patrick.net

marcus says

But if not indoctrinated as children, many are going to be "seekers" later for reasons that are beyond explanation.

OK, but I don't think the reasons are beyond explanation. In what you describe there is quite an obvious explanation: they want their life to have a meaning. Obviously you don't get it in atheism. Many really want a goal in their life, which will not disappear with the end of their physical life or shortly after.

marcus says

There are people who for reasons mostly other than those you list, simply believe. They just do.

May be, but I usually met people, who want to believe, and they usually have a reason for this.

marcus says

IT may have to do with the way having conscious existence makes them feel. Or maybe it's just where they end up after a long period of coming to terms with the fact that they (their ego, their consciousness, their "intelligence") exist.

Chrisians usually call it their Person. BTW, that's another very important reason, why people want to believe in God. Remember that God's name means "existance" in Old Hebrew. People want to have a real existance, rather than just that of a picture on your computer screen built out of a configuration of pixels. It's easy to see that an existential being of those pictures are within their creator rather than the pixels themselves. That (pixels by themselves) is the atheist ontology.

Personally every time I doubt my faith and try to build another ontology I find this lack of real existence completely unacceptable and go back to God the Creator.

michaelsch says

they want their life to have a meaning. Obviously you don't get it in atheism.

That's just silly. Einstein found meaning in learning to understand the universe. Thomas Jefferson found meaning in replacing the evils of kings and priests with a new republic based on natural law. Bill Gates finds meaning in achieving his potential and helping others around the world achieve theirs. To the extent that people buy a religion as a substitute for meaning, it reflects a lack of courage and persistence.

michaelsch says

Personally every time I doubt my faith and try to build another ontology I find this lack of real existence completely unacceptable and go back to God the Creator.

Interesting insight, but very sad result. It reminds me of the childhood story of the choo-choo train, "I think I can." How sad if the train tried to climb the hill, failed, and said "I guess I can't."

I appreciate the politeness of your posts, so please don't take what I'm about to say personally, but Marcus' mental masturbation is no substitute for applied ontology.

Dan8267 says

Definition of fundamentalism: Whatever I don't like is "fundamentalism", and whatever I do like is not.

When was the last time a radical fundamentalist referred to himself as a radical fundamentalist?

Why, fundamentalism is well defind phenomenon. Fundamentalist
A. Have a well defined and finite corpus of texts they consider sacred.
B. Understand every norm in these texts literally.
C. Stricktly follow these norms

Of course, in reality the texts are way too big and if one understand them literally they have too many contradictions. That's why ant organized fundamentalist group selects there own smaller subset of principles and ignore the rest.

All these are equally applicable to any major fundamentalist groups like orthodox Jews (their major text is Shulchan Aruch, rather than Tora, which is more a sacred item);
various Protestant movements with their custom taylored Bible translations;
fundamentalist Muslims, who treat Koran as such a text, while in fact it was a collection of religious poetry.

In addition, there are basicly fundamentalist cults, who add strong mind controlling technics to their fundamentalism, Mormonism seams to be one of these.

michaelsch says

Remember that God's name means "existance" in Old Hebrew

I think it's conventionally considered "I AM". If you take the psychoanalytical approach, it could be the Superego asserting it has a place in your psyche, despite your ego attempting to avoid the moralizing of the Superego.

In other words, "I AM", and you better recognize!

michaelsch says

In what you describe there is quite an obvious explanation: they want their life to have a meaning. Obviously you don't get it in atheism.

I guess maybe. I think an atheist would say their reality is more true and that there is a meaning to their lives but just a different one. I personally don't judge atheists to be "doing it wrong." It works for them. Unfortunately some atheists or maybe many, are very arrogant about it and can't hold their insecure beliefs together without judging believers to be "doing it wrong."

I guess I'm arrogant too though, right ? for feeling superior for not judging them at all for their non belief in God, but only for their judgmental attitude about believers.

