was known for George Michael. Prince died of drug overdose. So did Philip Seymour Hoffman,  Whitney Houston, her daughter Bobbi Brown, and countless others.

There's very little in the usual press about roles of drugs in these deaths, or the deaths thousands of ordinary Joes and Jennifers. And yet, these drugs kill. It's not a moral judgment to say that we should treat diabetes, and heart disease, and cancer. It's not a moral judgement to recommend better diets, exercise, not smoking, and advocate for clean air and less car-based transportation for better health. Evidence supporting dangerous opiates for chronic pain, is mixed. Medical practitioners should not be punished for avoiding prescribing them, and especially not for telling their patients that side effects of these drugs include addiction and death.

My 2 cents.

 My Pagan Winter-solstice (Christmas) Musings tag:atheistnexus.org,2016-12-26:2182797:BlogPost:2727071 2016-12-26T02:30:00.000Z V.N.K.Kumar http://atheistnexus.org/profile/VNKKumar
Cognitive dissonance (CD) is the concept of holding two very different ideas in your mind at the same time. This is something all the great composers do when they think of two melodic themes and how they can intertwine, adapt and combine them. We would find it very difficult to whistle one tune while thinking of an entirely different one but that is the sort of thing that Beethoven or Mozart would consider trifling.

Let us take two different ideas:

 1. Man created god(s), and the…

Cognitive dissonance (CD) is the concept of holding two very different ideas in your mind at the same time. This is something all the great composers do when they think of two melodic themes and how they can intertwine, adapt and combine them. We would find it very difficult to whistle one tune while thinking of an entirely different one but that is the sort of thing that Beethoven or Mozart would consider trifling.

Let us take two different ideas:
 1. Man created god(s), and the concepts of soul, resurrection, afterlife, heaven & hell in Abrahamic & Reincarnation, Karma, moksha (Liberation) & ultimately heaven in Eastern religions.
 2. Man wants everyday protection, eternal life & ultimate justice. All these are easily provided by a sky-daddy, if he exists.

Both these ideas are scientific facts (except for the sky-daddy clause) established by cultural anthropology and Evolutionary psychology, but it is difficult to accept both of them at the same time. It would create cognitive dissonance and unease in the common man.

To avoid CD people usually accept one and reject the other.

People tend to seek consistency in their beliefs and perceptions. So what happens when one of our beliefs conflicts with another previously held belief? The term cognitive dissonance is used to describe the feeling of discomfort that results from holding two conflicting beliefs. When there is a discrepancy between beliefs, something must change in order to eliminate or reduce the dissonance.

Some people who are science-savvy accept idea no.1, and feel that idea no.2 arose in the minds of our primitive ancestors because of the need to be safe from natural catastrophes & predators, fear of death & oblivion, and need for fair play. They feel that idea no.1 contradicts idea no.2 and hence they reject the latter and feel that they can afford to think more rationally. Such people are called Atheists.

On the other hand some others, in order to avoid CD, reject idea no.1 and accept idea no.2 as a bonus for their implicit belief & trust in supernatural entities. They are called Theists.

Then you have the third category of people who, like Mozart or Beethoven, adroitly combine the two different melodies into one symphony. Such people are basically atheistic but wish to take over the duties of an absentee caretaker, to the extent humanly possible and help others to live their lives more happily. They say seeking the truth should prevail over search for comfort. Such folks are called Secular Humanists. They have resolved their CD, without forfeiting one idea for the other.

Regarding the needs for everyday protection & justice, they would like to improve the efficacy of police & judiciary and regarding the fear of death & desire for immortality, they would like to educate people about alternative means of attaining immortality.

There are many ways of achieving immortality for non-theists:
 1. Through descendance
 2. Through inheritance
 3. Through deeds
 4. Through remembrance.

Descendance. In children and grandchildren, our genes, fused with those of our partner, live on. There is nothing quite like seeing the family resemblance in a child's face, for realizing the continuity of the generations and feeling one's embedded involvement in the process of life.

Inheritance. Almost everyone who has accumulated any degree of wealth or property likes to pass some or all of it on to their children or relatives.But even the poorest have some possessions that are unique to them- a school prize, a medal, a drawing/ painting, a diary, or some collection like a stamp collection or book collection.

Deeds. The third form of real afterlife comes about through our actions and creations whose impact persists after our death. Not only for writers and artists trying to leave immortal works behind them, but even a single act of kindness may be recollected for decades after our death.A life of loving care by some mothers will be remembered by those it touched for as long as they live. The trees we plant now will provide shade and beauty for generations.

Remembrance. Our only afterlife and immortality is in the lives and minds of those who survive us. And our only hell is in their memories, too. If we are unkind or egotistical towards other people, they won't feel sorry when we die. They may even say " good riddance ". If we hurt them seriously, they will remember us, not with love and nostalgia, but with hatred and rancor.
 Winter Solstice offers a time to look back on the past year to acknowledge my challenges and the things I chose to do to solve those problems. This recent past year was a very hard one for me with th… tag:atheistnexus.org,2016-12-24:2182797:BlogPost:2727045 2016-12-24T22:38:54.000Z Joan Denoo http://atheistnexus.org/profile/JoanDenoo
Winter Solstice offers a time to look back on the past year to acknowledge my challenges and the things I chose to do to solve those problems. This recent past year was a very hard one for me with the death of my oldest son, Cary, a victim of cancer at the young age of 53 years and one month. This loss turned out to be harder on me than I imagined. Thankfully, Craig and Laura and their families walked these dark days with me.

