Examination of a 2600 Year Old Idea

2600 years ago, Pythagoras, of the sum of the squares fame, was the head of a school, often refereed to as the Pythagoras Brotherhood. He (they) had many ideas, but there is one that requires a look. It is not a dichotomy, even though it is expressed as such in it's simplest form. That idea is, "we can chose to live naturally or supernaturally". The choice is ours. What if the f does that all even mean?

This simple choice has lead to wars ever since.

Zeno the Stoic founder went toward naturally, while people of lesser ethical value or greater desire for psychological comfort went to the supernatural for comfort, and adopted Gods. People with gods are easy to control, for they are contented with what they have, look for psychological comfort, and consider meek to be a virtue to seek after. The supernatural believe in faithfully following some god that promises something, an eternal life, a paradise, rebirth into higher forms, a future life of sexual pleasure, a death of no harm to the present life, or other supernatural claim, that cannot be proven wrong easily, nor even demonstrated. These are based on supernatural thinking.

There is little doubt that many people can live in there heads, not seeing reality, but the reality they wish to see. They see good everywhere, beauty everywhere, and chose to ignore difficulties and address them by ignoring some reality, and believing fair tails. It it bothers you, just do not look at it. Look to music, poetry, prayer, mediation, fixed thinking systems, recorded or fabricated by men of antiquity in some "wholely book".

Some mediation, aka sitting quietly thinking is useful. The mind needs time to weight tough choices or to extrapolation into the future from an incomplete data set. It should be termed thinking time, but both sides used the term mediation for two separate processes; one is endeavoring to clear the mind by thinking of nothing or concentrating on a physical process, while the other is to concentrate on one problem concept until that problem concept becomes clear. Both sides can use some form of meditation to improve life. Writing, studying, doing mathematics or learning can be forms of mediation.

Life naturally can be brutal, cruel and short, or it can be peaceful, pleasant in parts, and too long for some. If it was not too long there would not be the cry for assisted suicide. Much of the distress is psychological, caused by own attitudes, often learned as children, and carried into adult life without examination. Some of those attitudes, beliefs, values, desires, virtues we chase after are just wrong. We can chose to live by human nature, our nature as modified to live in 'our tribes' among the other human tribes.

So what is our nature?

• life, including self preservation, eating, working, and doing what is necessary, security, aka Maslow`s lower needs.
• Proprecreation
• Society, to some degree. Some more, some less.
• knowledge,  or the search for knowledge.

Yet all these can be subverted, modified, misdirected, thwarted, or over driven by training, often in our youth without our understanding or realization. Oh well, that is part of some societies, where submission is considered a virtue.   

Dealing with Hijackers

How should one handle hijackers? Shoot them!!

Ah but that is cruel, not legal, and unjust...  But they are hijackers!

So what is the next best option. Get off the ride, let them go free, but not let them take us with them.

So we cancel the event.

//www.atheistrev.com/2018/01/overcoming-atheist-divides.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+AtheistRevolution+%28Atheist+Revolution%29

SJW aka Social Justice Warriors, or similar pejorative terms are essentially hijacking an organization's function to provide a different message, to redirect a organization into a different direction.

Hijacking comes in many forms. Archery club being used by drone flyers. Just do not displace archers, or they will use your drones for targets. 

Atheism is a vast tent of a simple idea, there are no gods. After that we can look at the arguments that there are no gods, perhaps the damages religions have done to humanity, the biases of religions, and figure out how to replace the few things that religions do well; build community, perhaps extended social functions... Much religion has been already replaced by mass media. Moral and ethics, well, some religion provided some, but that has been partly replaced by national law systems, and common morals communicated by mass media. Morals and ethics are not dependent on religion, as they prescribe the morals of iron age people; our society is now troubled by fraud, computer crime, gambles sold as investments, Grifters, Ponzi schemes Charlestons, bullshitters, reality show host, and the like, not of the things of biblical times. After we cover those few items, where does that leave atheist organizations? Expanding to take in more unbelievers, and bring them up to speed, whatever that means. And there we run out of works, for without works, our no god philosophy is dead. So along come the SJW's, and those who would hijack our organizations on to new philosophies that have nothing to do with the original no god cause.

Many things we can do in private, we cannot do in public, as some nosy busy body will stick there nose in where it does not belong, and start pushing there biassed values onto others. Likewise insiders in the organizations can try to impose there own agenda onto the organization, and the result is always destroying/reducing the organization, or redirection of the objectives. So now we see the atheist organizations get sidetracked into LGBT, gay rights, inoculation advocacy, climate change or climate change denier, for or against fracking, ethics development, moral authorities, abortion or pro-life... any of long list of social issues.