How insecure does someone have to be about their non belief, that they can't even do it with out putting down all believers (not just fundamentalists) ? It's like they aren't satisfied without what they think is proof that any and all spiritual belief is wrong, and worthy of being proselytized about.

It's obvious to me that this is an expression of conflict.

THe true atheist has no such judgement about religion. It's like "hey i can't relate to it, but I don't need to judge it." "who am I to judge it ? I just concern myself with my beliefs (or non belief) regarding god."

Back to the question,...I only know my experience. I believe that even when I get to where I do not believe in an after life, and have nothing to benefit from believing, I still choose to see some kind of higher intelligence, some mystery, something beyond description or words, that fits in the 'god place' in my mind. If that place is some sort of residual vestige of where my child beliefs were 50 years ago, that's fine. I don't understand the why of it. It's just sort of in the background of how I interface with the world and how I take in this awesome experience we call human life.

I don't have all that much interest in understanding the reason.

I can't even understand how it's possible that Romney might be elected President. These bigger ontological questions are too much for me .

marcus says

I can't even understand how it's possible that Romney might be elected President.

Romnesia might be elected because he appeals to people on the basis of their religions, even though privately he calls their religions "abomination". He tries to project a reassuring conventional persona, so they will vote their feelings. If they considered evidence, they would vote against him, but many (for example Marcus) don't.

Objective facts don't matter to Marcus, only his own feelings. In his case at least, his religious belief(s) are symptoms arising from that deeper self-indulgence. Marcus pretends to be a math teacher. If one of his imaginary students says she feels that 2+2=5, Marcus is constrained by his "logic" to validate her answer, it must be the right answer for her.

Many voters are the same way. That is why Romnesia might win. They find it much more comfortable to chant along with someone who claims to share their beliefs.

curious2 says

Romnesia might be elected because he appeals to people on the basis of their religions, even though privately he calls their religions "abomination".

Baahhh bahhh the President who is acting more like a Lunchroom class ass clown, than an adult much less the leader of the free world, called his opponent "Romneisa", bahh baaah. I'm a brainless sheep, so I like to throw that name around too... Bahhh bahhh.

I don't think I'm the only one that sees what he did there. It's cool when you're Lumpy from "My three sons" but really cheesy coming from the president.

Has this guy every actually addressed the American public with out asking them to pull his finger?

CL says

I think it's conventionally considered "I AM"

Well, it is sometimes translated like this, but one needs to remember that Old Hebrew had no verbs. So it was more like "he with the existence". The form often is called "imperfect", even though it is much different from the impefect of indoeuropean languages. It is more like a quality not limited by a particular situation, like a location in place or time.

CaptainShuddup says

Romneisa", bahh baaah. I'm a brainless sheep....

You are neither brainless nor a sheep. Romnesia sticks because it fits, he campaigned promising to be left of Ted Kennedy, then says he governed as a "severe conservative," he signed ObamneyCare then he promised to repeal it now he promises to keep parts of it after all. I blame both executives who signed ObamneyCare and am not going to vote for either of them. Nevertheless, back to the topic of the thread, millions say they will vote for Romnesia because publicly he pretends to share their religious beliefs, even though privately he calls their religions abominations. His job is not to worry about those people, only to fool them on the basis of religion, so he can conquer the world on behalf of his cult.

curious2 says

Einstein found meaning in learning to understand the universe. Thomas Jefferson found meaning in replacing the evils of kings and priests with a new republic based on natural law.

Irregardless (that's the right word here) of the fact that Albert Einstein was not an atheist; the fact that one finds meaning in finding or refining scientific truth IMO indicates that there is such a Truth and a Meaning, which exists regardless of the finite and temporary state of a finite creature. That's precisely because I believe such meaning is real and deserves ethernal existence.

