Well, it is partly biological, not solely biological, of course. We agree.

I think we are on the same page. If you go to my profile page and read the conversation between ChaosEngine and me, you can see that I also have concerns about the children and see that I believe strongly in keeping religion out of the laws.

I don't think the indoctrination of children IS a separate issue -- I think it is part and parcel of the passionate energy that some atheists bring to the conversation and I believe strongly it needs to be dealt with -- short of removing the kids from the home or going ahead and sterilizing fundies. You are 100% correct, I think -- education, education, education.

The thing about a perfect world also applies to our conversation.

Fundamentalist religious folks think they have the answer. Fundamentalist atheists think they have the answer. I'm just saying -- carve out your territories and stop trying to invade people's minds. Both of these groups need to stop that. It is a losing game. Create a game where you can win -- [edit] religious fundies stay out of the laws and [edit] rational atheists need to put up the billboards. And the internet! Ah, the lovely internet. Saving grace for many an isolated person.

In reply to this comment by Skeeve:
I think you have dug to the heart of our disagreement.

First, you repeatedly state that religion is biological. I think that is partly accurate, but it's not that simple. I think religion itself is memetic, but the need to believe in something is biological. Religion is a symptom of our evolutionary need to believe/explain what we don't understand.

As for not being able to force evolution, we've been doing that - consciously or unconsciously - for thousands of years. While sterilizing the religious and only allowing atheists to breed might be one solution, I think the proper course is education combined with laws separating religion from the government.

While education doesn't work 100% of the time (as your example points out), it is pretty clear that those with more education have less religion. Nations with better education systems have less religious adherence and individuals with higher educations tend to have less religion. And the key words in those sentences are "less religion"; it doesn't mean less belief, it just re-aims that belief from religion to rational thought/science/etc.

Education is to religion as the scalpel is to the appendix - it removes the evolved, no longer useful, but still dangerous, problem.

With regards to it not being right to tell someone not to take comfort in that which comforts them, I partly agree. If it isn't harming anyone else, then I don't care what someone believes and I'm not going to get in their face about it (if they try to convert me though, they have opened the door and are fair game). But the line is drawn when someone's beliefs harm or pose a threat to the well-being of others. In that case, anyone who opposes equal rights (whether for homosexuals, women, non-religious) are fair game.

The issue I struggle with personally is the indoctrination of children. Having experienced that personally, knowing how that limited me (and harmed me, in some ways) I have difficulty allowing the indoctrination of children to go uncontested. But that's a different problem for another discussion ;


>> ^bareboards2:

We'll have to agree to disagree.
I don't think you can force evolution. It isn't a choice. Not unless you start breeding programs.
Want the biological need for the divine to go away? Sterilize all religious folks. I don't think you can talk folks out of it.
I speak from experience. My brother is a retired Air Force pilot with a Master's degree in aerospace engineering. Grew up in a secular household. His need for structure and the divine led him to the Mormon Church. Talk about goofy beliefs!! Good lord! And he voluntarily turned off his reasoning brain to accept all their nonsense as true. You say religion has "served its purpose." So why did he go there, when he wasn't indoctrinated into it growing up?
Not for me to tell him not to take comfort where he takes comfort.
However, it is for me to tell him to back off on gay marriage and not impose his church's beliefs on others. (And to tell him that when the church's membership starts falling, I guarantee his Prophet will suddenly hear from God that it is okay to be gay now.)

>> ^Skeeve:
I think most atheists would agree with you, that religion has served an evolutionary purpose. I don't have "The God Delusion" with me at the moment, but I'm pretty sure Dawkins acknowledges that as well.
But whether or not it serves an evolutionary purpose or not is irrelevant. The appendix served an evolutionary purpose - then we evolved to do without it. The same goes for the wisdom teeth; most people have them removed because they can cause huge problems, but in a world without dental care they are incredibly important.
Most of us atheists believe it is time, at least in the west, to "evolve" beyond the need for an invisible sky-daddy. We have the opportunity to do with religion what evolution did for the appendix.
Belief in a god is irrational. That's not to say it didn't serve a purpose, as evolution is not bound by the rational, only by phenotypic fitness. But, religion has served its purpose and, like the appendix or the wisdom teeth, it's time it was removed from our lives.
>>

Ah. I see.

I'm not telling religious folks that their religion is wrong. They can do what they want within their homes and their churches.

But when their personal religious beliefs are foisted onto the general public, THAT I have a problem with. Stay out of the law of the land. Do what you want within your church walls. (Well, no human sacrifice, but you know what I mean. And it can prove difficult -- where do you draw the line at being outraged? The Mormon Church has abhorrent views towards homosexuality, as far as I am concerned. Do I have the right to legislate them out of existence? I say there are other ways.)

