ERICOPOLY

There is a "network effect" element to it. Or perhaps that's the wrong term... anyways. For example, your belief is apparently reinforced by the occurrence of Jesus in two major religions. Were these to be minor religions, you would not be impressed. Thus, it's like a snowball that gets more impressive as it grows membership. Well, I'd counter that to say if God wasn't at work, the religions would stay relatively small. After all, if God is gonna interact in someway, chances are the results are gonna be pretty large. :P Then why the need to send armies of people to the doorsteps of our private homes to recruit us? How about the major religions instituting a self-imposed ban on proselytizing? See how that works out for the theory that they grow due to the greatness of God. It feels more like they grow due to an army of door-to-door salesmen.

There is a "network effect" element to it. Or perhaps that's the wrong term... anyways. rather, something more like "social proof". For example, your belief is apparently reinforced by the occurrence of Jesus in two major religions. Were these to be minor religions, you would not be impressed. Thus, it's like a snowball that gets more impressive as it grows membership.

That's awesome! So it is scientifically possible for a God to exist. Now then, we just need to work on what created God.

Dolly's a clone. Identical twins are clones too. Some DNA edits and we'll perhaps have a new species. This new species will then have a creator. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/04/health/a-powerful-new-way-to-edit-dna.html?_r=0 Then there will be evidence of God -- the new creator will be God, even if none exists today.

Dolly the Sheep has a unique perspective on creationism.

I don't know, but if you buy a Tesla you'll not only have a blast driving it around, but you're investing in the planet at the same time (the more that are purchased... the sooner GM itself will mass-produce long-range electric cars... and the sooner we get off of oil dependency). My entire adult life (I was 17 when the US got involved in Iraq-Kuwait) has been tainted by nearly constant war. I can only hope that by the time my children are adults we've put an end to oil wars. It's just... you can spend the money on yourself while serving a greater cause at the same time. Yes, I could have spent $40,000 less and hoarded the extra cash... prudent? Or perhaps I've just found a self-serving way to "give" -- created jobs in California (my local community) while also hopefully cutting down on future violence (oil wars), and meanwhile perhaps being on the right side of the carbon debate (future generations). In doing so, I'm also having a great time. However, I don't get my name put on a placard... there is no ribbon cutting ceremony... I'm not hailed as a great philanthropist with my name on a foundation... well, my ego will just have to survive by gaining socially elevating points some other way. Or if there is a job at home that needs to get done, pay someone to do it. Creating a job in your community is not shamefull -- sure you could clean your own house and your work ethic makes you feel guilty for giving the job to another.... but why don't you go on a strenuous hike instead?

The conclusion of the war was arrived at when the Allies began targeting women and children directly. They became the primary targets. Killed by the hundreds of thousands. On purpose. Bin Laden did that to a few thousand, and it was called... terrorism.

Perhaps one can if one is less attached to one's family. One can feel varying degrees of guilt based on level of attachment. Me, for example, I don't go in to work and so I'm less likely to have a romance at the office. Thus, it would have to be a more conscious decision for me -- I wouldn't already be in love with the other woman. I think many times the person falls in love with the younger woman from the office, then leaves. That makes it easier from the guilt perspective as a new attachment has formed already -- they already have that new social bond. I've never seen that. It's far less prevalent, let's put it that way. Like for example, it's not written on every single dollar bill in circulation. And it's not recited by children in public schools. I mean, that's plain unnecessary and ridiculous. Of course they do. I was commenting that the "missionaries" coming to my house to recruit me are not risking their lives... however I joked that perhaps on some doorsteps they are (the angry guy with the "get the hell off my land" complex).

Suppose we change the printed paper currency of the US to read... "In God We Don't Trust" Just put it right there, printed on every dollar bill. Further, we pass a law that it's the only legal tender. Is that militancy? Or how about we require every child to go to school, and in the public school we have them recite the following line: "One nation, not under God..." Is that militancy? So... if that would seem extreme... then aren't we already in the realm of militant extremism, only the mirror opposite? Similarly, I believe I've many times seen "Jesus Saves!" signs within clear public street view on Church property, yet I haven't ever seen a "No He Doesn't!" sign within view of any public street. Atheists just don't do that! We don't actively try to push our views on others through organized campaigns. And no, the guys on "missions" who come to my door riding bicycles and wearing uniforms are not trying to save my life! Nor are they at my door "risking their lives, helping others". Well, maybe at some doorsteps they are risking their lives, but I personally wouldn't go that far. Are the "Jesus Saves!" signs erected out of respect for those with dissenting opinions? Is this how people keep their views to themselves, quietly going about their devout lives? Can't you instead put the signs on the inside of your churches, so that your own members can get the message without the rest of us seeing it?

I don't know if you saw the movie about the guy trapped under the boulder. He cuts his arm off to free himself and saves his own life. It was the rational thing to do, but I doubt I could do this rational thing due to the anticipation of pain.

