 |
| |
|
|
Elok
|
 |
Land of Ramen Dragons
Mar 2003
time: 00:34
|
|
Whoops, that's right, I forgot to hurl a stream of juvenile pejorative at *your* philosophical antecedents. Where are my manners? Okay, your "enlightenment" thinkers were just a bunch of powder-wigged, tight-wearing, wooden-toothed, pretentious whitebread syphilitics. There we go. Now for actual argument.
Atheism is quite literally a lack of beliefs. Every time anybody on this board tries to refer to it as a religious belief, he or she gets (rightly)shouted down, as atheism is just the belief that there is no god. There's not much intrinsic to that message.
The extrapolated value systems of, say, Rousseau, are at heart just wishful thinking themselves, based on how he would like society to be. As there can be no "god-given rights" without god, any insistence that we ought to do this or that "for the greater good" is an appeal to an idea far more abstract than any god, and far less apparent in the world at that. The difference between my beliefs and yours is primarily that there is some slim chance that mine are NOT a social construct. Sabe?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Barinthus
|
 |
A Magical Moment...
Jan 2004
time: 21:34
|
|
My friend whose sound card I asked about's hell 
Parents who bring squalling brats to R-rated movies
Circle I Limbo Rednecks
Circle II Whirling in a Dark & Stormy Wind Oakland Raider Fans
Circle III Mud, Rain, Cold, Hail & Snow can't get hard in the middle of an orgy
Circle IV Rolling Weights being beind the slowest car on the freeway and having to pee
Circle V Stuck in Mud, Mangled River Styx cna't get high no matter how much bud you smoke!!!!
Circle VI Buried for Eternity River Phlegyas Osama bin Laden
Circle VII Burning Sands only stright person on earth
Circle IIX Immersed in Excrement George Bush
Circle IX Frozen in Ice Design your own hell
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
 |
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Elok
Whoops, that's right, I forgot to hurl a stream of juvenile pejorative at *your* philosophical antecedents. Where are my manners? Okay, your "enlightenment" thinkers were just a bunch of powder-wigged, tight-wearing, wooden-toothed, pretentious whitebread syphilitics. There we go. Now for actual argument.
Atheism is quite literally a lack of beliefs. Every time anybody on this board tries to refer to it as a religious belief, he or she gets (rightly)shouted down, as atheism is just the belief that there is no god. There's not much intrinsic to that message.
The extrapolated value systems of, say, Rousseau, are at heart just wishful thinking themselves, based on how he would like society to be. As there can be no "god-given rights" without god, any insistence that we ought to do this or that "for the greater good" is an appeal to an idea far more abstract than any god, and far less apparent in the world at that. The difference between my beliefs and yours is primarily that there is some slim chance that mine are NOT a social construct. Sabe? |
Atheism is quite literally (to use your terminology) 'the disbelief in the existence of god' (or a god, since I don't believe that the Christian religionistas' god has precedence over any other cultists' god or gods).
From the Greek a- not- theos- god- .
Not a lack of beliefs, not a huge void bereft of morality or ethics, but a lack of belief in the Flaming Carrot, or Mr Bad Guy, or the Dancing Hippo, or Ten Turtles with Bananas, or whatever other rubbish was thought up to scare children by people who had a bad case of late night dyspepsia.
Of course the infection of the English language by simpering religionistas has meant that the default setting for humans is supposed to be inclusive of some sort of religious credo, so we have 'a- theism' and 'a- gnosticism', which I think shows some kind of linguistic or philosophical arrogance- I don't subscribe to lack of belief in apresumed god, or lack of knowledge of a presumed god- god or gods, it's all so much irrelevance, except when people presume to tell me I believe in nothing.
I'd say you were the juvenile one by imagining I had no belief simply because I have the good taste not to plump for whatever religious patent nostrum you've been swallowing.