I also have a concern people, especially children, who don't share the divine gene and are stuck in a household where they are surrounded by dogma and crazy beliefs. If they secretly think that the religion thing is bunk, it has to be crazy-making for them. Lies are being told to them and they can't say anything. They aren't even sure they are lies, they just think something is wrong and they are isolated in the silence around the topic. And that is where the billboards put up by atheists come in. In a public place, these trapped people can get the message that they are not alone. That there is a different way to think. Gay Mormons are a great example -- they are getting plenty of information lately that the Mormon Church is totally wrong in its stance towards homosexuals.

Does that make sense? Or is it still logically inconsistent to you?

Maybe the real issue is that I understand that the world isn't perfect and never will be perfect. We can only strive towards a better world. I can live with stupid things happening in the world because I understand that there is nothing I can do about it. Except to the extent that I CAN figure out something, however small. Like billboards. Like making it clear to religious folks the difference between their beliefs and their right to foist those beliefs on others.

It's slow and painful and I know that there will always be enclaves of uber-conservatives who will never ever change. I can live with that. I have no choice in the matter.

That biological imperative to reproduce may be abhorrent, but it still lives pretty strong in some men and women. Monogamy isn't natural for everyone. Some folks just can't do it. To pretend otherwise leads to heartbreak. Let's be honest about it.

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/01/20/the-gingrich-question-cheating-vs-open-marriage/voters-prefer-newt-gingrichs-adultery-to-open-marriage

Not sure why you find a disconnect between anything I have said, so I don't know how to clarify. Perhaps we can discuss this on our profile page? If you can be more specific about what doesn't add up? I think I am logically consistent.



>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^bareboards2:
Cool. So move on, right? To argue against biology so stridently is tiresome.
AND keep on fighting to keep religion out of the laws.
AND keep on educating the general public that religion is a choice -- I often thought that the most strident anti-religion atheists are those who were most scarred by the worst aspects of it. That theirs is an emotional battle on behalf of those trapped in households where religion is presented as THE ONLY CHOICE. And if you aren't someone who has that "religion gene", that can be crazy making.
I love all the billboards that atheists are starting to put up. I see them as lifelines to children and adults who don't believe and feel shame. Like being homosexual -- if you are gay in a fundamentalist household, stay in the closet until you are an adult and then MOVE AWAY. It is the only rational choice.
First I don't believe to argue against religion is to argue against biology. Religion is an evolved sociological trait, rather than a strictly biological one. But even if that weren't true, there are any number of biological traits that, while potentially advantageous in a strictly evolutionary fashion, we regard as abhorrent. Males are genetically predisposed to copulate with as many females as they can, and to fight off rivals. Neither of these traits are well regarded in modern society.
I'm not quite sure what you're saying here, so apologies if I am misinterpreting you, but the first part of your post seems to contradict the second part. Could you clarify?

>> ^bareboards2:

Cool. So move on, right? To argue against biology so stridently is tiresome.
AND keep on fighting to keep religion out of the laws.
AND keep on educating the general public that religion is a choice -- I often thought that the most strident anti-religion atheists are those who were most scarred by the worst aspects of it. That theirs is an emotional battle on behalf of those trapped in households where religion is presented as THE ONLY CHOICE. And if you aren't someone who has that "religion gene", that can be crazy making.
I love all the billboards that atheists are starting to put up. I see them as lifelines to children and adults who don't believe and feel shame. Like being homosexual -- if you are gay in a fundamentalist household, stay in the closet until you are an adult and then MOVE AWAY. It is the only rational choice.

First I don't believe to argue against religion is to argue against biology. Religion is an evolved sociological trait, rather than a strictly biological one. But even if that weren't true, there are any number of biological traits that, while potentially advantageous in a strictly evolutionary fashion, we regard as abhorrent. Males are genetically predisposed to copulate with as many females as they can, and to fight off rivals. Neither of these traits are well regarded in modern society.

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here, so apologies if I am misinterpreting you, but the first part of your post seems to contradict the second part. Could you clarify?

Cool. So move on, right? To argue against biology so stridently is tiresome.

AND keep on fighting to keep religion out of the laws.

AND keep on educating the general public that religion is a choice -- I often thought that the most strident anti-religion atheists are those who were most scarred by the worst aspects of it. That theirs is an emotional battle on behalf of those trapped in households where religion is presented as THE ONLY CHOICE. And if you aren't someone who has that "religion gene", that can be crazy making.