For example, when I was a child one of my best friends had a radical Christian mother. She would have me over for playdates with her son, and show us Bible stories. She told my mother that she thought I could still be "saved". She knew my mother was atheist. Alright, have you ever had such an experience with your children from atheist parents? Or do organizations of atheists target you in your home with uniformed young men on bicycles? Winning for me will simply be when people stop coming to my door trying to push their beliefs on me. Believe what you want to, I don't care. I don't come to your door trying to talk you out of your beliefs. By "you" I don't mean you literally, Paul, I mean "you the people" who come to my door. I don't need a pleasure machine to prove my point. This place is crawling with organic pleasure machines. For example, I'm 41, good looking, trim, rich and retired... in Montecito. My wife is 48. I drop kids off at playdates and their 25 year old nannies are making conversation with me. I had a nanny at last year's back to school picnic make one of those obvious unmistakable winks at me. This place is crawling with 40 something men hooking up with 20 something women. So the pleasure is there, ready for my taking. Yet I don't do that. I am still married after two years of this, anticipating the regret and guilt I would feel if I left my wife for one of the incredibly physically alluring girls. I am socially attached to my family and don't want their rejection. It has nothing to do with religion or higher powers. It's just the amount of guilt and regret I know I would go through, the loss of their company and respect... etc... So I choose the present family over the instant gratification. And they make me happy. Similarly, I have explained that because I have this attachment to my family my instincts prevent me from running off with the pleasure machine that you described. Like I said, "you can't get there from here". I would need to take on a lot of guilt in choosing the machine -- the guilt prevents even the conscious selection. But I did concede that if I was already hooked up to the machine I would probably not choose to be unplugged. It's like how I can rationally turn down crack cocaine because I know about the drawbacks, but once using the drug I could probably not turn down the next hit.

On militants... Wow! Greece's constitution and law forbid proselytizing: http://theweeklynumber.com/1/post/2013/02/one-in-three-countries-worldwide-limits-proselytizing-as-libya-arrests-4-christian-missionaries.html More than one-in-five (22%) European governments or government representatives imposed restrictions on proselytizing, including Greece, where the constitution and law forbid proselytizing. However, as of mid-2010, there were fewer reported cases where Greek police detained people for proselytizing. I suppose that puts a new spin on Bible peddling -- "Ya'll best get back on that bicycle and peddle away before I call the cops!"

I agree with it. It comes down to attachment. I believe that social groups inviting them to belong from an early age will have a chance at helping them learn to develop attachment. A "lunch club" at school for example that they look forward to each day, rather than the alternative of sitting eating lunch alone and other kids calling them "loser". The former (inclusion) seems a more productive approach than the latter (letting them sit alone at lunch every day and being regularly called "loser"). Unfortunately, religion wouldn't help those people form attachments. Not if they are too far along in the condition. However, I think it is a progressive thing. Like you can be bad at attachment, and get worse over time after continued isolation.

I think so too about introverts or the relatively less outgoing. "loner" was a bad term for what I'm thinking about, because the term "loner" conjured images of quiet, introverted, yet happy well adjusted people in your mind. So it didn't communicate the idea that I had in mind -- thus, a bad term. So let's not call them "loners" anymore. I don't know what the term is, so here is how I'll phrase it instead of using a term: There is a subcategory of people who have attachment disorders -- if you have trouble attaching to a group, you will not really properly internalize it's morals. Thus you would feel less guilt if you violate it's rules. You might try and try and try to belong to the group, and thereby appear to be social, perhaps even hyper-social, but if you can't really get close to the group emotionally, then perhaps the guilt will affect you to a far lesser degree.

I tend to believe that... Being an outcast makes you susceptible to toss that social group and it's rules on the rubbish heap, and if you are driven by instincts to live within a group you will then go and join or create a new one. From there, you can grow your new social group by recruiting the disenfranchised. This might be the Hitler angle. Had he felt included early in life, where would the motivation be?

It's just a special case so it is interesting. "Evil" is basically when somebody witnesses the act of another that doesn't fit into "morality". But not all social groups have the same rules (evil to some is not evil to others). A loner would not belong to a social group of any sort, and thus would not experience "guilt". Perhaps the examples of Hitler and Stalin and the school shooters who acted together were not really loners at all. Perhaps they had just invented new social groups with new rules that were "immoral" from the standpoint of pretty much every other social group in existence.

