[Cthulhu D]

onoway, on 2012-December-18, 06:26, said:

The NRA is a very powerful and supposedly rich organisation, perhaps they should be involved in helping set up programs for severely disturbed kids as they are right, if nobody pulls the trigger the gun won't go off. If they want unlimited access to guns then perhaps they should be partly responsible to see that people don't grow up to use them so tragically.

Turning schools into armed camps with Wyatt Earps roaming the corridors is not an acceptable solution.

It's an intent and capability thing. You can control intent - by providing mental healthcare etc or you can control capability by restricting access to firearms and the like. Current US policy doesn't really provide for either, so that's probably not where you want to start.

Quote

If I may make a peace offering

You're missing his point - it's worth looking up his remarks for the full context. His basic thesis is that religion defines the standards by which someone can do evil acts in the name of good. In the other examples you are thinking of, such as someone achieving a powerful position and then using that position to profit at the expense of others (as opposed to profit from his own labours), that is recognised as evil. However when a doctor refuses an abortion to someone who doesn't share his beliefs, and she dies as a result (as recently happened in Ireland), that is upheld as a good act.

Besides, it doesn't matter what you do - Fluffy needs to understand that his remarks were bigoted

[Zelandakh]

onoway, on 2012-December-18, 06:26, said:

What a heart wrenching story. The stats about people with mental illness now being tossed into jail rather than given some sort of help/care is all too true in Canada as well.

There is a saying in England that prisons are for "The Sad, The Mad and The Bad". That is, roughly a third are addicted, another third are mentally ill and the final third are the criminals. This is certainly not something restricted only to North America. It would be nice if more effort was expended to try to separate out these 3 groups to increase the proportion of The Bad in prisons. Sadly, such policies are difficult to sell politically (ye olde soft on crime/liberal mantra comes out) and the benefits probably take too long to be realised for most modern democracies.

[billw55]

Cthulhu D, on 2012-December-18, 06:59, said:

Besides, it doesn't matter what you do - Fluffy needs to understand that his remarks were bigoted

Everyone has their opinions on religion and the lack thereof, and I respect that. But I am not sure I see why Fluffy's statement is any more or less bigoted than the anti-religious statements made after.

Someone says he thinks atheism is bad - ah, that's bigotry.

Others say they think religion is bad - all is well.

Why?

[mikeh]

billw55, on 2012-December-18, 07:23, said:

Everyone has their opinions on religion and the lack thereof, and I respect that. But I am not sure I see why Fluffy's statement is any more or less bigoted than the anti-religious statements made after.

Someone says he thinks atheism is bad - ah, that's bigotry.

Others say they think religion is bad - all is well.

Why?

Actually, he implied that people like me either are prone to mass murder or establish conditions in which mass murder becomes prevalent. Propositions which I find personally insulting, but which, more to the point, are precisely contrary to the evdence. Religious fanaticism, otoh, is known to increase the chances of abhorrent behaviour. Objectively speaking, thee is no doubt whatsoever that religious belief is more dangrous than a lack thereof.

The only reason that this is not universally acknowledged is the privileged position accorded to religion in society. But facts are facts, no matter how uncomfortable they may be to most people.

That doesn't mean that most believers are dangerous. As I said: our religions reflect all aspects of our nature, and many...I am sure 'almost all'... religious believers are usually good people. However, religion is like patriotism: it is a tool that can be and historically invariably is used by the ruling elite to get people to do terrible things in the name of something supposedly good.

Which has nothing to do with why this mass killing took place, as far as I can tell, but everything to do with why fluffy needed, imo, to be called out for his literally uthinking assertion. He's no doubt been told by people he trusts that religion is a force for good, and that rejecting god is bound to result in evil. And then accepted it without thinking about it, or looking at the evidence.

Let me add one thought, which anger prevented me from doing earlier. I have a great deal of respect for fluffy, in terms of his contributions to the forum. I strongly suspect that he is a very decent human being. I also suspect that he has grown up in an atmosphere in which just about everyone he knows and respects thinks as he appears to do, in terms of religion and atheism, and that he has had little exposure to or reason to think about why many people, including a lot of very intelligent people, find a belief in supernatural entities...'gods'...to be absurd. So I attribute no malice to him: merely ignorance. And ignorance is not a personal attribute. It is a condition for which there is a readily available treatment

[billw55]

Mike, I understand and respect your opinion. I would add a few comments. I cannot say that these refute what you are saying, only that perhaps there are other factors worth consideration.

mikeh, on 2012-December-18, 09:24, said:

Religious fanaticism, otoh, is known to increase the chances of abhorrent behaviour.