So what are the limits of the organization? What is the mission statement, or the objectives of the said organization? If the speakers are pushing topics outside of the stated purpose, the participants, or volunteers may feel it was a waste of their time, subject beyond that which was advertised... not on topic... and will not be involved any more.

This is what will bring down any volunteer operation, if there is no value, as judged by the volunteers aka participants. If members in the administration get off topic, the organization changes direction, and may go where the members do not wish to go. That is the risk in any volunteer organization, is there enough interest, and can we hold interest? Can we replace members fast enough if retention is not high enough?

A clear and inclusive mission statement, with some exclusion clauses if require, or written objectives, are the way to direct an organization, is the way to keep organization healthy.            



      

Error

"Facts about the theory of evolution imply that there are no intrinsic values."

http://atheistethicist.blogspot.ca/2018/01/street-01-starting-over-evolutionary.html 

Evolution is all about quasi-random changes, tested over time by natural selection of the successful changes, as measured through reproduction. Evolution is about reproduction, while ethics is about quality of life. These are not connected, in fact, there is likely an inverse connection.

Anyone raised in the sixties with ethics realized that the world population was an issue, and limited themselves to no or one child. Those without reproduced like rats, which leaves us where we are today. Screwed with Co2, retained heat, and the like. Philosophy has a place, but some of it is just entertainment.

That is not to say that our ethics do not evolve. It is all about values, just not intrinsic values. 

Who is going tell these people "No"

So do see the problem? Who is allowing these people to build in unsafe conditions?

 

A landslide in Santa Tecla, El Salvador, following an earthquake in January 2001. Citing damage from the earthquake, the American government permitted Salvadorans illegally in the U.S. to remain. Credit La Prensa Grafica, via Associated Press

 

In the City of Edmonton, there is similar problem along the river valley, but the problem is the people wanting to build on the slopes. So can a engineer say no, it is not safe? Or will the land owner just shop it around to find others who will say it is ok?

The Purpose of Learning

The Purpose of Learning

https://www.atheistrev.com/2018/01/what-point-of-learning-about-atheism.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+AtheistRevolution+%28Atheist+Revolution%29

Jack Vance's response got me thinking, "why do I". His response totally missed my reasons, but I also understand the question. Each of us need to limit what we bother studying. Our time is a limited resource for allocation where it is most productive. A lot of people are in the business of selling education, and much of that education has little value, or earning potential in many fields. But in reality, who knows what they will need going forward. In my case, the study of atheism has become incidental to my search for answers and understanding in other aspects of  this life.

For those who know me know I have a flat spot, an obsession with food, and a compulsion to eat. I am trying to understand this and find a treatment for myself. The medical community only has what I consider a buy low sell high answer; eat less and move more. The problem that I have is a mental short circuit sort of thing, an compulsion that take over and does, on it's own. Once started, the body takes over and automatically does it's thing without my direction. It is though my mind shuts off, and the body just does. Not normal, but that is what seems to happen. There is no clear definition or description of this phenomenon, Brain Lock by Jeffrey M. Schwartz comes the closest.The behavior of the religious, holding on to an totally irrational behavior, comes the closest in human behavior. I was hoping that in understanding one, the other would become clear. It has not yet.

Religion is learned and is socially acceptable, encouraged, even enforced within religious social groups. Yet, once we become a true atheist, religion is clearly wrong. It is like the one true Scotsman issue. This incidentally is the Muslim argument that is use to turn young "Muslims" into the jihad radical, for the Quran is a violence filled book of "Allah's direction of who, why and how to kill." If there is any doubt, just read the book. In a effort to remove this argument, the "only Arabic language is official" concept is applied.

Religion is learned behavior, therefore, likely, what ever I suffer from is also learned, but it as proven difficult to unlearn. One of the problems is that I like to sit back and be entertained, which may be the reinforcement of the eating drive. I do not have the energy or drive to shut off the TV and find a life elsewhere. I do not hear well enough for music, it is just noise now. I do not have the interest, need, desire, or energy to work at something. So I end up sitting in front of the TV... eating. One alternative is a time offset, early morning thing, where my day ends with bed at 8PM, as mourning comes at 4AM, pun intended. Then, with a GERT 3 hour rule...   

Religion is a hideous method controlling the behavior of the people who are not driven. Those who are driven will not be lead, much, although, some still use religion as a portion of there life that they can sit back and relax into, a stress relief period.