trust in the world.
Unfortunately for many religious people they are united by their distrust in the world, and their hope for something other than the world ---> seeking to transcend the world rather than inhabit the world, and seeking for a heavenly afterlife.
And prayer is their "Harry Potter magic wand" (which may only work 50 percent of the time, depending on what they pray for). Here is an interesting article on prayer by Psychology Today.
Here is another interesting section from the Pew Research:
(Supernatural) Religion is a mechanism of life that very often benefits the people pursuing it. In a functional way of understanding it can make sense, as it helps people to connect with each other, giving an ethical framework and trust in the world.
Yes it has the ability to create a common goal for uniting a community of people.
Unfortunately is has been used for nefarious purposes over and over again, for those who are in control of the masses and want to maintain power over them.
Also, the "set aside reason" and instead "just have faith and believe" reinforces a lack of rational thinking skills that are needed to have a well-running government and political system ---> let's just go by "what God wants" (which is just an intuitive feeling rather than actually looking at long term results or consequences) and which is a great way for those at the top to do what ever they want.
Here is an excerpt from Lucretius, Book 3, Smith translation:
"The same method of argument teaches us that the mind and spirit have a material nature. For it is an observable fact that they impel the limbs, wrench the body from sleep, transform the countenance, and pilot and steer the whole person; and since we perceive that all these operations imply touch, and touch in its turn implies matter, are we not bound to acknowledge that the mind and spirit consist of material substance?"
Here is the Pew methodology...
Short excerpt:
A total of 205,100 sampled addresses were mailed survey invitations. Respondents were given a choice to complete the survey online, by mail, or by calling a toll-free number and completing the survey over the phone with an interviewer. Of the 36,908 U.S. adults who completed the survey, 25,250 did so online, 10,733 did so by mail, and 925 did so by phone.
Is there anyone who has adopted aspects of Epicurean philosophy into personal spiritual practices? If so, then you may want to respond to a request at the end of this article:
Your turn: What does your spiritual practice look like?
How do you practice or think about your spirituality? Is your spirituality tied to religion? Or are you building a spiritual life apart from religious faith?
Email lifekit@npr.org with the subject line "Spirituality" along with your full name, and we may feature your response on NPR.org.
The article itself talks about 4 ways to connect to spirituality:
Question 1: What does "something greater" mean to you? Question 2: Where do your spiritual beliefs come from? Question 3: What activities connect you to your spirituality? Question 4: What else can you do to strengthen your spiritual connection?
********
(Thinking maybe Eikadistes or Bryan ?)
Has anyone identified as Epicurean in official surveys when asked by a pollster? Even the Census?
There was probably a time when few atheists would admit it in a survey.
There would need to be a significant cultural movement before Epicureanism would ever come up.
I also wonder how they conduct the Pew Research (will need to look into it) because some states in US are very different than others.
If supernatural religion, and life after death with reward and punishment are true, then the Epicurean worldview makes no sense.
If the Epicurean worldview is true, then supernatural religion and life after death with reward and punishment make no sense.
Pointing this out doesn't mean that we have to go on a crusade and hit people over the head with a crowbar with these issues on first meeting.
In my opinion, due to the awareness and tolerance toward atheism (in most big cities), it seems that it would be important to present Principal Doctrine 1 ... "non-involvement of God with humankind" before anyone comes to a meeting.
Very interesting...and the section on: Religion and views of right and wrong
A majority of U.S. adults (55%) say that whether something is right or wrong often depends on the situation. Fewer than half say there are clear and absolute standards by which to decide whether something is right or wrong, according to the 2023-24 Religious Landscape Study (RLS).
In response to a separate question, the survey finds that 68% of Americans say it is possible to be moral and have good values without believing in God. Just 30% say it is necessary to believe in God in order to be moral and have good values.
Half of highly religious Americans say that belief in God is necessary to be moral and have good values, and 61% say there are clear and absolute standards for right and wrong.78
The survey also asked Americans about various factors they may consider when making moral decisions.
Slightly more than half of Americans (53%) say religious teachings and beliefs are extremely important or very important when making decisions between right and wrong. But the percentage of U.S. adults who say this is considerably lower than the shares who view practical experience and common sense (93%), logic and reason (92%) and scientific information (75%) as extremely or very important for moral decision-making.