After wallowing in that pain I turn my attention to the…

Winter Solstice offers a time to look back on the past year to acknowledge my challenges and the things I chose to do to solve those problems. This recent past year was a very hard one for me with the death of my oldest son, Cary, a victim of cancer at the young age of 53 years and one month. This loss turned out to be harder on me than I imagined. Thankfully, Craig and Laura and their families walked these dark days with me.

After wallowing in that pain I turn my attention to the coming year. I settled peacefully into my now permanent home at Laura and Larry on what I call "L&L Paradise Acres". I rented my home to Larry's son and his wife, making me grateful that the house will remain in the family, hopefully until my death.

L & L will go south for the coldest part of the winter and I will stay in my home and bedroom in Spokane. Books and the internet will fill part of that time, and as spring approaches I will start some early seeds to be transplanted to my garden in Spokane and my garden on L&L Paradise Acres. I planted far too many tomato plants in the greenhouse at L&L's last summer. They grew to fill the space from growing boxes to the top. The greenhouse was chuck full of tomatoes of all kinds and cabbages, onions, carrots, and the hardy kale.

My family and their friends of the Pend Oreille Co Dist 8 Fire volunteers, and their neighbors provide all the external stimulation I want. Settling in also offers me a lovely view into the forest. The deer don't come to this elevation during the winter months. There are not deer tracks anywhere around the place. Most birds have flown south, leaving behind the raucous crows and busy sparrow. Snow covers the ground and dresses Spruce, Pines, and Cedars with lovely garments of snow.

Our Yule party and Yule Log will burn on New Year's Eve, with invited friend and family. This party always remains in the memories, even of the very young.

I think of you, dear friends, scattered all around the Earth. My wish for you is good health, a tranquil mind, and peace.
 Heaven – a desideratum for some and a delusion for others tag:atheistnexus.org,2016-12-15:2182797:BlogPost:2723601 2016-12-15T12:12:09.000Z V.N.K.Kumar http://atheistnexus.org/profile/VNKKumar
Since time immemorial, believers in a loving and just god have looked around at the world we live in, filled with toil, strife and suffering, and have pondered how to reconcile their belief with the facts at hand. The solution which most religions have adopted is to assert the existence of another world, beyond this one, to which the souls of the good will fly in order to receive their due reward.

Poets and dreamers throughout history have filled their scriptures with rapturous…

Since time immemorial, believers in a loving and just god have looked around at the world we live in, filled with toil, strife and suffering, and have pondered how to reconcile their belief with the facts at hand. The solution which most religions have adopted is to assert the existence of another world, beyond this one, to which the souls of the good will fly in order to receive their due reward.

Poets and dreamers throughout history have filled their scriptures with rapturous visions of this distant promised land. The Hebrew Bible's imagery of a land flowing with milk and honey and of wolves, lions and lambs lying down together in peace has been interpreted by believers to refer to the world to come. In the New Testament, the apocalyptic Book of Revelation pictures a vast cube-shaped city of gold and precious stones, while the Qur'an promises faithful believers a garden flowing with rivers of wine and a harem of perpetually virginal beauties.Talking of our Hinduism, our Puranas describe Swarg and Narak,to which our souls are earmarked, depending on our karma and Swarg is so tantalizingly described.

What all these heavens have in common, though, is that they are far off, hidden from our sight. Preachers and scriptures tell us that this life is a vale of tears and none can change that, but if we bear suffering with good cheer and humbly obey the religious authorities, we will receive the pie in the sky, by and by.

THE HARMFUL CONSEQUENCES OF BELIEF IN HEAVEN

At first glance, it may be hard for religious people to see how belief in heaven could possibly do any harm, but the fact of the matter is that it can and it does. The most obvious example is that of fanatics who are willing to throw their lives away in suicidal acts of terrorism, but this is just the most dramatic symptom of a more subtle and insidious trend: when one believes in heaven, one inevitably begins to view this life as poorer by comparison.

For this reason, while belief in heaven is surely comforting to those who are suffering with no relief in sight, it also has - and cannot help but have - the deleterious effect of discouraging others who have the power to help from doing so. It may even cause the sufferers themselves to passively accept misery as their lot in life, rather than demanding reform and justice.

THE SAINT WHO LACKED EMPATHY

Take the case of the world-renowned Mother Teresa. Famed for supposedly dedicating her life to alleviating poverty and suffering among the poorest of the poor in India, in actuality she did almost nothing whatsoever to ease their pain. In fact, she wanted the downtrodden to suffer, out of the belief that they would be "perfected" for the next life by it.

On one occasion, she said, "I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people." Mother Teresa is thoroughly saturated with a primitive fundamentalist religious worldview that sees pain, hardship, and suffering as ennobling experiences and a beautiful expression of affiliation with Jesus Christ and his ordeal on the cross.

Christopher Hitchens reports that in a filmed interview Mother Teresa herself tells of a patient suffering unbearable pain from terminal cancer: "With a smile, Mother Teresa told the camera what she told the patient: 'You are suffering like Christ on the cross. So Jesus must be kissing you.'" Apparently unaware that the response of the sufferer was a put-down, she freely related it: "Then please tell him to stop kissing me." Mother Teresa's exaltation of suffering is perhaps the most dramatic example of how belief in heaven tends inevitably to degrade and devalue this life, but it is not the only one.

Throughout human history, theists who believe in an otherworldly paradise have been willing to throw their own life away in pursuit of it, chasing the ever-receding mirage of salvation and neglecting the good they could have been doing for themselves and for others as a result. Hence -- It is time to set aside these fantasies, comforting though they may be; it is time to recognize that they were never anything more than the hopeful dreams of men.

Though they may give hope and meaning to some, if we fixate on a fantasy we miss out on the very real opportunities for happiness in this life, the only one we know for sure that we have.