People feel guilt if they violate the rules of their social group. If somebody if firmly socially integrated into a social group, that is the case. Yes, there will be people with attachment disorders that will never socially integrate -- they will just take ideas from the church and wind up with the god delusions that you mention. Your example about street gangs and mafia... same thing, they will experience guilt if they rat out one of their own. They have different rules, and thus different morality -- compared to something like a church group. My example previously clarified my viewpoint -- an army works hard to integrate the soldier into the "band of brothers" social unit, and can have a set of rules that would make him feel guilty for fleeing order to commit murder on people he has never met before. Yet this "morality" is different from that of the church group. Many groups with bad morality easily recruit loners, or the disenfranchised. So, if we are to try to protect ourselves from such groups, it's not a bad policy to try our best to ensure that everyone feels included by a group with generally civilized morals/rules/

I can't tell if you're joking or not, Eric. I'm not joking. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1303804/Adolf-Hitler-loner-rear-area-pig-according-WWI-regiment.html

Both Hitler and Stalin were poorly attached socially. Loners. The young guys who shoot up schools in recent history. Loners. The part of religion that benefits all of society is the "inclusion therapy" aspect of it. It's what the school psychologists focus on at our heavily funded public elementary school here in Montecito. These employees are "inclusion specialists". We need those employees at all schools more than we need the armed guards. Make sure everyone grows up with a sense of belonging, else their behavior will never properly be governed by the anticipation of guilt. Don't leave it up to the church groups to pick up the slack -- their grip is on the wane... we'll keep seeing more of this violence if we don't fund it as part of the public schooling. Once you view people as pack animals, rule #1 is that they must belong to the pack if they are to adhere to the pack's rules. Otherwise, they are a "lone wolf" -- and the lone wolf by definition is not bound to the rules of the pack. The lone wolf can engage in remorseless behavior as he does not suffer emotional feedback from violating pack rules. This is the root of "evil". But you need to debate religion to get people to understand this... otherwise no progress will be made because they will claim that morality is infused in our brains by God, and refute the idea that it's based on social pack behavior.

I agree. They try to include everyone. Even the annoying person who doesn't have any friends. Or the most socially awkward. They will include him. Inclusion therapy is an important thing. My belief is that a person only has a moral framework (reinforced by guilt) if they are socially attached to a group. So the risk of not having religion is that we'll have more loners shooting up schools. Given that their rules are generally civilized (don't lie/cheat/steal/kill), I then certainly benefit by having the million of people that surround me feel guilty if they violate the rules of their church group. Many of these rules are simply doubled-down by the rules of the government. The difference though is that the churches genuinely try to find a place for the loners to belong. I believe that's the key thing -- Church groups are like a government that offers inclusion therapy to loners.

I'm the same way in that I don't care who believes what. I don't even tell my kids what to believe. I sent my son to a pre-school down the road ("All Saints By The Sea") and he came home talking about the baby Jesus. I didn't correct him, I don't want him to not fit in with his group. I just let it be. I don't want him over at a friends house rudely telling them that Jesus stories might not be real. He will be old enough one day to make up his mind. Interestingly, I was walking around the yard at that school and came across a tile mosaic in the garden with donors names inscribed on the tiles. There was Charlie Mungers name -- just a bit unexpected to see when you are standing around waiting to pick up your kid from his preschool. Regarding what you said about the relatively polite Jehovah Witnesses though. Have you ever had an atheist come to your door in an attempt to convert you? They may seem polite and soft-spoken, but I feel like they've no place walking up to private homes trying to convert others to their beliefs. Put an ad in the newspaper and be more respectful of our privacy. I've never seen a Bitcoin -- do we finally have a hope for a currency that doesn't explicitly proclaim we trust in God? There are a few obvious ways in which the devout could take the lead on being respectful to others.

On another note, if we are reborn and lived past lives, then how do you explain expanding global populations?

As I've said before, it's entirely possible that his game is simply to separate the people with integrity from the people without. He doesn't want to spend eternity with just anyone. He is selective. So you pass his criteria by adhering to what you believe in, rather than believing in God merely because you are scared.

My theory of why we feel guilt would predict that those who don't "belong" to a group, or feel alienated from society, would therefore not feel guilt or would feel less of it. It's not "immoral" if you aren't violating a social rule -- you don't have any if you are not a part of society. You know they exist, but you don't feel bound to them from a moral standpoint -- you won't be guilty of betraying a group to which you don't belong. After all, if it's really the emotional embodiment of social pain, then you won't experience it if you don't belong to any social group that has a rule you are violating. Let's say I wanted to get an 18 year old kid to kill another person. I'd probably recruit him to a camp where I'd limit his interactions with outside society. Within this camp, we would have a bunch of rules about how it's okay to kill the enemy in defense of yada yada yada. We would haze him to tear him down and make him desperate to join our group -- then we would build him up and let him into the group. He now feels close to his new group, so close they are his "band of brothers". Now, he will feel guilty if he violates the rules of our group. Like if he tries to run away from the group, he will feel guilty. So we can tell him to strafe a bunch of people on the ground from a gunship, and he'll actually do it! People he doesn't even know. It's amazing. He does all of this because he can't violate the rules of the group he now belongs to. Amazing, he'll actually feel guilty about running away from orders to commit murder. Surprising? Not really, it's been done before to control soldiers.

I think it can be minimized through meditation. Like those guys who hang themselves from meathooks or who put needles through their tongues. But my mind is too weak for that.