"In atheists we distrust"

[Mr Walker]

Oh not at all..I still laugh at things that are funny..I will joke as and when I feel it is right

You said it, not me lol

I use lol after funny sentences or jokes I have read, or to show people I am joking, but always at the end of my sentence... I never feel the need or see the sense in places long winded acronyms at the beginning of ANY sentence, in fact, I never will see the logic in using any amount of acronyms at the beginning of any sentence either..It just doesn't look right, and I cannot see the intelligence within it..

I personally find that behaviour awkward.It makes me feel awkward if I see people do this.... Maybe it's just me, but my dad was the same, he too would have given strange looks to anyone behaving like that.. If I am reading something serious or I post something I see as serious, laughing at what I say in that manner I find odd.. If I was sitting face to face with someone, and said the same thing about Julia Gillard, and they burst out on the floor laughing, I would think they lost it, it would make me feel awkward !

I made a thread back in April of last year -Acronyms, Abbreviations and Text speak..!..http://www.unexplain...howtopic=226344 ...That thread explains what I have trouble with, and what I accept..Feel free to read it if you have time.... I am fine with lol at the end of jokes and sentences, but overly used and long winded at the start of senescence, ticks me off..Maybe I am being old fashioned ? Maybe I just cannot get to grips with it ? Or get used to it? I don't know, all I know is I don't like it..It could be because I have seen some people do this as a result of a disagreement, it comes off as an attempt to belittle their opponent in a condescending manner.. I have read a few posts from others, who were in disagreement, and did the same thing, posting up long acronyms to laugh at them at the beginning of their posts..I saw others who did in fact see it as an act of belittling and condescending, I agree with them

POS? in my previous job, POS stood for - Point of Sale..I have no idea what you are meaning though?

Would you accept an English paper written in acronyms filled with ROFLMAO and chopped text? In my day at school, we never did that.. Our work was always presented in proper English.. If it was full of nonsense like that, our teacher would have binned it and failed us..

In my own country Mr Walker, it has gotten worse... So many were used to using poor grammar.. An example of this is - That there book was blah blah.. I class that as bad grammar, but like I said, it has gotten worse with the young ones on Facebook.. Instead of posting their usual poor use of grammar, they make it worse by saying - Dat ( instead of that ) and der ( instead of there ) it turns out like - Dat der...!! Chopping up simple words like - Don't ..they now get lazy and type - dn't, dropping ONE small letter.. Again that is sheer laziness and I find it all hard to read If I receive a poorly written text that is filled with chopped up words and acronyms all over it, I will not read it.. I text in full proper sentences...To me, that is much easier to read and understand.. I think that if this continues ( and likely will do ) it will look as if the younger generation are dumbing themselves down

Another that confuses me is - IDK... When put into a sentence - "IDK he does this and that" .. To me they could be saying they do know OR they don't dnt know ? I then just skip it and go on to read something with proper use of the English language

30% or even 35 % , it still stands for many people, and that was my statement.. Many people trust her... I pointed out previously, that many could stand for any number of people.. There is no fixed number linked to the term - Many people

Fair enough, you didn't mean it as a way to put my post down, .but when I write something serious,and see I am laughed at, it doesn't go well with me..I feel the person is not worth taking seriously.. You do understand? You know I do take many things as funny and will laugh at so much of it.. but not the serious notes..

I once laughed at the idea of so many voting Bush back into office for a second term, but that's all I did, laugh at it, at the same time I was shocked....I never fell and rolled around on the floor in fits at it lol.. I guess I just react differently from yourself and so many others.. We are completely different people..