YET, THERE IS A GUARANTEED WAY OF REACHING HEAVEN

The truth is that heaven does not exist yet, but it may someday. It is not a world existing in parallel with our own, but a potential future state of our own world; not a distant place, but a goal for our Earth.

However, this heaven will not be brought into existence in a flash of divine power. It must be, and it will be, built up brick by brick by our hands, our labor, our effort. We must work to ensure justice, to end poverty and suffering, and to establish a community that fills all its citizens' lives with contentment and joy.

END NOTE

If we want to live in heaven, then it falls on us to bring it into existence, on planet earth. This is not the religious heaven where "every tear will be wiped away". There will doubtless always be sadness in even the most perfect humanly attainable utopia. But this just means we should be realistic; that we should have the wisdom and maturity to set aside unattainable fantasies and aim at the best that is within our power.
 Donald Trump Got His Wish ... Or Did He? tag:atheistnexus.org,2016-12-12:2182797:BlogPost:2723186 2016-12-12T13:45:17.000Z Loren Miller http://atheistnexus.org/profile/LorenMiller
Know this from the get-go: I do not claim to know Donald Trump very well if well at all. What I'm laying out here is something which may be semi-plausible, based on what little I DO know and have seen of the words and behaviors of the man who is now the president-elect of these United States.

 There can be no doubt but that the healthiest (or at least most active) characteristic of Donald Trump's psychology is his ego. Regardless of what he has or has not accomplished, Trump is…

Know this from the get-go: I do not claim to know Donald Trump very well if well at all. What I'm laying out here is something which may be semi-plausible, based on what little I DO know and have seen of the words and behaviors of the man who is now the president-elect of these United States.

 There can be no doubt but that the healthiest (or at least most active) characteristic of Donald Trump's psychology is his ego. Regardless of what he has or has not accomplished, Trump is convinced not only that he's all that and a bag of chips, but that everyone else should think so, too. His overinflated self-image reinforces his self-perceived rectitude in everything he's done to this point, whether in his business dealings or as the focal point of the television series, The Apprentice. It is also an established fact that he has at least ruminated about vying for the presidency for more than a decade. The pivotal question is: has his interest in running been about self-advertisement and promotion, or was he genuinely interested in being Commander-in-Chief?

 It's entirely possible that Trump announced his candidacy for president as a combination ego-boost / marketing ploy: promote himself and his brand, strut his stuff for a few months on the campaign trail, then go back to being a jerk on NBC and hawking everything from high-rise buildings to meat products. Obviously, it didn't work out that way. Somewhere between Iowa and the primary debates, Trump caught on with assorted demographics which the Democrats had either discounted or forgotten about. They bought the hype … and because they did, Donald John Trump is now the president-elect.

 So what does he think of all of this in his heart of hearts? A very good question and one which varies depending on which Donald Trump you're talking to at the moment. In his first meeting with President Obama, I was left with the impression that our would-be 45th president was more than a little impressed with the man he met and the picture of the presidency Barack painted for him. One might think that Donnie's runaway ego had been tempered a bit by the weight of this vision. The moment was brief, though, as Trump boasted in a subsequent interview about having won a great landslide victory in the 2016 election. Really? Three hundred six electoral votes amounts to a landslide? And shall we also mention the popular vote, which as of this writing has Hillary Clinton ahead by roughly 2.75 million votes? Oh, sorry, I forgot; we live in a post-factual world. Meanwhile there are rumblings of the possibility of the Electoral College swinging the election to Clinton and a Congressional inquiry into Russian interference with the election which could result in a complete disqualification of the Republican presidential ticket.

 All you've got to know is this: right now the government of the United States is sitting on top of the Washington Monument, right on the very point, tilting right and left and ready to fall off and break up on the pavement.
 -- Senator Raymond Clark, "Seven Days in May"

 Right at this moment, that's how I'm beginning to feel about the future of this country under President Donald Trump. That feeling is not helped by his recent assertion that he isn't interested in daily briefings provided by the US intelligence apparatus, that he's a smart man and has no need of them. Thus far, the only person I've heard who may have the brass to confront Trump about his arrogant presumption is Vice President Joe Biden, who suggested the possibility of taking him "behind the gym" for remedial lessons in reality and humility … and maybe not letting his left drop.

 That still doesn't answer the question: just WHAT does Donald Trump think of this? Being that he might as well be the 21st century incarnation of P. T. Barnum, I suspect we will never get a straight answer out of him. Trump's public persona remains the carnival barker / showman / con man and he doubtless will maintain that façade at all costs. He has let it slip, though – the above-mentioned meeting with Obama – and I wonder if there is there is a portion of his stomach sufficiently twisted from a possible recognition of what he's actually gotten himself into to render even the slightest bit of reserve or hesitance to his overblown ego.

 We had better hope there is … because that may be the only thing standing between us and four positively miserable years.
 Anyone Out There Like Me? tag:atheistnexus.org,2016-12-11:2182797:BlogPost:2723015 2016-12-11T17:40:27.000Z Elgin Madeo http://atheistnexus.org/profile/ElginMadeo
Is there anybody out there who thinks like me? I have been an Atheist all of my life and I resent religious people who want to force everyone else to live the life they envision. However, I respect any religious person who lives his/her life and doesn't tell or force other people to live as they believe.

Although I have always supported organizations like Secular Coalition, Freedom From Religion Foundation, American Ethical Union, American Humanist Association, etc, I am not an…

Is there anybody out there who thinks like me? I have been an Atheist all of my life and I resent religious people who want to force everyone else to live the life they envision. However, I respect any religious person who lives his/her life and doesn't tell or force other people to live as they believe.