I agree, but I think this is a simplification. Fanaticism in general increases abhorrent behavior. This includes religious fanaticism, anti-religious fanaticism, and fanaticism unrelated to religion. It is true that much evil has been done in the name of religion. Nevertheless, it is a mistake to overlook evil done as anti-religion. Some of the most murderous tyrants in histrory were ruthlessly anti-religion, see Stalin for example.

mikeh, on 2012-December-18, 09:24, said:

However, religion is like patriotism: it is a tool that can be and historically invariably is used by the ruling elite to get people to do terrible things in the name of something supposedly good.

Of course this happens. But I consider "invariably" to be an overbid.

mikeh, on 2012-December-18, 09:24, said:

I have a great deal of respect for fluffy, in terms of his contributions to the forum. I strongly suspect that he is a very decent human being.

Also agree, which I why I think he has earned more courtesy than to simply be labeled a bigot, without even bothering to ask for more detail or clarification. Also I think we can say that while fluent, he is not quite a native English speaker, and perhaps his meaning was not perfectly expressed. Was any of this considered?

mikeh, on 2012-December-18, 09:24, said:

He's no doubt been told by people he trusts that religion is a force for good, and that rejecting god is bound to result in evil. And then accepted it without thinking about it, or looking at the evidence.

I also suspect that he has grown up in an atmosphere in which just about everyone he knows and respects thinks as he appears to do, in terms of religion and atheism, and that he has had little exposure to or reason to think about why many people, including a lot of very intelligent people, find a belief in supernatural entities...'gods'...to be absurd.

You are assuming much, and assigning negative qualities based on your assumptions, when these facts are not in evidence. Is this so different from what you perceive Fluffy to have done, and that you railed against?

[barmar]

Mbodell, on 2012-December-18, 05:19, said:

I welcomed mikeh's response as I found this tiresome and offensive. Try some substitutions to get the feeling of what feels wrong "Oh, and increasing black population is not helping also IMO. Social cohesion (white pride) is a good last resort against things like this." or "Oh, and increasing homosexuality is not helping also IMO. Heterosexual families is a good last resort against things like this." I think we'd all recognize those constructions as repugnant and worthy of correction, offense, and possible moderator action.

I'm not speaking for Fluffy, but I'll bet many people with opinions similar to his about atheists would also agree with the above constructions. They don't just blame societal problems on these thing -- a prominent religious leader blamed hurricanes Katrina and Irene on the rise of homosexuality (i.e. God punishing the cities for tolerance).

[barmar]

kenberg, on 2012-December-18, 06:42, said:

If I may make a peace offering: I would replace "religion" in this quote by blind adherence to dogma. Without putting down a list, I think most of us could come up with examples of grievous evil coming form [you name it]-ism applied with power and no sense.

The only dogma I can think of that is comparable is Nazism. But religious dogma has been far more effective over history than any other.

[mikeh]

Hi Bill

A few points:

1.If by anti-religion, you intend to refer to atheists, the reality is that atheists are not an organized body and do not have any equivalent of a church or a doctrine. A doctrine is received or revealed knowledge, and is the anthesis of atheism. It is a common error, on the part of religious critics of atheism, to claim that atheism is merely another variant of religion, based on belief and faith.

2. I don't know what you mean by anti-religious fanatics doing violence. PZ Myers, a noted atheist blogger, once publicy desecrated a communion wafer. I think that is the most violent act I have seen in the name of atheism But I may well be ignorant of other, more real anti-religious fanaticism.

3. Stalin is often pulled out as an example of atheism gone bad. At least you didn't mention Hitler (who was a Xian, anyway). Stalin trained in a seminary, so one could argue that religious belief played a large role in his upbringing.

However, it is probably safer to say that Stalin was likely at least a sociopath and possibly a psychopath more concerned with gaining and holding power than in any particular philosophy. That is an incomplete answer, since it appears that many of the Russian communists were true believers. And I think the real answer lies in that statement. Communism was based on the notion...the belief...that human nature could be changed. That was what underlay the need for the dictatorship of the proletariat. Communism is not an inherently dictatorial system. But Marx and Lenin understood that human nature, as it then existed, was anthetical to communism: personal greed would cause many to seek advantage rather than work cooperatively. Hence the need for a dictatorship that would impose an era of enforced sharing and equality. The idea was that eventually people, perhaps some generations down the road, would come to see sharing and equality as the natural state of man, and the need for the dictatorship would fade...the 'state' would wither, and perfect communal living....communism...would prevail. It seems fair to assert that this was a belief system not based in reality. IOW, very much religious in nature. In addition, one can well see that organized religion, with its entirely different world view, would be seen as an enemy of this process. Any belief structure that had hierarchical power structures other than the state dictatorship would be an obstacle. In addition, from Stalin's personal point of view, any competitor for control over the people would be an enemy.