Similar would apply to Thomas Jefferson. His example is even better, because the fruit of his effort is completely gone now. That "New Republic" turned to an arrogant aggresive empire and as we speak turns to the "evil empire" of our time, much worse than what was British Empire at the end of 18th / begining of 19th century. However, his intelectual/social/political work still exists. Where and why? Because of his personal accievement that deserves an ethernal existence.

Please allow me not to comment on Bill Gates.

michaelsch says

Albert Einstein was not an atheist;

I'm curious why you say that? Would you instead call him a deist or agnostic, or a free thinker, or would you call him Jewish based solely on ethnicity? Is it identity, ethnicity, or ideas?

You seem to imply that eternal (note spelling) truth and meaning are somehow connected to religion, even though in fact religions rise and fall away. Most of the currently popular religions in America are quite recent in human history. There is no evidence to suggest that Jahweh will last longer than, for example, Thor or Zeus.

CaptainShuddup says

And I'm sure there's sound scientific reasoning behind...
"There's also been studies showing that religious tendencies are genetic."

If I bother to do the Google search and prove you wrong yet again, will you be man enough to admit you are wrong? Come on, captain, I need some incentive to do the research you're too damn lazy to do.

What kind of weasel dislikes my every comment in a thread where all I am doing is talking about my own personal experience or beliefs or speculating about others, that is, their reasons for belief in god ?

My guess is that it's my own personal troll, curious2, who I have on ignore.

What a sad little person he is. ALthough I am still kind of flattered by his obsession with me.

I don't know, there is a kind of dude who put ME on ignore because they got personally offended that I don't think their anecdotal experience is evidence for an omnipotent deity.

Even though they say they say they agree with many of my posts on most everything else.

Actually, there are two of these dudes.

Go figure.

Re: "put ME on ignore because they got personally offended that I don't think their anecdotal experience is evidence for an omnipotent deity."

I hope you don't mean me. I certainly don't claim to have any evidence of gods existence or non-existence.

I have you on ignore for a reason that isn't personal. It's because I have a tendency to get trolled (maybe my issues) by people who for whatever reason incessantly ridicule or put down believers. I find it annoying when people see an an equivalence between asserting their non belief in god, with mocking, deriding or otherwise poking fun of believers.

It's not personal. I just don't want to get sucked in to the discussion only because I'm annoyed that you haven't grown past that.

As I said above:

marcus says

How insecure does someone have to be about their non belief, that they can't even do it with out putting down all believers (not just fundamentalists) ? It's like they aren't satisfied without what they think is proof that any and all spiritual belief is wrong, and worthy of being proselytized about.

It's obvious to me that this is an expression of conflict.

THe true atheist has no such judgement about religion. It's like "hey i can't relate to it, but I don't need to judge it." "who am I to judge it ? I just concern myself with my beliefs (or non belief) regarding god."

MAybe I'm just wrong, and I'm the one with issues. Even if so, by ignoring you, I don't waste my time reacting to what I find annoying.

I was going to cite threads of yours, but I only see threads from the last week or so. Not sure what going on with that.

In any case, I'm sure you're a nice guy thunderlips, and I like you, and think you are intelligent, it's just...well I think I've already explained as best I can.

marcus says

MAybe I'm just wrong, and I'm the one with issues.

Yes, you are. Besides, in your mind, everything is always all about you anyway.

marcus says

What kind of weasel dislikes my every comment in a thread where all I am doing is talking about my own personal experience or beliefs or speculating about others, that is, their reasons for belief in god ?

My guess is that it's my own personal troll, curious2,

Your guess is incorrect, and so is your statement. You've been insulting people, and falsely accusing them of things they didn't say or do, as usual.

And it's funny how you seem to follow at least two people you claim to Ignore. Evidently it's part of your pattern.

thunderlips11 says

there are two of these dudes.

It might be Marcus using two accounts. I noticed when he said he had started to "Ignore" me that immediately there were two accounts ignoring me, when there had been zero before then. He also uses a separate browser to follow me, and apparently he follows you also because he replied to your comment above.