Although I have always supported organizations like Secular Coalition, Freedom From Religion Foundation, American Ethical Union, American Humanist Association, etc, I am not an activist. I just want to associate with other Atheists who are interested in associating quietly with other Atheists, and living a good life without religion.
 Gratitude tag:atheistnexus.org,2016-12-08:2182797:BlogPost:2722834 2016-12-08T16:00:00.000Z Winona http://atheistnexus.org/profile/Winona Found this today in my news travels...
 http://theprovince.com/feature/immigrants-say-thank-you-to-canada
 I so needed it, after all of the EXTREMELY depressing, distressing and disgusting U.S. news(which I should just stop reading, I suppose, even though on the flip side, I can't stand not being informed).
 I feel so much pride in my country. I am so grateful for its inclusiveness, its kindness, its generosity. It… Found this today in my news travels...
 http://theprovince.com/feature/immigrants-say-thank-you-to-canada
 I so needed it, after all of the EXTREMELY depressing, distressing and disgusting U.S. news(which I should just stop reading, I suppose, even though on the flip side, I can't stand not being informed).
 I feel so much pride in my country. I am so grateful for its inclusiveness, its kindness, its generosity. It would absolutely devastate me if it ever went down a similar dark path.
 Some of the nicest people I have ever met are immigrants. A lot of people could learn a thing or two from them about how to appreciate their lives, and how to be positive and kind, instead of rude and ignorant. The Nativity according to Matthew; why I'm an atheist tag:atheistnexus.org,2016-12-06:2182797:BlogPost:2722384 2016-12-06T03:00:00.000Z Compelledunbeliever http://atheistnexus.org/profile/Compelledunbeliever
 It is often said that many are atheist because they read the Bible. This is my story. I did not know there were atheist books, activists or anything of the sort. I was a christian with my Bible. I could not discuss doubts with other believers I had to study the Bible that was my only choice.

 This is one of my favorite passages that led to my disbelief. I did not know that Nazareth was not inhabited at all during Jesus's life time, that there was no census or that it couldn't have…

 It is often said that many are atheist because they read the Bible. This is my story. I did not know there were atheist books, activists or anything of the sort. I was a christian with my Bible. I could not discuss doubts with other believers I had to study the Bible that was my only choice.

 This is one of my favorite passages that led to my disbelief. I did not know that Nazareth was not inhabited at all during Jesus's life time, that there was no census or that it couldn't have happened, that the prophesy of the virgin birth was not a prophesy but a sign that wasn't fufilled in the old testament or that it was a mistranslation from Hebrew (young woman) to Greek (virgin), that the star was a myth that predated Judaism in other religions, that demigods were prevalent in other religions predating Christianity, that three wise men also predated Christianity (the most compelling comes from the tomb of the Pharaoh Tutankhamen).

I found that the Bible could not be considered valid on its own merit. It was simply implausible and contradictory to its self. This is an example of my journey, of how I read the Bible and eventually interpreted it. I used to actually paraphrase the Bible to my friends and family to their utter shock much like this. So now I will give you an example of the Nativity according to Matthew(whoever he or they were) paraphrased and with commentary according to Compelled. I will only be taking the story according to its own merit as I did as a Christian to show why I had to reject it as false.

 First we get this great prophesy that (Matthew 1:23) the virgin will have a baby and he will be called immanuel. No where else is this reference made, he is not called immanuel even in modern times? Jesus is born and some wise men from the east see a star in the east and follow it. This means Bethlehem is in the West. So they circumvent the entire globe and arrive on the west side of Jerusalem. The star disappears. They ask around where the King of the Jews has been born and proclaim that they have followed the star to worship him. It does not explain where their information came from.

 King Herod hears about this and is very troubled along with ALL of Jerusalem. Even though he is a Jew he ask his priests and scribes where Christ was to be born. They indicate Bethlehem according to prophesy. He for some reason not explained, he calls a secret meeting with the wise men to find out when the star appeared. The king sends them to Bethlehem (a whole 2-3 miles away) and ask them to tell him when they find the baby so he can worship him also. The star now again magically appears; It leads them to A house and stops over it. They find Mary and Jesus there and worship baby Jesus and they give him gold and embalming fluids.

 Suddenly they are dreaming and god tells them not to go to Herod but to go home. God now tells Joseph,in a dream, to pack up the family and move to Egypt. He does so right then in the middle of the night(bad idea in those times). Herod learns that the wise men "fooled him" (whatever that means). Herod's response is to murder all male children in Bethlehem under two years of age.

A prophesy(not a prophesy at all but an old story of another time) is now sited as being fufilled. "The sound of crying and much sorrow was heard in Raman. Rachel was crying for her children. She would not be comforted because they were dead."(Jeremiah 31-15)

ALL OF JERUSALEM was very troubled that the Christ was born. All of Jerusalem includes everyone, even the Romans, but the overwhelming majority would have been Jews. Christ was THEIR Messiah that they were hoping and eagerly waiting for to save them from Roman oppression. Ironically, they are now upset that he has actually arrived? They could not have known that he was not the Messiah they were looking for.

 Herod hears that some random "wise men" have followed a star (that on one else can evidently see) to Jerusalem I order to worship a baby king of the Jews. Why is Herod now very troubled by what these unvetted, hallucinating, people have said? Herod IS the king of the Jews. He is actually scared of a baby unknown peasant due to the ramblings of foreigner's. Once he finds out that the Messiah is foretold to be born in Bethlehem, the story suggest that he at once decides to kill the Christ. Herod the apparently lies to the wise men by asking them to tell him when they find the Christ baby so that he can worship him.