That's because a show like Fawlty Towers is very funny, and a shame they only made 12 episodes.. But at least you are laughing at something that is very funny.. I love the show, laughed at it many times Ok not rolling around but I still laughed..( Favourite episodes are the ones about the Hotel Inpectors and Bazil the rat ) .I have the box sets.. But if you were to do the same thing from watching a serious programme, that to me would be most odd

Probably comes down to my sense of humour. My wife and great niece don't get it . In fact my wife sounds a bit like; you takes serious things seriously. I am like calvin form calvin and hobbes. In life nothing is really serious unless you allow it to become so which spoils the game. None of my students get it but a few of my colleagues of the same generation and background are similar. I dont allow my students to wite without correct grammar etc but i cant stop how they speak to each other.

Oh, POS is parent(s) over shoulder which is when you move to the alternate face book page you have set up that is accpetable to a parent or moderate your language and topic of conversation, on line.

Yes, it might have been the rat episode, which was hilarious. or the one with the good looking female guest. I was on a reclining chair that was partly laid back, and I was laughing so much I slowly slid off the chair onto the floor and was just laughing so much i couldnt get back up again. I wasn't quite rolling but certainly writhing. Every time i started to calm down, Basil did something or said something that set me off again.

Ps I think problems with senescence are more likely to effect me than you. ( I think your spell checker let you down)

Also a lot of the language (like dat der) is an imitation of american rap artists mostly negro who use tthie own legitimate vernacular The kids hear it constantly on their music and then transpose it into a white australian or irish context/conversation which is about as legitimate as a fake spanish or french accent.

Edited January 4, 2013 by Mr Walker

[Mr Walker]

This is something that kind of relates something we've been studying, Kohlberg's Cognitive Moral Development Theory. I think theists tend to put their trust in the very first stage:

And not just theists, but obedience to avoid punishment is probably the foundation of our behavior, as that is how we are raised up as small children, but I think where the distrust lies when a theist would compare a fellow theist to an atheist in levels of trustworthiness is that there are some areas where people can probably reliably consider that they can act without getting caught, as authorities can't be everywhere all the time, but a theist believes that God is always there, always watching and demands obedience and will dole out punishment, nothing escapes God's watchful eyes; therefore, a theist believing this will feel that his behavior is scrutinized always and believe he conducts himself accordingly regardless if any human could possibly ever know and if consequences aren't necessarily certain, but he will always believe God is judging and watching so he would probably believe himself to be less likely to do things immoral, wrong, selfish, harmful, etc. than an atheist who doesn't have the threatening feeling of the eye in the sky that sees all.

I hadnt read this when i posted today, but i agree with a lot of it.

It is not really about religion as such, but about the inner motivations and levels of consciousnes an individual reaches. The "god" involved can be the inner god which potentially exists within every human, but if an individual doesnt recognise or hear that inner voice of god then they cannot heed it. Perhaps it is time to reveal the scientific findings on this issue. As my wife is off for a while, I might get time to do that.

[+Sherapy]

Why do you care about bettering yourself or "the whole"? Why worry about "quality of life"? Why choose "to be a part"? Caring, of which love is a part because without love there is no care or compassion, is the motivator.

People who dont care only obey the law for fear, particularly of consequence; or from a learned sense of duty/obligation/obedience to law. In both cases, if they cannot be observed they may chose not to obey the law or treat people with respect and care. However an inner motivation of love drives a person, regardless of whether anyone else ever knows how they will act.

Religion, in itself, has nothing to do with love, any more than with fear, but fear and religion, or love and religion, may go together due to how an individual person thinks. Non religious people fear and love just the same as religious ones.

What a great question: for me, being a parent is my opportunity, reason, and personal experience of cultivating selflessness and love is the drive the motivator. Evolution has bestowed me with empathy so I am good to go. MW, quite frankly, being a parent is fertile ground for such work and inspires my drive and motivation for giving, for loving. I have been very fortunate to have this opportunity, to be honored with the role of parent, to get the chance to be selfless and unconditional. I am truly humbled/honored by my children.