Marcus also started another thread complaining about the "ridiculous trouble" he has opening Firefox so that he can follow the people he's pretending to Ignore.

Marcus must have some reason for these delusions of being persecuted. Part of it is the religion thing, i.e. wanting to believe (and therefore believing) that he is God, because delusions of grandeur typically go along with paranoia about persecution. Other religious people aren't always so paranoid though. Another possibility:

http://www.youtube.com/embed/Z79KWUCLd0A

Because Marcus believes that he is God, the Christian tradition compels him to believe that he is also the Messiah. That means he must be singled out for persecution, even when he isn't, so that he can become a martyr to his own self-aggrandizement. After all, it's all about Marcus.

We want to understand who we are and where we came from. Its part of what we call human nature. Just like a three year old can ask “but why?” ad nauseum, each explanation we derive from science begets more questions.

Belief in God, for some (myself included) is a natural progression out of thus seemingly innate inquisitiveness.

I’m curious how you are tying atheism into a Sunday school class.

marcus says

What kind of weasel dislikes my every comment in a thread where all I am doing is talking about my own personal experience or beliefs or speculating about others, that is, their reasons for belief in god ?

I'll never understand the pettiness of SOME people on this board.
FWIW I threw you a bone.

EastCoastBubbleBoy says

I’m curious how you are tying atheism into a Sunday school class.

I don't think it's tying atheism into it. I just want kids understanding atheist positions.

curious2 says

You seem to imply that eternal (note spelling) truth and meaning are somehow connected to religion, even though in fact religions rise and fall away.

No, (and thanks for the right spelling) of course it is not connected to religion, it is connected to the existence of God.

marcus says

I was going to cite threads of yours, but I only see threads from the last week or so. Not sure what going on with that.

In any case, I'm sure you're a nice guy thunderlips, and I like you, and think you are intelligent, it's just...well I think I've already explained as best I can.

Well, if certain topics send you to the moon, well I guess I've had days like that myself. I suppose we've been there/done that enough I'll pass on any future commentary along those existential experience lines. I'm more interested in the historicity of Prophets and Gods anyway.

And yeah, I know what you mean about previous threads. I was trying to find some old threads on religion and while I can find them in comment search, I couldn't open them.

curious2 says

It might be Marcus using two accounts.

Nah, it's another poster, not Marcus, with whom I thought there was mutual agreement about most things, or at least some shared concerns.

Personally, I'm not a big fan of ignore, for me, I save it for truly ignorant or irksome posters, like those who write in all CAPS or who can't spell. Can't say I've used it on this forum, yet.

CaptainShuddup says

I'll never understand the pettiness of SOME people on this board.

True. And curious2 is beyond petty. The guy has a raging boner for me and can't stop thinking about me, which is flattering, although then again, he is such a sad pathetic little person that truth be told I would prefer that he find some other ways to channel his emotional problems.

Also, I'm not gay, so at the same time, it does sort of gross me out.

gracer says

God is no longer counting sins against mankind, except for unbelief in Christ, which cannot be forgiven because, like a law of physics, belief (faith) in Christ is necessary for eternal life.

Ok now that you bring science into it, where is the proof??

curious2 says

Another possibility:

Couldn't have said it better myself.

gracer says

so that is why i believe. it's good news that God is not counting my sins against me, and that i can have eternal life by simple faith.

See comment #1 (ego, lack of accountability): "As an added bonus, being God means they are superior and immortal, and that all of their actions (no matter how evil) are God's will. That bonus is particularly useful if you want to make a name for yourself by flying an airplane into a building. No need to feel sorry...."

marcus says

curious2 is....

For someone who pretends to Ignore me, Marcus spends a lot of time thinking about me, including his particularly vivid fantasy which he described above and which I won't quote. It was Sunday, I guess that's his Fun Day. Today's Monday, back to math class:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/78252508@N05/7269250694/

Alas Marcus pretends to be, of all things, a math teacher. I suspect Marcus may be a plant to bring disrepute upon teachers and the teachers union:

marcus says

[Prop 30] is a waste. We all know that it probably all goes right in to the pockets of those union bosses.