 Bethlehem is about 2 1/2 miles from Jerusalem and well within his jurisdiction. Bethlehem is believed by scholars to have been a village of 300-1000 people. It would have been easier for him to send his soldiers to find the child and bring him back or kill him in a matter of hours. Instead he chooses to trust crazy strangers to conduct official state business that he is so concerned about.

Guess what? The mages who see a magical star no one else sees prove to be unreliable and skip town without reporting back to Herod. What a surprise. Herod gets enraged and finally sends his soldiers on a bloodletting rampage. Would he really risk a complete Jewish revolt and having to answer to the Roman emperor? Of course not.

A prophesy must be fufilled. Who makes prophesy? God. This means that all has gone according to plan. God's plan. God had to plan on killing babies for a very, very long time. The star could have led the wise guys directly to Jesus in Bethlehem without Herod ever knowing about it. But no they had to go to Jerusalem first to Herod so God could make sure babies were killed. God loves blood!

I think you've got the idea. The Bible repudiates itself. That was enough for me. I hope you have enjoyed this little Christmas gift.

 Back again, or at least visiting! tag:atheistnexus.org,2016-12-05:2182797:BlogPost:2722628 2016-12-05T00:38:57.000Z Round Peg http://atheistnexus.org/profile/RoundPeg
I felt almost scared clicking the checkbox that said I was a non-theist when I signed up for Atheist Nexus years ago, even though I knew it was true. And how my heart pounded when I saw that big glaring red "A" that was my default profile picture!

Talking with Atheist Nexus folks helped me adjust to a new identity, and transition to a new way of thinking about life. Too bad the community doesn't seem to be as active as back then. But it is good to check in anyway.

I felt almost scared clicking the checkbox that said I was a non-theist when I signed up for Atheist Nexus years ago, even though I knew it was true. And how my heart pounded when I saw that big glaring red "A" that was my default profile picture!

Talking with Atheist Nexus folks helped me adjust to a new identity, and transition to a new way of thinking about life. Too bad the community doesn't seem to be as active as back then. But it is good to check in anyway.
 Tax Dollars for Jesus tag:atheistnexus.org,2016-12-01:2182797:BlogPost:2721189 2016-12-01T03:46:09.000Z Chris http://atheistnexus.org/profile/ChrisGillespie
Fuck you and the dinasour you rode in on doesn't work when bible based legislatures use tax dollars for biblical interpertation.

Crossing the Church-State Divide by Ark

MAY 30, 2011

The American landscape is dotted with tourist attractions created with the help of government subsidies bestowed in the name of economic development. Think of the…

Fuck you and the dinasour you rode in on doesn't work when bible based legislatures use tax dollars for biblical interpertation.

Crossing the Church-State Divide by Ark

MAY 30, 2011

The American landscape is dotted with tourist attractions created with the help of government subsidies bestowed in the name of economic development. Think of the cheese museum in Rome, N.Y. A project just approved in Kentucky pushes the constitutional envelope.

The Kentucky Tourism Development Finance Authority granted more than $40 million in tax incentives for a planned $172 million Bible-based theme park, featuring a full-size replica of Noah's ark, complete with live animals.

Conceived by the Christian ministry that built the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Ky., the Ark Encounter park aims to promote a literal interpretation of the Bible by "proving" that Noah had room on his vessel to fit two of every kind of animal. Ark Encounter is owned by a profit-making company, of which the ministry is a part owner.

The project enjoys strong support from Kentucky's Democratic governor, Steve Beshear, who says it is an opportunity to create an estimated 900 jobs. We suspect he is also eager to please an important political constituency.

Under current Supreme Court doctrine, Kentucky's support of the proselytizing theme park seems likely to withstand a possible church-state legal challenge, assuming state officials were scrupulous in applying the neutral financial criteria in the state's economic development law. It is not even clear that the court's conservative majority would find taxpayers have standing to sue.

But granting tax incentives to the explicitly Christian enterprise clearly clashes with the First Amendment's prohibition on government establishment of religion. Public money is not supposed to pay to advance religion. Kentucky's citizens should certainly ask themselves if this is really the best use of taxpayer dollars.
 How to Believe in God(s) - Six Easy steps. tag:atheistnexus.org,2016-11-25:2182797:BlogPost:2720211 2016-11-25T02:20:43.000Z V.N.K.Kumar http://atheistnexus.org/profile/VNKKumar
1. First, choose your parents. At least one of them should be religious. If you say it is impossible to choose parents, then wish for dame luck to favour you with religious parents.You should also love your parents and be obedient to them. It now becomes easy to believe in gods, because you love your parents and your parents told you that there are Gods.

2. Next, understand that believing in Gods in the absence of evidence is especially noble. What is…

1. First, choose your parents. At least one of them should be religious. If you say it is impossible to choose parents, then wish for dame luck to favour you with religious parents.You should also love your parents and be obedient to them. It now becomes easy to believe in gods, because you love your parents and your parents told you that there are Gods.

2. Next, understand that believing in Gods in the absence of evidence is especially noble. What is the big deal in believing in something with evidence. Any moron can do that.

3. Then, realize that the human ability to believe in Gods in the absence of evidence might itself constitute evidence for the existence of Gods. This is not a sign of our gullibility or naivety but a sign that a 'God Gene' has been implanted by the gods in our neural circuits.

4. Now consider any need for further evidence (both in yourself and in others) to be spiritually unhealthy, or a corruption of the intellect.

5. Refer to steps 2-4 as acts of "faith" Faith need not depend on facts.

6. Return to 2.

This is the default status of most human beings trapped in such a recursive loop. It is easier to believe in Gods and get on with the chores and rigmaroles of life. Who has the time or patience to dispute it.