Btw, Stalin turned to the church for assistance when the Germans were at the height of their power during the invasion of Russian, just like Hussein turned to Islam in the runup to the invasion of Iraq.

4. Invariably was an overbid: I should have written 'often'

5. I didn't actually call fluffy a bigot, but I used equivalent language and I stand by it. Many bigots appear oblivious to their bigotry. The bigotry is often completely unconscious. My parents are both racists and I grew up in a family in which people with a different complexion to their skin were routinely referred to in derogatory terms. To this day, I am more aware of people's ethnicity than I ought to be, tho I hope that I have been able to avoid acting in a bigoted fashion. But I understand that I may be displaying bigotry in other forms precisely because I am unaware of it. I don't think Fluffy meant to attack any of us here, let alone me, when he attributed the mass killing of children to the growing (but minuscule) impact of atheism. I think he wrote in good faith, without any idea that he was revealing his bigoted nature on this topic.

6. I stated very clearly that, in talking about Fluffy, I was voicing suspicion, not stating fact. Moreover, it seems to me that I was stating suspicions that would explain why Fluffy might not be blameworthy for his bigoted statement. We cannot choose our childhood environment. I grew up as a racial and class bigot (I grew up in England and attended a Public School. I was a scholarship student but came from the right 'class', despite my parents not having any money. We had another scholarship student who came from a working class and I eagerly joined in with my classmates to mock him). I'm not sure when I first began questioning my attitudes and beliefs, but I know it took years for me to at least consciously stop thinking and acting on that learned bigotry. I was hoping that Fluffy is still in that early stage before he learns to think critically about what his elders have taught him. The alternative is that he has thought hard on the topic and has become, of his own accord, a bigot.

[billw55]

Mike,

Yes, I understand that atheism and anti-religion are not the same thing, which is why I chose the words the way that I did. The two may sometimes go together, but also may not. Stalin may have had religious views at one time, which he gave up, or maybe didn't. Either way, most of his rule was strongly anti-religious. Almost surely, the purpose of this was to gather and maintain power, rather than for philosophical reasons. I am sure that in some cases, much the same could be said about religious fanaticism from political leaders.

IMO, some of your prose in this thread sounds more like anti-religion than atheism.

[phil_20686]

mikeh, on 2012-December-17, 15:06, said:

The same sects often assert that their beliefs give rise to morality, and that atheists, a common foe to all believers, lack a moral sense. And it is that moral sense that prevents murder and other horrible acts.

These are not the claims. The first claim is that atheists cannot provide any kind of sensible philosophical underpinnings for their morality. This is not the same as claiming a given atheist has no moral sense. Most people learn morality through imitation, very few ever attempt to seek or provide any philosophical justification for ones morality. However, an inability to provide a sound philosophical justification for ones morality is a deep flaw in the athiest's belief system.

It is, in fact, remarkably hard to find any sensible philosophical system without God/moral absolutes, which does not run deeply into to trouble. For example, most atheists think of them selves as utilitarian. However, utilitarianism works better for religious people than atheists ironically, since atheists must do away with an absolute sense of "goodness", and end up defining net benefit essentially by "how one feels". Something is good if it adds to the net happiness of the world. However, as soon as you get a policy with distributed benefits and concentrated flaws, utilitarianism now fails. Since I like to be provocative, consider Gang Rape. There is presumably some diminishing returns to the negativity of being raped. After the first hundred times or so its hard to believe one more makes a difference, in which case, there is some number of people at which gang rape becomes a net benefit to society.

All the major moral philosophies that are compatible with atheism suffer from these flaws, in that they seldom correspond to our normal moral intuitions. On the other hand, its clear that theist philosophies do give rise to morality in a ontological complete sense.