(For actual information about Prop 30, you can read the SJ Mercury News.)

Some people want to believe because it's easier than studying, calculating, and reasoning. If the question is the square root of 361, it's easier to pick a number and believe rather than calculating. Validating that feeling of ease may build self-esteem like in the Simpsons' parody math class. The Simpsons characters are expressly parodies though, they don't pretend to be real.

curious2 says

For someone who pretends to Ignore me, Marcus spends a lot of time thinking about me, including his particularly vivid fantasy which he described above and which I won't quote.

Marcus always says he's putting people on ignore and then doesn't. It's his way of saying, "Waaaaa! I'm getting the last word and I'm not listening anymore!" It all comes down to his emotional maturity level, that of a two-year-old throwing a tantrum.

Dan8267 says

Marcus always says he's putting people on ignore and then doesn't. It's his way of saying, "Waaaaa! I'm getting the last word and I'm not listening anymore!"

And because of that, what might otherwise be a brief kerfluffle becomes a permanent division. He rejects reason, insists that his feelings are the only valid ones, and then locks them in permanently. I saw an interesting program on crows recently, they are surprisingly intelligent for birds, can even recognize and hold a grudge against specific people for up to two years. So, likening Marcus to a two-year-old throwing a tantrum may be apt, but it would be a two-year-old bird. In this regard, Marcus embodies a reason why people want to believe in their religion: they find it more comfortable to join an unthinking community with pre-defined enemies (Satan, infidels) rather than evaluate individual behavior.

curious2 says

Marcus embodies a reason why people want to believe in their religion...

Sorry, but this is a non-sense. "Believing in religion" is like "believing in believes". Why are you so affraid of mentioning God?

BTW, I'd like to share this: http://marinatheterrible.tumblr.com/post/34358970061/i-am-not-a-democrat-i-am-not-a-republican-i-am-a?og=1&fb_action_ids=10151150544874755&fb_action_types=tumblr-feed%3Apost&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map=%7B%2210151150544874755%22%3A473174459393911%7D&action_type_map=%7B%2210151150544874755%22%3A%22tumblr-feed%3Apost%22%7D&action_ref_map=%5B%5D

michaelsch says

BTW, I'd like to share this

Dude, seriously, tinyurl.com

michaelsch says

Why are you so affraid of mentioning God?

I have no fear of mentioning God, whether your particular version of the Flying Spaghetti Monster or any other, although I recognize that Jehovah's Witnesses and certain Jewish sects are prohibited from saying or even writing "God". (This is one reason why injecting "under God" into the pledge of allegiance in the 1950s caused immediate division, resulting in a Supreme Court case saying kids can't be required to say that, which may be one reason why religious fundamentalists crusade against "activist judges.") But, I tend to refer to religion rather than any one god, because I don't see a reason to take sides. To refer to "God" the way you do seems to presuppose the existence and validity of exactly one, perhaps Jehovah, while in other contexts it would refer to Allah. I don't fear any of the gods or their names, but their adherents do cause me some concern, especially Muslims and Morons.

Dan8267 says

Dude, seriously, tinyurl.com

Actually the reason I didn't click on his link is it seems to include some sort of tracking code. Since you work in that field, I'd be very curious to know what you think about it, and whether tinyurl might actually conceal such codes.

michaelsch says

BTW, I'd like to share this

I am a Christian, and as a Christian there are certain things which I believe to be moral and others that I believe to be immoral. What I DO NOT believe in is alienating those who have differing beliefs and trying to force my moral beliefs onto them through laws. If one definition of the “moral choice” was meant to be the only option, human beings would not have been created with free will. I do not believe it is my job as a Christian to push certain causes. I do believe that it is my task to love those on both sides of the issues, whether their definition of “right” aligns with mine or not.