Edited January 4, 2013 by Sherapy

[+Sherapy]

When I was young an older woman said when I got older I would want religion in my life. I now understand well the truth of what she said, as well as holding the understanding of youth being too busy with other things, to care about spiritual matters, expect to wonder if ghost are real, and if a love potion can really work. So now as I ponder the spiritual truths, I know I wasn't always so moved to do so, as I think of such things now. However, religions are very damaging to my belief in God, because they focus on an unbelievable God, and insist if their idea of God is not accepted, then a person doesn't have God and morals. They do not recognize myth for what it is, and confuse myth as literally God's truth, and it is when we think we know God, that we know God not.

Joseph Campbell wrote of how similar myths around the world are. He said people everywhere get spontaneous spiritual awareness, and often this awareness is preserved in a myth. "Myth is to bring us into a consciousness that is spiritual".

And then we have Chardin, the Catholic priest who was forbidden to publish, because the church said his work is full of flaws. Like the bible is a book validated by science? Anyway, Chardin said we are , "the process of evolution reflecting on itself."

Chardin said, God is asleep in rocks and minerals, waking in plants and animals, to know self in man.

I want pull The-Unexpected-Soul into this matter of what humans are. I think our judgment regarding all human matters is greatly improved with science, so I really wish, as Christians gave up the notion that the earth is the center of the universe, religions would give up the idea that we are not product of evolution. However, I agree some atheist take this too far. What other animal reflects on the nature of self and God? Can any other animals be reverent and in awe? We not only think, but we think about what we think, and we can know there is far more to know than we will ever personally know. In fact, the more we know, the more we know of what we do not know. Humans take thinking to a whole new level, and when our lives are behind us, we have time to reflect on God.

I do want to say, those who speak of love are right on. God is not just an intellectual consideration, but very much about our attitude and feeling. Believing there is a God, and experiencing love, go hand in hand.

Hmm, interesting position, thank you for taking the time to post; I enjoyed reading it. I enjoy MW too he is always a gracious gentlemen regardless of agreement and we rarely-- if ever agree. LOL

I think each person carves out a way and understanding that works/suits them. I personally do not see it necessary to 'love' to be a law abiding, good citizen or to follow the rules, It is an honor for me. Love is not a pre requisite for me, but it is for some and if that works for them I say good for them.

For me parenthood is the path to love and selflessness, it is very real and it is immediate and hands on. I am not sure if you are a parent but if you are you will instantly relate. It is the best way I know of to cultivate love and selflessness. It is an opportunity one takes purely out of love. Would you agree?

Edited January 4, 2013 by Sherapy

[Beckys_Mom]

Probably comes down to my sense of humour. My wife and great niece don't get it . In fact my wife sounds a bit like; you takes serious things seriously.

I don't take everything in life seriously.. I just feel there is a time for both fun and serious... I am always cracking some joke or looking for the humour in so many things on here, but at times I like to get into the serious things too.. It is who we are as people..It's just our nature, we can't help it, it's just who we are

Example.. My husband will laugh at IE - Something About Mary... He sat laughing, I sat face palming.. I thought the movie was dreadful.. I prefer comedy with great one liners...Like old classics for example movie classic - It's a mad mad mad mad world, that was hilarious..It is a movie, I would most likely watch again and again.. I love Fawlty Towers and other things John Cleese has done.. Monty Python.. I love stand up comedy..Billy Connelly is one of my favourites ..Another good example is..Hugh Laurie .. Best known for his role in House but I remember his comedy sketches with Stephen Fry.. A bit of Fry and Laurie.. those were really funny.. I like stuff like that

Ps I think problems with senescence are more likely to effect me than you. ( I think your spell checker let you down)

My spell checker let me what now? I don't get what it is you are saying here ?

Also a lot of the language (like dat der) is an imitation of american rap artists mostly negro who use tthie own legitimate vernacular The kids hear it constantly on their music and then transpose it into a white australian or irish context/conversation which is about as legitimate as a fake spanish or french accent.