But to become an autonomous and compassionate human being, you may have to unlearn a lot of concepts learnt in our formative years and learn new ideas based on real science, logic and critical reasoning, which to say the least, is hard work. Barring a few freaks, who likes hard work?

 Part 4 Booms and busts punctuate the history of capitalism; it is a systemic problem. tag:atheistnexus.org,2016-11-20:2182797:BlogPost:2719827 2016-11-20T23:02:24.000Z Joan Denoo http://atheistnexus.org/profile/JoanDenoo
Part 4 Booms and busts punctuate the history of capitalism; it is a systemic problem.

Remember General Motors, producer of automobiles? Over the last thirty years, General Motors created a subsidiary called GMAC, General Motors Acceptance Corporation. It is a bank. It lends money. It began by lending money to people to buy cars because their wages couldn't pay for them. Then GMAC discovered they could make more money off the interest of the loan than they could make…

Part 4 Booms and busts punctuate the history of capitalism; it is a systemic problem.

Remember General Motors, producer of automobiles? Over the last thirty years, General Motors created a subsidiary called GMAC, General Motors Acceptance Corporation. It is a bank. It lends money. It began by lending money to people to buy cars because their wages couldn't pay for them. Then GMAC discovered they could make more money off the interest of the loan than they could make a profit from the car. General Motors became a bank, much more interested in being a bank than being a car manufacturer. They branched out, they became a general lender and went into the mortgage business.

If we become a nation of exploding profitably on the one side, and a desperately exhausted population wanting and needing and measuring its self-worth regarding rising consumption, we have a dysfunctional combination.

People could not pay the money back.

Booms and busts punctuate the history of capitalism; it is a systemic problem.

The lunacy of capitalism has two sides:

One is the short-sightedness of the business and banking community that has a bottom line of profit;

The other is the wage-worker who falls for the exploitation and manipulation

 Part 3 We reached the limits of the kinds of capitalism this society can endure. tag:atheistnexus.org,2016-11-20:2182797:BlogPost:2719584 2016-11-20T22:59:02.000Z Joan Denoo http://atheistnexus.org/profile/JoanDenoo
Part 3 We reached the limits of the kinds of capitalism this society can endure.

Turning, now, to the big business community, the last thirty years have been spectacular. Everything about the working class, with the introduction of computers, U.S. workers became more and more productive. We had a thirty-year period of rising labor productivity. Each year the worker produces more, and the wages stayed the same.

The gap between what the workers…

Part 3 We reached the limits of the kinds of capitalism this society can endure.

Turning, now, to the big business community, the last thirty years have been spectacular. Everything about the working class, with the introduction of computers, U.S. workers became more and more productive. We had a thirty-year period of rising labor productivity. Each year the worker produces more, and the wages stayed the same.

The gap between what the workers produce for their employer and gets paid and what the owner takes for the product is profit. As the productivity of workers go up and the pay stays the same, the wealth gap grows.

Nobody could quite understand what happened. Like the 70s, the 80s, and the 90s came and went, the wealth gap widened.

First, the owners began paying themselves high levels of salaries and bonuses. Large corporations paid their people tens, hundreds of millions of dollars, in annual salaries. From where did that money come? From the increased productivity and increased hours worked by wage-worker.

Second, owners began to do what is called mergers and acquisitions. They bought each other out. Companies had massive amounts of money and bought other companies. A company who was annoyed by a competitor bought it out.

Third, owners put their money in the bank. The banks discovered vast amounts of money coming in from corporations. That's what you do with your profits while you're figuring out what else to do with them. You put them in the bank. The banks became repositories of enormous amounts of money.

Fourth, the corporations and the banks discovered what they could do with these profits. Banks and large corporations could lend money to the employees. Thus, employees could raise their consumption when their wages didn't go up by borrowing the money that their frozen wages made impossible. Employers no longer increased the salaries of their workers.

The U.S. business community took the money they received from the unpaid wages, and they could double its value with investments PLUS, they could loan money to the workers who paid interest on the loans.

 Part 2 How do people cope with so many changes taking place in such a short period? tag:atheistnexus.org,2016-11-20:2182797:BlogPost:2719823 2016-11-20T22:53:08.000Z Joan Denoo http://atheistnexus.org/profile/JoanDenoo
Part 2 How do people cope with so many changes taking place in such a short period?

First, wage-workers dealt with the end of rising wages by adding women and other family workers to the paid labor force, and they worked more hours per year. Between the 1970s and today, the average number of hours worked per year by a U.S. citizen rose by about 20 percent. We worked 20 percent more hours on the job than we did thirty years ago. By comparison, for example, if you…

Part 2 How do people cope with so many changes taking place in such a short period?

First, wage-workers dealt with the end of rising wages by adding women and other family workers to the paid labor force, and they worked more hours per year. Between the 1970s and today, the average number of hours worked per year by a U.S. citizen rose by about 20 percent. We worked 20 percent more hours on the job than we did thirty years ago. By comparison, for example, if you look at France, Germany, and Italy, over the same period, the average number of hours worked by their paid labor force dropped by 20%.

Second, if working longer hours and more members of the family working didn't solve the problem, what was the second thing that the U.S. working class did to cope with the end of the rising wages? The U.S. working class, starting in the 1970s, went on borrowing binges that no other working class in any country at any time in the history of the human race ever did before.

Americans started borrowing. They borrowed against their homes. Keep in mind that the crisis exploded around something called a mortgage – the subprime mortgage. The U.S. working class could never have increased its consumption simply by borrowing against a home. They didn't have enough wealth to get loans. Banks had to invent ways to lend massive amounts of money to the American people who had no collateral at all.