The other claims sometimes made by theists is that religion prevents some crimes. However, most crimes are crimes of desperation or passion. I don't think many people believe that if you came home and found your wife banging another man that you would behave in a rational manner. More interesting is the question of premeditated crimes. Particularly repeated pre-meditated crimes by reasonably well off individuals. I am thinking of, say, professional Jewel thieves. Another area that would be interesting to look at is religion in special forces wet teams and similar. My intuition is that Religious would be under represented in any job that required killing people under morally dubious circumstances. On the other hand, I do not think the same would apply to regular soldiers. If anything my intuition is that Religions would be over represented among regular soldiers. I think the relationship between crime and religion is probably nuanced and complicated, but I think that there is such relationship. You seem to be claiming that religion and crime are fully independent. It seems irrational for you to believe that religious belief is sufficiently important to cause wars, but not important enough to affect criminal proclivities.

If anyone has seen genuine empirical data on these things I would like to see it. (PS: I don't mean broad based empirical studies on crime and religious affiliation, I have seen many of those, I mean specific studies on religion and premeditated crime, or religion in the special forces).

[mikeh]

billw55, on 2012-December-18, 11:21, said:

Mike,

Yes, I understand that atheism and anti-religion are not the same thing, which is why I chose the words the way that I did. The two may sometimes go together, but also may not. Stalin may have had religious views at one time, which he gave up, or maybe didn't. Either way, most of his rule was strongly anti-religious. Almost surely, the purpose of this was to gather and maintain power, rather than for philosophical reasons. I am sure that in some cases, much the same could be said about religious fanaticism from political leaders.

IMO, some of your prose in this thread sounds more like anti-religion than atheism.

My take on your posts is that you are not a firmly decided atheist. I have no idea whether you are religious, agnostic (as I used to say I was) or merely a very polite atheist

I am anti-religious. I could give you many reasons why. I am sure that you already know what some of them would be.

One minor reason is that religion maintains its control over people by instilling fear and false beliefs. Thus Fluffy seems to suggest that a lack of belief in a supernatural god can cause people to lack a moral sense and thus be more ready to kill than would be the case otherwise. This is an argument I have read countless times.

I would not for a moment suggest that Fluffy would turn into a killer were he to lose his faith in god, and I am deeply angered by the smug assertions by so many religious people that, if thought through logically, would say otherwise. You may argue that I am confusing stupid people with religion, but that's akin to the no true scotsman argument. The fact that so many religious people take such positions reflects the effect of religion on the ability of the average human to reason critically.

If we looked at the state of knowledge, and the available intellectual tools, of 50,000 years ago, or even 1,000 years ago, a belief in supernatural powers would make a great deal of sense to anyone attempting to understand the universe. And in those days, religion might well have played, on the whole, a positive role in preserving and promulgating what knowledge there was, while ameliorating social conditions, and promoting some morally positive behaviours. But religion is now obsolescent in terms of explaining almost everything that was inexplicable then, and the still-remaining areas of ignorance are known to be areas of ignorance, calling out for investigation rather than for the god of the gaps. Yet religion still pervades our societies, doing immense harm now outweighing its once considerable benefits, imo.

So, yes, I am not only an atheist, but also anti-religious.

[dwar0123]

phil_20686, on 2012-December-18, 11:44, said:

These are not the claims....

<----Goes to get the popcorn

[hrothgar]

phil_20686, on 2012-December-18, 11:44, said:

These are not the claims. The first claim is that atheists cannot provide any kind of sensible philosophical underpinnings for their morality. This is not the same as claiming a given atheist has no moral sense. Most people learn morality through imitation, very few ever attempt to seek or provide any philosophical justification for ones morality. However, an inability to provide a sound philosophical justification for ones morality is a deep flaw in the athiest's belief system.

Only if you insist on objective notions of morality. Most people I know are moral relativists and don't require a "sound philosophical justification" for their morality.

Quote

It is, in fact, remarkably hard to find any sensible philosophical system without God/moral absolutes, which does not run deeply into to trouble. For example, most atheists think of them selves as utilitarian. However, utilitarianism works better for religious people than atheists ironically, since atheists must do away with an absolute sense of "goodness", and end up defining net benefit essentially by "how one feels".

This would same Utilitarianism that is best associated with Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill (both aethists)?

I spent a lot of time studying Edgeworth and working with indifference curves. I don't recall religion factoring into those discussion.

Once again you are projecting your own highly parochial notions, and its as annoying as ever.

Quote

Something is good if it adds to the net happiness of the world. However, as soon as you get a policy with distributed benefits and concentrated flaws, utilitarianism now fails. Since I like to be provocative, consider Gang Rape. There is presumably some diminishing returns to the negativity of being raped. After the first hundred times or so its hard to believe one more makes a difference, in which case, there is some number of people at which gang rape becomes a net benefit to society.