'Secular Humanism is a way of thinking and living that aims to bring out the best in people so that all people can have the best in life. Secular humanists reject supernatural and authoritarian beliefs. They affirm that we must take responsibility for our own lives and the communities and world in which we live. Secular humanism emphasizes reason and scientific inquiry, individual freedom and responsibility, human values and compassion, and the need for tolerance and cooperation.'
http://www.secularhumanism.org/
'Types of Humanism:
In the religious arena, many words have a number of different meanings. Some examples are: Christian, cults, Humanist, pagan, Satanist, Witch and Witchcraft. The terms Humanism and Humanist are essentially meaningless when used by themselves; their meanings only become clear when preceded by an adjective, as in:
Christian Humanism: a philosophy based on Christian beliefs about the nature of God, and which advocate people's fulfillment by personal effort.
Cultural Humanism: A concept that knowledge can be obtained through rational thought and experimentation. It has its roots in ancient Greece and Rome. It developed into the scientific method and is the major underpinning of all sciences today.
Literary Humanism: pursuit of the humanities (languages, literature, philosophy, history, etc.)
Modern Humanism: a generic term encompassing both Religious and Secular Humanism.
Philosophical Humanism is a philosophy centered upon the needs and interests of people.
Renaissance Humanism: A movement starting at the end of the Middle Ages which renewed an interest in classical studies and promoted the concept that truth could be discovered by human effort.
Religious Humanism is similar to secular humanism, except that it is practiced in a religious setting with fellowship and rituals, as in Ethical Culture Societies, congregations associated with the Society for Humanistic Judaism and groups affiliated with the Unitarian Universalist Association.
Secular Humanism: a non-religiously based philosophy promoting man as the measure of all things. It had its roots in the rationalism of the 18th Century and the freethought movement of the 19th Century.
This page will deal primarily with Secular Humanism.
Humanist beliefs and practices:
A Humanist Manifesto was prepared in 1933, endorsed by 34 leading Humanists, and published in the 1933-MAY/JUN issue of The New Humanist (VI:3:1-5).
5 It was updated as the Humanist Manifesto II in 1973.
6 Some of the themes of the latter document are:
They trace their roots to the rational philosophy first created in the West in ancient Greece. Many regard Socrates as the first and greatest of the Humanists.
They value knowledge based on reason and hard evidence rather than on faith.
Being secular Humanists, they reject the concept of a personal God, and regard humans as supreme. From this belief naturally follows: "the preciousness and dignity of the individual person is a central humanist value."
a rejection of a created universe in favor of the theory of evolution and a universe that obeys natural laws
a rejection of divinely inspired ethical and moral codes in favor of codes derived by reason from the human condition
the belief that full responsibility for the future of the world, its political systems, its ecology, etc. rests with humans. There is no God in heaven to intervene and save us from a disaster
Many Humanists believe that much historical progress has arisen from the conflict between organized religion and secular society in which the former beliefs and practices have been replaced with secular beliefs.
They feel that religious groups' "promises of immortal salvation or fear of eternal damnation are both illusory and harmful."
They accept democracy and reject both theocracy and secular dictatorships as political systems that are dangerous to individual freedoms.
They value freedom of inquiry, expression and action.
They have a history of combating bigotry, hatred, discrimination, intolerance and censorship.
They are energetic supporters of the separation of church and state.
They tend to have very liberal beliefs about controversial ethical topics, like abortion, corporal punishment of children, death penalty, enforced prayer in schools, homosexuality, physician assisted suicide, etc.
They believe that "moral values derive their source from human experience." Since most believe that an afterlife is non-existent, they regard life here on earth to be particularly precious. They are highly motivated to alleviating pain and misery around the world. Many are active in refugee, human rights, anti-death penalty, environmental groups, etc.
Generally speaking, they do not believe in a personal god, a goddess or a combination of goddesses and gods.
supernatural beings such as angels, demons, Satan, Holy Spirit, etc.
heaven or hell or life after death.
the separation of a person into body, soul and spirit.
survival of an individual in any form after death. '
http://www.religioustolerance.org/humanism.htm
I'd say there's an awful lot of 'beliefs' there. Not a pronounced absence of them.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
curtsibling
|
 |
of the Kill!