 Credit cards offered a mechanism to allow banks to lend to the working class with no collateral. It is unsecured debt in economic terms. No lenders will lend to a borrower without collateral unless there is something in it for the bank to take that risk.

The answer is the rate of interest. The average rate of interest on a credit card today 18% per year. That's why there are credit cards. The American working class received loans, hundreds of billions of dollars in unsecured credit, to allow the rise in consumption. And the American working class went for it.

Borrowing money on an unsecured loan solved a problem of where the consumer can get the money to consume.

Now, a working class, exhausted by the amount of work it does, with a collapsing personal life, experience strains and stresses. With several members of the family working, some children needing expensive child care, anxiety builds.

This is a population that has reached the limits. It cannot carry more debt, and it can't do more work. Therefore this is not a temporary problem.

 Part 1 Why did the wages stop going up? There are four reasons. tag:atheistnexus.org,2016-11-20:2182797:BlogPost:2719821 2016-11-20T22:44:41.000Z Joan Denoo http://atheistnexus.org/profile/JoanDenoo
Part 1 Why did the wages stop going up? There are four reasons.

There were a hundred and fifty years of rising standard of living for all people. Workers every decade enjoyed more because their wages rose, and they could buy more. They understood more and more work meant they could buy more stuff, i.e. homes, cars, education, health care, retirement, and recreation.

In the 1970s, that history of the United States stopped. Real wages…

Part 1 Why did the wages stop going up? There are four reasons.

There were a hundred and fifty years of rising standard of living for all people. Workers every decade enjoyed more because their wages rose, and they could buy more. They understood more and more work meant they could buy more stuff, i.e. homes, cars, education, health care, retirement, and recreation.

In the 1970s, that history of the United States stopped. Real wages stopped rising, they never resumed. The majority of our citizens have not come to terms with this fundamental change in the U.S. history. Workers don't have the wages to support consumption, so they have to find another way, which we as a nation did.

Why did the wages stop going up? There are four reasons.

1. Computers, technical change, allowed businesses to replace workers at an extraordinarily rapid pace. They could do with one or two operators what used to take hundreds of people. Robots also replaced human workers. The opportunity here is to be a repair person for computers and robots.

2. U.S. businesses of the 1945 to 1975 period had no real competitors because of the loss of production by European and Japanese companies caused by WW II. It was a very successful time for U.S. companies that had the field to themselves.

The United States was the only manufacturing country in the world that didn't have a war on its soil; it was able to produce for the rest of the world. By 1970, European countries and Japan rebuilt from the war; their rebuilt factories out-produced the U.S. and could sell their products in this country for lower prices. They built and sold TV sets, automobiles, etc. There begins a massive export of jobs to Europe and Japan. The bargaining strength of working people of the U.S. shrinks.

Two more phenomena began.

3. American women who had worked in the unpaid home labor force took part-time or full-time jobs in the paid labor force. There was a rapid change in the position of women in the American economy, particularly starting in the 1960s and '70s.

4. The waves of immigration began to arrive from Central and Latin America, and from other places around the world. Wages went down as these immigrants tended to work for lower wages.

With the development of the computer, increased competition of production from rebuilt factories in Europe and Japan, and women and immigrants entering the paid labor force meant fewer jobs were available for white men and wages stagnated. The perfect storm forms.

 Updates and opinions of mine. tag:atheistnexus.org,2016-11-20:2182797:BlogPost:2719506 2016-11-20T21:48:15.000Z Rhonda Boyer http://atheistnexus.org/profile/RhondaBoyer949
We are heading into the end of another calendar year. This is an interesting time for me each year. My birthday is in December, so I tend to do a personal inventory sometime in November or December. I find it usually depresses me, so I try not to stay on that for too long.

This year, from the physical standpoint, I have done well. I have continued with the walking and watching portions that I eat, and have managed to lose about 113 pounds since late January. Still a work in progress,…

We are heading into the end of another calendar year. This is an interesting time for me each year. My birthday is in December, so I tend to do a personal inventory sometime in November or December. I find it usually depresses me, so I try not to stay on that for too long.

This year, from the physical standpoint, I have done well. I have continued with the walking and watching portions that I eat, and have managed to lose about 113 pounds since late January. Still a work in progress, but I have actually gotten to the point of enjoying the whole thing. I think I will be ready to exercise and eat this way for the rest of my life.

Finances are not going great. Not really terrible either. But, I have come to the point where I want to try my hand at the personal chef/small party catering thing I have been thinking about for a year or more. Also, compiling recipes has been a good experience, and I may have to try to find a way to finally get a cookbook together in the coming year.

My personal life has been like spinning wheels the last year. Not a lot of forward progress, but I am trying to plan things and work things out to improve my own situation.I really have no idea what that might bring next year, but I have confidence I can figure something out.

In the middle of all this came the worst election season ever, and somehow, the U.S. elected the candidate I most wanted us not to elect. This gives me pause, and makes me very nervous. I hope we will find a way through it all. I fear it might become difficult for a lot of us out here. After all, the things this candidate seemed to endorse while running should scare anyone who is not exactly like the candidate himself.

Anyway, as Thanksgiving is coming up in the U.S. this week, I want to try and be thankful that, at least for now, our free speech rights are still in place, and hope that the safeguards in our government do what they are supposed to do, and thwart the insanity that could potentially happen in the next four years.