The vast majority of U.S. adults at all levels of religiousness say that “practical experience and common sense” and “logic and reason” are extremely or very important for deciding between right and wrong.
Highly religious Americans are less likely than those with low levels of religious engagement to consider scientific information to be an important factor in moral decisions. Nevertheless, a clear majority of the highly religious (67%) view scientific information as important.
Not surprisingly, Americans who are highly religious are much more likely than those with low religious engagement to view religious principles as important for deciding between right and wrong. Overall, 94% of highly religious Americans say religious teachings and beliefs are extremely or very important to how they think about matters of right and wrong.79
Here is a Youtube of the Kalamatianos dance being done in a circle. I am thinking that this would be fun to do at an in-person Twentieth, after a potluck 
).
Hi Everyone! For our upcoming First Monday Epicurean Philosophy Discussion, coming up next Monday night...
the discussion topic is "Thomas Jefferson's Epicurean Outline".
Here is some reading material, which is optional, yet may enhance your participation. We will present the material at the meeting as well:
On The Organization Of Thomas Jefferson’s Summary of the Philosophy of Epicurus – NewEpicurean
On that webpage you can find the specific section of the letter that we will be discussing, as well as a link to the full letter.
And for those who may enjoy seeing the actual image of the letter you can find that here:
https://www.loc.gov/resource/mtj1.051_0891_0894/?sp=4
We will be sure to leave time for meet-and-greet as well as answer any questions - so this meeting is especially suitable to for new members.
Please see previous post above for those who are new and wish to attend.
Hope to see you there!
yankee Welcome to the forum!
You might enjoy this introductory video:
And this one is a more recent one with a longer list of key points:
I am not of Greek origin, however I've found some fun YouTube videos on how to dance the Kalamatianós.
Here are two videos for learning the dance:
ifancya Welcome to the forum!
And also, "Congratulations" (just as Don said above) because it's pretty awesome, and I've thought about starting a group myself, but I'm feeling that where I live may make it a bit difficult. (Also, to come up with answers to people's questions right off the cuff, could prove challenging...the forum gives space and time for answering 
)
Some of the objections that came up:
- Pain as a source of meaning vs boring bland state of continuous pleasure (I did not even get into the whole "pleasure as absence of pain" definitional issue, and this came up at the end and was never really addressed)
Perhaps this was a reaction to a phrase such as "living a life of simple pleasures" ? (...would need to know what exactly they were reacting to)... or simply the idea of "continuous pleasure" which comes up in Cicero's Torquatus section as a goal for an Epicurean. I could see the idea of continuous pleasure as being just a kind of idealized goal, or perhaps it would be said of the wise elder or Epicurean teacher).
As for pleasures, all pleasures...both ones which are sensory, vary with intensity, location, and duration, as well as those of good health, good internal feeling, and satisfaction with one's life. The sensory pleasures are always in flux, and pain will come because of the natural state of living.
Also, I think that there are two (or more) flavors of Epicurean philosophy (and Epicureans). 1) the early time when Epicurus was alive (or early Garden, and generations close to the time of Epicurus) and would include the lifestyle of Epicurean philosophy students. 2) later Roman times which were removed from the core studies and included wealthy Romans.
We see in Diogenese Laertius Book 10, that Metrodorus (who was Epicurus' closest student) left for 6 months to journey across the Aegean Sea to visit his family in his home town of Lampsacus. This of course would have likely had some level of risk, but the Epicurean would wisely minimize risk by making the journey at the safest time of year for crossing.
Regarding "pain as a source of meaning" - that possibly could be a remnant left over from Christianity: If God is all powerful then why does he allow suffering to exist in the world? Their answer: because he wants to test you and teach you important lessons. (No wonder the world is so screwed up, because the "perfect love" of God is itself evil. As humans (human animals) we inherently dislike pain and suffering, so then to try to extract some meaning from it seems twisted.(for more on the Trilemma you can check out this)
One guy even said afterwards that this was exactly the philosophy he's been looking for.