May 2002
time: 05:34
|
|
Creationists
Circle I Limbo George Bush
Circle II Whirling in a Dark & Stormy Wind Religionists
Circle III Mud, Rain, Cold, Hail & Snow Goths
Circle IV Rolling Weights Marlin Manson
Circle V Stuck in Mud, Mangled River Styx Parents who bring squalling brats to R-rated movies
Circle VI Buried for Eternity River Phlegyas Republicans
Circle VII Burning Sands Mel Gibson
Circle IIX Immersed in Excrement The Pope
Circle IX Frozen in Ice Design your own hell
Disclaimer: While this was fun, I don't believe in any such thing as a 'hell'.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Elok
|
|
Land of Ramen Dragons
Mar 2003
time: 00:34
|
|
Yes, that's very good, but they're opinions, not true beliefs. Belief, in my book, implies the idea that something is quite literally true. The idea that "we should be nice to each other" is based mostly on preference. Much as "hot dogs are tasty," or "Dean will lead America to a better future" are merely preferences. They are not based on a supposed reality, just on hypothetical extractions and your own taste. Or "derived by reason from the human condition," which is to say democratic opinion. It is not a belief, either way.
Many of the things you cited are not even rationally based opinions-for example, disbelief in a god not strictly because it has been disproven, which it cannot be, but because the idea of a god is distasteful and conjures up bogeyman images of the Spanish Inquisition.
And tracing your "beliefs" to Socrates is something of a slight to the man's memory. You're talking about a guy whose key idea was the knowledge that all men and women know nothing. Socrates defined truth by questions, but he valued truth in its literal sense, not that it "leads to [perceived] improvement in human culture." Which is all your postmodern sensibilities really amount to. Socrates himself was more mystic than scholastic.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
|
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Elok
Yes, that's very good, but they're opinions, not true beliefs. Belief, in my book, implies the idea that something is quite literally true. The idea that "we should be nice to each other" is based mostly on preference. |
So you 'believe' Jesus or Yahweh or Kukulcan or Allah or the Flaming Carrot is the one true whatever, because -
you've seen demonstrable proof?
had a personal interview?
were brainwashed?
Belief is acceptance as true, confidence in the truth of something, to think or suppose is true. Opinion is belief based on grounds short of proof- feel free to show me that your deity/deities exist/s, outside the text of whatever religious propaganda propounds its existence.
I see no reason to believe in a god, pantheon of gods, spooks, the Easter Bunny, or the Tooth Fairy. Simply because they are not faith in a supernatural being does not mean they are not beliefs.
'Only a Humanist can suggest that, even if there be a god, it is o.k. to disagree with him, her, or it. In Plato's 'Euthyphro', Socrates shows that god is not necessarily the source of good, or even good himself. Socrates asks if something is good because god ordains it, or if god ordains it because it is already good. Yet, since the time of the ancient Greeks, no mainstream religion has permitted such questioning of god's will or made a hero out of a disobedient character. It is Humanists who claim this tradition.
After all, much of human progress has been in defiance of religion or of the apparent natural order. When we deflect lightning or evacuate a town before a tornado strikes, we lessen the effects of so called "acts of god." When we land on the Moon we defy the Earth's gravitational pull. When we seek a solution to the AIDS crisis, we, according to Jerry Falwell, thwart "god's punishment of homosexuals."
Politically, the defiance of religious and secular authority has led to democracy, human rights, and even the protection of the environment. Humanists make no apologies for this. Humanists twist no biblical doctrine to justify such actions. They recognize the Promethean defiance of their response and take pride in it. For this is part of the tradition.