1. Everyone has a sense of morality and moral beliefs. Being a Christian is irrelevant. I'm an atheist and I have very specific and well thought out moral beliefs that I can rationally justify.

2. I agree that morality should not be forced upon others by law. I'd even go further as to say that morality should not even affect laws. However, rights should determine laws and rights and morality sometimes overlap. For example, it isn't illegal to murder a person because it's immoral to do so, although clearly it is immoral. It's illegal to murder a person because you are violating his right to live. Rights serve as the basis of all laws including environmental ones.

3. Human beings weren't created with free will, but that's a whole 'nother discussion. There's already a thread for that. Check under religion. In any case, the concept of free will, meaningless as it is, should have no bearing on the practicality or theory of law, rights, and deterrence.

4. There is nothing wrong with "pushing" certain causes as long as the cause is just and the way you are pushing it is as well. I push for social justice, responsible management of resources, and civil and human rights, and rational thinking. I push quite strongly for these causes, pissing off quite a few people on this site. But I always "push" ethically and genuinely. I never deceive or try to trick someone into accepting my argument as I believe reasons are more important than conclusions.

There's nothing wrong with a Christian pushing for a just cause, but I would argue that any just cause is independent of religion. Of course, those who believe that faith is a virtual would have to disagree with me. I personally consider faith to be a vice.

5. One can passionately disagree with another person without hating that person or thinking that person is an idiot, especially if one accepts the principle that reasons are more important than conclusions. For example, I could disagree on economic issues with another rationalist simply because our priorities are different. I may value stability more than opportunity, and the other rationalist might hold the opposite value. Nevertheless, as long as we're both rational, neither one of us will despise the other person.

As for love, that is simply an emotion and therefore neither a prerequisite for interacting with others or necessarily helpful. One can be cooperative with others without experiencing the emotion of platonic love, and to say that one loves everybody is simply a lie and it cheapens the meaning of the word. The human brain simply does not behave like that. One can act compassionately towards everyone in the world, but that's an entirely different thing. I can certainly be compassionate and help another person in distress without being emotionally involved with that individual.

Dan8267 says

Dude, seriously, tinyurl.com

Oops, did not think about this.

Dan8267 says

But I always "push" ethically and genuinely.

No offence, but this sounds like "I manipulate other people ethically and geniunely". I know you did not mean this, but for me what you wrote is an oxymoron.

Dan8267 says

I'm an atheist and I have very specific and well thought out moral beliefs that I can rationally justify.

I'm most interested in both your moral believes and their rational justification.

Dan8267 says

As for love, that is simply an emotion...

Love is an emotion? An absolute non-sense for me. In my world love is the ability to sacrifice something of your own (including your emotions) for the sake of someone or something else. I know for sure that's what this girl meant in her post, and since you took it from the post of that girl it would be only intelectually honest to use words in the sense she uses them.

Dan8267 says

I would argue that any just cause is independent of religion

I would like to see your definition of the term "just". I'm used to the meaning from Psalter, but I suspect yours may be way different.

Oh, there is also one used in the games theory. It's extremely subjective. A player considers a game just, when he has a strategy to end it with a positive profit. No fixed sum game may be just for all players. Materialist games are usually fixed sum games.

Would you clarify what you call just in this case?

BTW, Dan, regardless of religion, I do not believe in just causes. IMO, there are only just or unjust means. Any cause momentarily turns into unjust, when unjust means are used for it.

One example quite obvious to me: when British and American airforce started bombing German cities at the end of the WW2 targeting residential areas rather then military and industrial centers they turned their war into unjust cause. Americans made their cause especially bad on August 6th, 1945.

I have endless number of such examples.

michaelsch says

Any cause momentarily turns into unjust, when unjust means are used for it.