The most obvious counter is to note that many individuals would be fearful to live in a society in which they can be gang raped.

[PassedOut]

mikeh, on 2012-December-18, 11:53, said:

My take on your posts is that you are not a firmly decided atheist. I have no idea whether you are religious, agnostic (as I used to say I was) or merely a very polite atheist

This reminds of something my youngest sister, Gwen, described to me years ago. She was dating a man who was a serious Roman Catholic, and one night they were out with some of his friends. One of them asked about her religion.

"I'm an atheist."

After a long silence, her boyfriend spoke up. "She means that she is an agnostic."

Gwen stood up, pointed at him, and said, "I don't need a boyfriend to distort my statements just to appease a bunch of idiots!"

That was their last date. (Gwen has now been married for many years to a fine man who is definitely not an idiot.)

[mikeh]

phil_20686, on 2012-December-18, 11:44, said:

These are not the claims. The first claim is that atheists cannot provide any kind of sensible philosophical underpinnings for their morality. This is not the same as claiming a given atheist has no moral sense. Most people learn morality through imitation, very few ever attempt to seek or provide any philosophical justification for ones morality. However, an inability to provide a sound philosophical justification for ones morality is a deep flaw in the athiest's belief system.

It is, in fact, remarkably hard to find any sensible philosophical system without God/moral absolutes, which does not run deeply into to trouble. For example, most atheists think of them selves as utilitarian. However, utilitarianism works better for religious people than atheists ironically, since atheists must do away with an absolute sense of "goodness", and end up defining net benefit essentially by "how one feels". Something is good if it adds to the net happiness of the world. However, as soon as you get a policy with distributed benefits and concentrated flaws, utilitarianism now fails. Since I like to be provocative, consider Gang Rape. There is presumably some diminishing returns to the negativity of being raped. After the first hundred times or so its hard to believe one more makes a difference, in which case, there is some number of people at which gang rape becomes a net benefit to society.

All the major moral philosophies that are compatible with atheism suffer from these flaws, in that they seldom correspond to our normal moral intuitions. On the other hand, its clear that theist philosophies do give rise to morality in a ontological complete sense.

The other claims sometimes made by theists is that religion prevents some crimes. However, most crimes are crimes of desperation or passion. I don't think many people believe that if you came home and found your wife banging another man that you would behave in a rational manner. More interesting is the question of premeditated crimes. Particularly repeated pre-meditated crimes by reasonably well off individuals. I am thinking of, say, professional Jewel thieves. Another area that would be interesting to look at is religion in special forces wet teams and similar. My intuition is that Religious would be under represented in any job that required killing people under morally dubious circumstances. On the other hand, I do not think the same would apply to regular soldiers. If anything my intuition is that Religions would be over represented among regular soldiers. I think the relationship between crime and religion is probably nuanced and complicated, but I think that there is such relationship. You seem to be claiming that religion and crime are fully independent. It seems irrational for you to believe that religious belief is sufficiently important to cause wars, but not important enough to affect criminal proclivities.

If anyone has seen genuine empirical data on these things I would like to see it. (PS: I don't mean broad based empirical studies on crime and religious affiliation, I have seen many of those, I mean specific studies on religion and premeditated crime, or religion in the special forces).

'These are not the claims'.

What you mean is that these are not 'your claims'. I have read many assertions that are exactly as I stated. The fact that you recognize that those claims are invalid doesn't alter the fact that many believe otherwise and are not at all reluctant to make their views known.

As for your views, you have opened up an area in which any meaningful discussion would require far more than even my propensities to long posts could suffice. I will say this: your invocation of utilitarism is very much a strawman argument, and I am surprised that you would resort to such cheap misdirection. I am not an acolyte of Bentham, at least not in the classic sense. Any nuanced sense of morality has (in my view) to recognize the rights of minorities, down to the scale of individuals, and any practical application must strike a balance between the pure greatest benefit to the greatest number and the protection of the minorities.

It is my perhaps naive and unspohisticated opinion that what we see as moral arises in part from hard-wiring of the brain. I find support for this from experiments conducted around the world, across diverse ethnic, cultural and religious peoples, which show a remarkably uniform set of responses to certain moral dilemmas posed in question form.

Of course, history tells us that morality is also to a large degree culturally linked. Thus some behaviours our ancestors thought morally defensible are now seen as repugnant and vice versa. We are, for instance, at least in the West, seeing such cultural shifts with respect to homosexuality, racism, and the status/treatment of women.