I have heard many young toddlers who are only learning to speak, and can't quite string a sentence together.. I have heard them say things like - Dat Der ...OR what my daughter once was forever saying as a toddler - "And dem" ( And then ) .." I want one of dem " .. But they grow out of the baby talk and learn to speak properly... And here we have some grown ups and teenagers, speaking as if they are toddlers again....Talk about going backwards? Blimey, it just doesn't get any more ridiculous than that

Edited January 6, 2013 by Beckys_Mom

[scowl]

When people address the social aspect of education and religion, they are rarely referring to rural areas.

I took a year of sociology and we often referred to social problems in rural areas.

Rarely do we hear of impoverished rural families. Uneducated, maybe. But the education they receive is sufficient for their society.

What is "their" society? I have friends who live in rural areas and they seem to be members of American society -- they watch the same TV shows. And is this the first you've heard of impoverished rural families? Poverty is actually worst in American rural areas where there is little employment.

People in urban areas have the problem of dense populations consuming more resources than they can provide.

Good news. Cities solved that problem centuries ago.

So I think my point still stands. The issue we have is that political corruption causes poverty among those they betray and poverty often leads to widespread crime.

If you take some classes in criminology you'll find that the number one cause of crime in the United States is drug addiction. I don't believe that's directly caused by "political corruption" unless you believe that politicians are purposely flooding our country with illicit drugs.

You might want to read Flavius Josephus' works The Antiquities of the Jews and The Wars of the Jews. Judea was a sovereign nation until about 37 BC, when its last king was usurped by an Idumean named Herod and was handed over to imprisonment.

Oh that's right. For a few years between Babylonian rule and Roman rule, Judea was independent. The book I refer to is A Survey of Israel's History which I haven't read in years and I've probably forgotten at least half of it.

[Zaphod222]

What about a fundamentalist atheist? I see the general point in what you're trying to say, but fundies exist in every group, even atheists.

Just my thoughts,

~ Regards,

And what the heck is a "fundamentalist atheist"? Are you again trying to create a false equivalency?

[+Paranoid Android]

And what the heck is a "fundamentalist atheist"? Are you again trying to create a false equivalency?

A fundamentalist atheist is an atheist who has taken their views to the extreme, to the point that they are rabidly pro-atheist, anti-religionist, and want the world to bend to their wishes. Two examples from people I have met in my own life may help explain what I mean:

Example 1 - about six months ago, I met a man who stated that his life goal was to *and I quote* - "rid the world of all religions and religious people". He had no desire to live and let live, he felt he was intellectually superior to religious people. He was a massive Christopher Hitchens fan (being a fan of Hitchens doesn't necessarily mean you are a fundamentalist atheist, just so we're clear on that) and said that if you read Hitchens' writings and still believed in God then you were either lying to yourself or just too dumb to understand him.

Example 2 - about two years ago, one of my work colleagues at a school I was teaching at asked me one day if I was religious (it was quite out of the blue, I had never mentioned God or my beliefs). I said that he would probably describe me as "religious", being that I go to church and such. He laughed and asked me if I believed the world was made six thousand years ago. I said no, I'm happy to believe in evolution, and that God was simply the agent that started evolution. He then went on to tell me that it was his sincere belief that I was either brainwashed or was suffering a mental illness. Just like that, two options - brainwashed, or suffering mental illness. Because I believe in God and go to church.

This is what I mean by a "fundamental atheist". They hold themselves superior to everyone else, think of religious people as drooling zombies, and have committed themselves to campaigning to destroy religion by any means possible. I'm glad these two examples don't represent the majority of atheists, just as I'm glad an extremist Christian doesn't represent the majority of Christianity.

~ Regards, PA

[David Henson]

A very interesting article and to me, a surprising one. I would think it to be the opposite, with the religious being considered untrustworthy, even if the religious were the majority. Its all about xenophobia I suppose.

The article mentions intolerance, and my own personal experience has been that atheists can be very intolerant, but I have a feeling their aggression directed at me has been a result of the formerly religious as well as a social and political sort of frustration.

I would trust an atheist just as well as a believer.