One example quite obvious to me: when British and American airforce started bombing German cities at the end of the WW2 targeting residential areas rather then military and industrial centers they turned their war into unjust cause.

That is a very interesting example, and in fact senior officers within the American military argued the same point at the time. People who lived through that era told me, "It was a desperate war." I think the war accomplished a mix of results, some just (e.g., ending the Holocaust and Occupation) and others not (e.g., Soviet conquest of eastern Europe). I would point to other examples from other wars (e.g. Andersonville) to show that wars are like fires: however just the original merits of the cause may have been, the context of war can quickly devolve into unjust means. Yet, some have pointed to precisely that WWII example as a moment when America's moral compass seemed to lose some of its bearing.

Returning to the original topic though, it reminds me of Daniel Kahneman's book Thinking, Fast and Slow. When people are presented with a difficult question, they tend to substitute an easier question instead. It happens all the time when asking people to guess at likelihoods, because statistics are hard; people tend to answer based on the ease of recalling familiar examples, which is often a predictably wrong answer. The question of what is just, in the context of occupied Europe and the Holocaust, is difficult. With so many people getting killed and maimed, and a Treasury unable to sustain the war effort much longer, what is the least unjust result? That is a hard question. Asking instead, "What does our religion say," may be an easier question, but ease doesn't make it a better question or even an adequate substitute.

michaelsch says

but this sounds like "I manipulate other people ethically and geniunely". I know you did not mean this, but for me what you wrote is an oxymoron.

Then change your interpretation of reality to reflect actual reality. Nothing I can do about communication errors on your end.

michaelsch says

I'm most interested in both your moral believes and their rational justification.

When I have time, I'll write about how moral systems should be structured.

michaelsch says

Love is an emotion? An absolute non-sense for me. In my world love is the ability to sacrifice something of your own

You are confusing yourself with wishy-washy Disney-induced thinking.

Love, hate, fear, wonder, joy, sadness are all emotions.

Emotion

an affective state of consciousness in which joy, sorrow, fear, hate, or the like, is experienced, as distinguished from cognitive and volitional states of consciousness.

The willingness to sacrifice oneself for another may be the result of an emotion. Don't put the cart in front of the horse. In fact, the entire purpose of emotions is to elicit certain behaviors in animals in response to certain situations.

We can model emotions, confirm their existence in various species, and even age them, i.e. determine when they evolved.

michaelsch says

I would like to see your definition of the term "just".

I believe I used the term social justice rather than justice, which mean different things, but I'll define both in a reasonable way. I personally don't believe in nit-picking on definitions as nomenclature is not important, ideas are.

Just - Honest and fair without special consideration for any one party over another. To make decision as if the consequences of those decisions were randomly and unpredictably applied to all participants.

Example: A society is based on small towns. The populations of the towns continually increases. When a town reaches a critical population, all the townsfolk create an identical town, building by building, nearby. Then the townsfolk are randomly assigned to live in the new or the old town. As no one knows which town they are going to live in, everyone has a motive to not cut corners on making the new town.

Social Justice - The application of honesty and fairness in the design and operation of society and in the resolution of disputes. A socially just society is based on several principles

1. Rights not privileges. All persons have the same exact rights and no person has any privileges.
2. Truth before agendas. The truth may never be covered "for the greater good".
3. Transparency in all government.
4. Equality of opportunity, the lack of a class or caste system, removal of barriers to entry including the use of money and power to stifle competition of businesses, politics, or ideas.
5. Preservation of public resources including the air, land, sea, and biodiversity of the planet.
6. Structuring systems such that the self-interests of individuals complement rather than compete with the interests of society as a whole.
7. Elimination of parasitic behavior, rent-seeking, and economic hostage taking.
8. Emphasis on sustainability and efficiency rather than exploitation and short-term wealth generation.

Now, you are going to get a lot more variance in what people consider to "social justice" to be, especially because most people who use that term are artsy-fartsy types. I, however, am not.