Religion, which is usually conservative, acts as a drag on such cultural changes.

As for the underlying philosophy, my view is that such philosophy is an attempt to understand and perhaps impact the interpretation or application of morality, not to create it. We have (most of us, anyway....some unfortunates seem not to) an innate moral predisposition that can be altered by cultural factors but has its roots in our biology. Philosophers attempt to explain or impact what is, not to create what was not.

[mycroft]

Caveat: I am religious - in fact, Christian (for a version of Chrisitanity that most people calling themselves Christian in public in the U.S. would consider screamingly heretical). At one point 6 or 7 years ago, we had our first actively sexual, unmarried (yeah, we'd done the same-sex marriage thing 15 years before the country made it "legal"), homosexual minister, for instance.

Having said that, I agree with a lot of what MikeH wrote - and a lot of what the reflexive Christians say I react very badly to, as well. But he's a lawyer, and it's screamingly obvious in his rants that he uses Rhetoric professionally. So I have an issue with one point-counterpoint:

Quote

Religious fanaticism, otoh, is known to increase the chances of abhorrent behaviour. Objectively speaking, there is no doubt whatsoever that religious belief is more dangrous than a lack thereof.

There might be, but handwaving the "fanatic" away in the conclusion makes this argument a fallacy. The second statement is correct - the arguments for it are elided, but they've been done before - but there is no knowledge of whether non-fanatic religious belief is more dangerous than non-fanatic non-religious belief (or fanatic non-religious belief!) And the particular instance of non-fanatic religious belief that is my church is an awful lot better at some violent things than at least some of the more fanatic Atheist gatherings, especially when it comes to their treatment of non-"white males".
So the implied conclusion that it's religion that's the problem and not the fanaticism is not proven.

I reiterate that I don't believe that any person here, especially MikeH, is or would be involved with that downside in the fanatic atheist community. But it's there, in others. There's something about "I'm right, and I know it" that leads to "Anything I do or say is right, and that is equally obvious" and the hell for other people that causes. I wish I knew what it was, and what to do about it.

I am now reminded that it is time for my once-a-decade attempt to read and understand the Koran (in English; which I realize makes it impossible by Islamic definition to succeed).

[billw55]

mikeh, on 2012-December-18, 11:53, said:

My take on your posts is that you are not a firmly decided atheist. I have no idea whether you are religious, agnostic (as I used to say I was) or merely a very polite atheist

I applaud your ability to accurately grasp what I have actually written. I was wondering if you would make a mistaken assumption about this, based on your own opinions or biases. You didn't - many would - I think you are a fairly clear thinker.

[dwar0123]

mycroft, on 2012-December-18, 12:52, said:

There might be, but handwaving the "fanatic" away in the conclusion makes this argument a fallacy.

The way I read Christian theology, if you really believe the texts, truly believe, which when it comes to religion, is the only way to believe. Then you will act in a way that the rest of the world would call fanatical.

[helene_t]

mycroft, on 2012-December-18, 12:52, said:

fanatic Atheist gatherings[....] fanatic atheist community

Do those clubs actually call themselves "atheist clubs" or such? Where I live, we have a bridge club and a golf club but there is no club dedicated to non-bridge-players or non-golf-players. Similarly, we have several clubs (churches, synagoges, whatnot) dedicated to believers but we don´t have a non-believer club. I know there is such a thing as an atheist association in the USA but I have never heard about them in the news. And I am not aware of any atheist associations outside of the USA.

I find it hard to imagine how a gathering in an atheist club would be. Talking about all the things we don't believe in? Smalltalk such as "What are your non-plans for the non-holidays?"

[mikeh]

billw55, on 2012-December-18, 13:33, said:

I applaud your ability to accurately grasp what I have actually written. I was wondering if you would make a mistaken assumption about this, based on your own opinions or biases. You didn't - many would - I think you are a fairly clear thinker.

Thanks.

I trained as an engineer, which requires, at least at the macroscopic level at which we usually interact with the universe, an acceptance that things will work out according to predictable laws, and not our wishes. I then went into law and, in particular, litigation in areas that frequently require expert opinion evidence, and have learned that, again, the outcome of files is not determined by whether we like or dislike our client or whether we desire one outcome over another. Iow, my education and work experience has made wishful thinking something that I try to avoid. In addition, the best way to prevail over an opponent, at the bridge table or in the courtroom, is to understand how they think. One cannot counter what one does not recognize.