I love all the billboards that atheists are starting to put up. I see them as lifelines to children and adults who don't believe and feel shame. Like being homosexual -- if you are gay in a fundamentalist household, stay in the closet until you are an adult and then MOVE AWAY. It is the only rational choice.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^

I used Dawkins as an example simply because he has the reputation of being the "most strident fundamentalist atheist" (whatever that is). In fact, he actually attempts to answer your question in the God Delusion. You'll have to read it for the full explanation but (paraphrasing here) it boils down to the idea that religion evolved as a combination of a few evolutionary traits, such as believing your parents and ascribing intent to occurrences. There's a whole chapter on the roots of religion there (from an evolutionary point of view), and it is explained far better than I could here.

Tarantino is a walking, talking and dancing billboard for Asperger's syndrome.

>> ^VoodooV:

Quite simply, people need to take a stand on the whole "Money is not free speech" issue
If enough people dislike a product and don't buy it..thus motivating the company to make a better one, well that works for commerce, but it doesn't work for government. equating money to speech runs DIRECTLY counter to the whole notion that everyone has an equal voice in our gov't.
I would simply argue that in the information age, there simply is no need for lobbyists and corporate donations. If you've got something to say to your elected officials, you can email them or write a letter just like everyone else. You want to learn more about a candidate? that's what we have debates and that's what we have publicly funded websites for. There is just absolutely no need for billboards and commercials and stupid lawn signs that clutter and ugly up the landscape.
Remove/ban private money from public government (no I'm not referring to taxes, that's separate and necessary and you know it...deal with it) and I guarantee you we'll have a more fair society. Remove/ban the ability for a business to influence gov't and there will be no incentive for a politician to take the job so he can get corporate lobby/donation money.
We have to make it so that the only reason to become an elected official is because you want to make the country better. We have to make so it really is one person one vote and restore democracy


Correct step, but you're not accounting for folks who hire onto some big corporation or what not after their public service term. Government regulatory bodies are notorious for this, but so are Congress or their staffers. You can't really deny them future employment, but there is obvious alignment and abuse of that taking place throughout government. Taking lobby dollars away might make it harder for them to maintain a relationship, but they will work out it by employing their family members with fat salaries or other means.


And then once they get to working for the company, they have a line into the relationships created during their terms. While it'd still be lobbying, it'd just end up being favors....a less quantifiable currency.

Quite simply, people need to take a stand on the whole "Money is not free speech" issue

If enough people dislike a product and don't buy it..thus motivating the company to make a better one, well that works for commerce, but it doesn't work for government. equating money to speech runs DIRECTLY counter to the whole notion that everyone has an equal voice in our gov't.

I would simply argue that in the information age, there simply is no need for lobbyists and corporate donations. If you've got something to say to your elected officials, you can email them or write a letter just like everyone else. You want to learn more about a candidate? that's what we have debates and that's what we have publicly funded websites for. There is just absolutely no need for billboards and commercials and stupid lawn signs that clutter and ugly up the landscape.

Remove/ban private money from public government (no I'm not referring to taxes, that's separate and necessary and you know it...deal with it) and I guarantee you we'll have a more fair society. Remove/ban the ability for a business to influence gov't and there will be no incentive for a politician to take the job so he can get corporate lobby/donation money.

We have to make it so that the only reason to become an elected official is because you want to make the country better. We have to make so it really is one person one vote and restore democracy

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

It does make you wonder how it fits into Google's business model. I honestly think they're doing it because it's a hard engineering problem - and not for immediate financial gain in the short-run. But as a publicly traded company they will need to find a way to make it bring in the cash.

Beyond licensing the system to automakers, I could definitely see them using Google Places for Business to display "offers" to drivers as they pass by. Imagine how huge that would be. Drive by a TacoBell and you hear "Hit the 'accept' button to pull in for 99 cent tacos!" -- That would be a revolution in advertising - and goodbye billboards. >> ^deathcow:

I love my Google driverless car, but it takes twice as long to get me home each night, as it drives me by a selection of stores that are relevant to my last 3 days of email. I knew I should have just ponied up the extra $2000 for the advertisement free edition. "DriveFree"

>> ^quantumushroom:

1. It's beyond ridiculous to argue the Pledge somehow establishes a State-supported religion. Or any religion. Government favors only government and more government.
2. Though there mayhaps should be, there is no (impossible to enforce) Constitutional right to privacy. Peer pressure? Welcome to the real world.
3. Why worry over "massive harassment" of Pledge refuseniks but have no second thoughts about calling the BSA "bigots" for setting standards? Are you equally concerned the NBA is "bigoted" against short people?
Once again, atheists' image problem is theirs to correct, starting with the aforementioned and ending with the ALWAYS OUTSPOKEN belief that to be an atheist is to be automatically smarter than theists.
>> ^jwray:
>> ^quantumushroom:
Atheists' image problem is theirs to correct.
Pro-tip: highlighting a lone jackhole attempting to eliminate the words "under God" from our VOLUNTARY Pledge of Allegiance, antagonistic billboards and declaring war on the Boy Scouts only enrages the masses.