Are you offering (or planning to offer) anything for those individuals? ....those who may want more resources, such as books to read: "Living for Pleasure" by Emily Austin (for someone who is not wanting a deep dive but it generally explains it well) and "Epicurus and His Philosophy" by DeWitt (for someone who enjoys detailed deep dives). I myself would hesitate to recommend the forum itself, because it is a very time consuming endeavor, so only good for those who have tremendous concentration and time to sift through things (I really need to finish working on some basic introductory materials). Cassius has produced some introductory videos, many which are very detailed and which may be good for some folks to check out. This early one is a good one to start with, as it is not too long, but yet covers 5 important aspects:
Nikos K Welcome to the forum!
Coming up on March 3rd...First Monday Epicurean Philosophy Zoom!
-- Meet-and-greet and Epicurean philosophy discussion with time for questions.
New forum members are welcome!
Agenda:
Those who have not previously attended a First Monday, let us know that you are interested by posting in this thread or by sending a private message (to Kalosyni or Cassius)...so that you can be added to the group private message containing the link (sent out on the day before the meeting).
Hope to see you there!
Also the Kalamatianos:
The Kalamatianós (Modern Greek Συρτός Καλαματιανός Syrtós Kalamatianós, but usually only called Καλαματιανός Kalamatianós) is one of the best-known dances of Greece. It is a popular Greek folk dance throughout Greece, Cyprus and internationally and is often performed at many social gatherings worldwide. As is the case with most Greek folk dances, it is danced in chain with a counterclockwise rotation, the dancers holding hands.
...
.....
The roots of the Kalamatianos can be found in antiquity. Homer, in the Iliad, describes three performances made around the spear of Achilles that depict a dance in an open circle. The ancient Spartans had a dance called ὅρμος hórmos, which was a syrto-style dance described in detail by Xenophon where a woman led a male into dance using a handkerchief. Lucian states that the hórmos dance was performed in an open circle and was done by young men and women. The men would dance vigorously while the women danced with modest movements.[1]
In the 19th century, this dance was called Συρτός ὁ Πελοποννήσιος Syrtós ho Peloponnḗsios. It is believed to have acquired the name kalamatianos from the town of Kalamata in southern Greece; most Greek dances are commonly named after the villages or areas from which they are considered to have originated.[2]
Kalamatiano songs are many and popular – some of the more traditional kalamatiano songs are Samiotissa (The girl from Samos), Mandili Kalamatiano (Kerchief from Kalamata), Milo Mou Kokkino (My Red Apple), To Papaki (The Duckling), Mou Pariggile To Aidoni (The Nightingale sent me a message), Ola Ta Poulakia (All Birds), Palamakia (Clapping) and more. An especially haunting example of the kalamatianos, Mekapses Yitonissa (Μέκαψες Γειτόνισσα), was recorded for the National Geographic Society's groundbreaking Music of Greece album, released in 1968.
About the Greek dance "Syrto":
Syrtó (pronounced seer-TOH). The name translates literally as “to pull”, but more accurately as “to lead”. It’s considered the most ancient of Greek dances, going back possibly 2500 years. Syrtó is at its heart simply walking to a slow, quick quick rhythm. If a slow step is two beats long, and a quick step is one beat, then Slow, Quick Quick, (or S,Q,Q,) would be 4 beats (2+1+1). One Syrtó dance is 4 sets of S,Q,Q, 12 steps (16 beats) in total.
Cassius I think this Episode 268 - On Pleasure the Guide of Life - would be a great one for publishing the transcript...hoping that might be possible at some point?
I would point out that Epicurus separates desires from pleasures. In doing so, he is able to clarify that there are various categories of desires which allow for personal evaluation, whereas all pleasures are good as a matter of biology.
The categories of desires are: natural and necessary, natural and unnecessary, and unnatural. These are described in various PDs as well as in the Letter to Menoikeus.
I sometimes have trouble keeping track of desire distinctions vs. pleasure, but thinking further...
Desire is the motivation to act, with the outcome of the actions being either pleasure or pain.
Some desires lead to more pain, some lead to a mix of pain and pleasure, and some lead to all pleasure.
But we sometimes must endure some pain in the short-term, either to avoid a greater pain in the future or to experience a greater pleasure in the future (for the long-term health of the body and well-being of the soul) -- which is why there are the categories of desires.