Hope all will be safe and well.
 Mitt The Patriot tag:atheistnexus.org,2016-11-19:2182797:BlogPost:2719406 2016-11-19T16:04:17.000Z Rich Goss http://atheistnexus.org/profile/RichardGoscicki
Just now on CNN, Mr. Lanhee Chen, former public policy director for Mr. Romney, stated his old boss was a "Patriot". How the heck can he declare Romney a patriot when it was his turn to fight for his country, after being a hawk at BYU, encouraging fellow students to fight in Viet Nam and watching them die, choose to become a missionary to France. Just think, the people that gave the world Voltaire, Jean Jacques Rousseau and Jean Paul Satre converting to Mormonism! "Surreal" is…

Just now on CNN, Mr. Lanhee Chen, former public policy director for Mr. Romney, stated his old boss was a "Patriot". How the heck can he declare Romney a patriot when it was his turn to fight for his country, after being a hawk at BYU, encouraging fellow students to fight in Viet Nam and watching them die, choose to become a missionary to France. Just think, the people that gave the world Voltaire, Jean Jacques Rousseau and Jean Paul Satre converting to Mormonism! "Surreal" is the only world for it. Mr. Chen and Mitt must think the American people are incredibly stupid! Mr. Chen has it backward, the soldiers that died in Nam are the patriots and Romney is a poltroon, (from the French word for "cot", it's the soldier who stays in bed while his friends are on the battlefield getting killed.

 Six Things I Learned After Writing "Tending the Epicurean Garden" tag:atheistnexus.org,2016-11-18:2182797:BlogPost:2719314 2016-11-18T19:00:00.000Z Hiram http://atheistnexus.org/profile/Hiram
Today marks the 2-year anniversary of the "official" publication of my book (review here), although the book had been available on Amazon prior to that date. I wrote the bulk of the content on Tending the Epicurean Garden during the year 2013, but in the years since I have not ceased to learn about…

Today marks the 2-year anniversary of the "official" publication of my book (review here), although the book had been available on Amazon prior to that date. I wrote the bulk of the content on Tending the Epicurean Garden during the year 2013, but in the years since I have not ceased to learn about philosophy and about the many subjects I discussed in TtEG. For some time, I've wanted to give my readers a clear learning path for after they're done reading my book, and this occasion is as good as any, so here are six important things I've learned about Epicurean philosophy after writing Tending the Epicurean Garden.

1. The Philodemus Series

I delved into the reading of the scrolls from the villa of Herculaneum shortly after completing my book. The scrolls are the remnants that survived the eruption of Mount Vesuvius in the year 79 of Common Era. They are a treasure trove of ancient humanist wisdom, the Humanist Nag Hammadi. In one of the scrolls, for instance, the Scholarch Polystratus anticipates the contemporary work of Sam Harris by over 22 centuries: he lays out sober and robust arguments for a hedonist moral realism based on theories of physics and ethics laid out by Epicurus in his Epistle to Herodotus. In this scroll he battled cultural and moral relativism, and superstition, and also defended the scientific study of nature as essential for ethics, decency and morality.

Epicurus' teachings against the use of empty words help us to better understand Philodemus' Rhetorica and Methods of Inference, and in general just help us to reason more clearly. The scroll about property management provides useful guidance for our life-long self-sufficiency projects, but the most important scroll in my view, and the greatest masterpiece of humanist literature from Herculaneum has to be the one On Death, which catalogues all the logical and common-sense repercussions of our teaching that death is nothing to us.

2. Norman DeWitt is key to understanding Epicurean philosophy on its own terms. He is particularly good at explaining the Canon (epistemology) and the importance of the doctrine of pleasure as the end. Read his Philosophy for the Millions pamphlet, which narrates and gives some perspective on the historical battle between the naturalist philosophy of the scientists and the Platonic philosophy of the mystics and charlatans.

3. Frances Wright wrote the great Epicurean masterpiece in the English language A Few Days in Athens. See a detailed review here.

4. Neuroscience was a field of great interest to Epicurean philosophy from the onset. Epicurus, in his speech on Moral Development, discussed how the "atomic structure" of the brain can be changed through certain practices (like repetition of certain teachings), and how as part of our moral development, we must take ownership of the content of our brains and our characters. Later on, Lucretius discussed neural pathways in his On the Nature of Things. It is clear that, as Epicureans, we are responsible for the steady and diligent cultivation of our brains in the same way that athletes are responsible for the cultivation of their bodies.

5. Natural community (family, tribe, circle of friends) is conceived as distinct from Platonic (or imagined) communities (nations, races, ethnicities, etc.) Just as we learn in Philodemus that there is a natural measure of wealth (that corresponds with ensuring that we can satisfy our natural and necessary desires), our friends from the Las Indias Coop, while reasoning about the world from an Epicurean perspective, also argued that there is a natural (measure of) community, and even cite modern research to separate natural from Platonic communities.

I use the word "measure" here to refer specifically to the Dunbar number (almost 150), which indicates how many real, significant relationships humans are cognitively able to have. Natural selection strongly favors this because our ancestors evolved in tribes, which protected individuals from weather, wild beasts, and other dangers, and also secured access to food sources and transferred traditional wisdom about where to find them. There's other research that demonstrates that isolation is a health risk on par with obesity and smoking, so that the lone-wolf "ideal" is also unhealthy and unnatural.

There's simply no question that humans are tribal by nature. In Epicurus, the philos ideal (devoted friendship with our intellectual kin) is considered the healthiest way to build our tribe and channel our social instinct.

6. The Cyrenaics were a philosophical Atlantis, and paved the way for Epicurean ethics just as Democritus and Leucippus paved the way for physics.

Further Reading:

Tending the Epicurean Garden – The Humanist Review

Elemental Epicureanism

(originally posted in The Autarkist)