1. Even if nobody ever recited the pledge, it would still be unconstitutional (establishment clause violation) to have it official, in writing, that the government favors theism.
2. Even though it's voluntary, when the teacher leads the whole class in reciting the pledge, there is a lot of peer pressure and it violates the students free exercise rights and/or their right to privacy since they have to either say something they don't believe or be outed publicly (leading to massive harassment if they're in some horrible backwards bible belt district).
3. The Boy Scouts' continued bigotry against homosexuals and atheists (as mandated by the top leadership but not necessarily followed by local chapters) is a big deal. I used to be a Boy Scout, and have nothing else against them.



Being tall is a bona fides requirement to excel in basketball. Heterosexuality is not necessary to do what the boy scouts do.

I have no qualms with calling the BSA leadership bigots because they are fucking bigots. Nothing's wrong with pledge refusers. Unison recitation of anything is appalling and reminiscent of the Borg, Nuremberg rallies, and church.

1. It's beyond ridiculous to argue the Pledge somehow establishes a State-supported religion. Or any religion. Government favors only government and more government.

2. Though there mayhaps should be, there is no (impossible to enforce) Constitutional right to privacy. Peer pressure? Welcome to the real world.

3. Why worry over "massive harassment" of Pledge refuseniks but have no second thoughts about calling the BSA "bigots" for setting standards? Are you equally concerned the NBA is "bigoted" against short people?

Once again, atheists' image problem is theirs to correct, starting with the aforementioned and ending with the ALWAYS OUTSPOKEN belief that to be an atheist is to be automatically smarter than theists.

>> ^jwray:

>> ^quantumushroom:
Atheists' image problem is theirs to correct.
Pro-tip: highlighting a lone jackhole attempting to eliminate the words "under God" from our VOLUNTARY Pledge of Allegiance, antagonistic billboards and declaring war on the Boy Scouts only enrages the masses.

1. Even if nobody ever recited the pledge, it would still be unconstitutional (establishment clause violation) to have it official, in writing, that the government favors theism.
2. Even though it's voluntary, when the teacher leads the whole class in reciting the pledge, there is a lot of peer pressure and it violates the students free exercise rights and/or their right to privacy since they have to either say something they don't believe or be outed publicly (leading to massive harassment if they're in some horrible backwards bible belt district).
3. The Boy Scouts' continued bigotry against homosexuals and atheists (as mandated by the top leadership but not necessarily followed by local chapters) is a big deal. I used to be a Boy Scout, and have nothing else against them.

I don't want Allah's followers around. Things tend to get messy.


>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^quantumushroom:
Atheists' image problem is theirs to correct.
Pro-tip: highlighting a lone jackhole attempting to eliminate the words "under God" from our VOLUNTARY Pledge of Allegiance, antagonistic billboards and declaring war on the Boy Scouts only enrages the masses.

What if it was "under Allah"? Still feel the same?

>> ^quantumushroom:

Atheists' image problem is theirs to correct.
Pro-tip: highlighting a lone jackhole attempting to eliminate the words "under God" from our VOLUNTARY Pledge of Allegiance, antagonistic billboards and declaring war on the Boy Scouts only enrages the masses.


1. Even if nobody ever recited the pledge, it would still be unconstitutional (establishment clause violation) to have it official, in writing, that the government favors theism.

2. Even though it's voluntary, when the teacher leads the whole class in reciting the pledge, there is a lot of peer pressure and it violates the students free exercise rights and/or their right to privacy since they have to either say something they don't believe or be outed publicly (leading to massive harassment if they're in some horrible backwards bible belt district).

3. The Boy Scouts' continued bigotry against homosexuals and atheists (as mandated by the top leadership but not necessarily followed by local chapters) is a big deal. I used to be a Boy Scout, and have nothing else against them.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Atheists' image problem is theirs to correct.
Pro-tip: highlighting a lone jackhole attempting to eliminate the words "under God" from our VOLUNTARY Pledge of Allegiance, antagonistic billboards and declaring war on the Boy Scouts only enrages the masses.


What if it was "under Allah"? Still feel the same?

Atheists' image problem is theirs to correct.

Pro-tip: highlighting a lone jackhole attempting to eliminate the words "under God" from our VOLUNTARY Pledge of Allegiance, antagonistic billboards and declaring war on the Boy Scouts only enrages the masses.