Another aspect of the Secular Humanist tradition is scepticism. Scepticism's historical exemplar is Socrates. Why Socrates? Because, after all this time, he still stands out alone among all the famous saints and sages from antiquity to the present. Every religion has its sage. Judaism has Moses, Zoroastrianism has Zarathustra, Buddhism has the Buddha, Christianity has Jesus, Islam has Mohammad, Mormonism has Joseph Smith, and Bahai has Baha-u-lah. Every one of these individuals claimed to know the absolute truth. It is Socrates, alone among famous sages, who claimed to know NOTHING. Each devised a set of rules or laws, save Socrates. Instead, Socrates gave us a method --a method of questioning the rules of others, of cross- examination. And Socrates didn't die for truth, he died for rights and the rule of law. For these reasons, Socrates is the quintessential sceptical Humanist. He stands as a symbol, both of Greek rationalism and the Humanist tradition that grew out of it. And no equally recognized saint or sage has joined his company since his death.
Because of the strong Secular Humanist identity with the images of Prometheus and Socrates, and equally strong rejection of traditional religion, the Secular Humanist actually agrees with Tertullian--who said:
"What has Jerusalem to do with Athens?" '
http://www.jcn.com/humanism.html
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Elok
|
|
Land of Ramen Dragons
Mar 2003
time: 00:34
|
|
Opinion is an idea of one's own preference towards a subject that cannot be strictly defined to have a set optimum value. Without God, there is no reason to believe in an absolute right or wrong, only "right" and "wrong" as abstractions. If you hold up right or wrong without a god, all you have really done is made morality into a sort of god itself. You can argue as to whether that is a bad thing, but any right or wrong, without a god, tends to be defined in terms of human consequence, which is difficult to entirely understand, all but impossible to understand objectively, and thus is usually a matter of personal judgment.
I say this not to endorse a god, but because I understand God to be a set, existent truth. If you believe the same of Right and Wrong, you only believe in a sort of God you made up yourself, or copied from a proud intellectual tradition perverted from Socrates, whichever you prefer. Whether you believe god does exist is your business, but there is no "belief" without god or a substitute thereof.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
|
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Elok
Without God, there is no reason to believe in an absolute right or wrong, only "right" and "wrong" as abstractions. If you hold up right or wrong without a god, all you have really done is made morality into a sort of god itself.
I say this not to endorse a god, but because I understand God to be a set, existent truth. |
Uh, right and wrong are not capricious supernatural beings, but things which have values assigned to them, dependant upon the time and the society/culture.
Right or wrong to kill if you're a Christian or a Muslim?
Well, depends on the circumstances and the era as far as I can tell from having studied history- what with bishops blessing atom bombs, and mullahs and imams issuing fatwas.
I've never understood the human urge to do a god's business with regard to apostates- one might have thought an all-powerful deity quite capable of taking care of any insults directed at it.
Your understanding of god sounds remarkably like an opinion- based on what evidence?
By the way, Cicero described Socrates as an atheist. What Socratic (or otherwise) tradition has been or is being perverted? The glee with which religions hope to include Classical philosophers in their belief systems always amuses me.
Bush will be held responsible for the rantings of Falwell, Robertson, Graham and others. After all, they are not peripheral figures. They are now mainstream religious leaders, courted by political leaders . . . and treated with great, if undeserved, respect.
--Columnist Richard Cohen
"Imams of Inanity"
Washington Post, Dec. 3, 2002
As 9-11 showed us, people who mix religion and politics can be dangerous. Governments around the world need to be more secular, not less, especially in the Middle East.
--Columnist Paul Mulshine
[Newark] Star-Ledger
December 2002
In the past 12 months, Westerners have become all too familiar with the incendiary rhetoric addressed at them by radical clergy in the Muslim world. But has as much attention been paid to the gasoline some Christian leaders have thrown on the flames?
We are fast approaching a situation where influential leaders on both sides of this religious divide are talking the language of apocalypse in a climate where large numbers of people are feeling fearful and vulnerable. Unless we are very careful, Armageddon may become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
--Columnist Chris McGillion
"Beware Christ's zealots as they fan the flames"
The Herald (UK), Oct. 15, 2002
Many of our finest European so-called Christian scholars, church leaders, bishops and professors kept their mouths shut or actively endorsed and encouraged the deeds of the Holocaust.
--Wesleyan Prof. Dr. John Warner
Charleston Gazette
Oct. 21, 2002
In our effort to win a war against these religious warriors, we wrap the cloak of religion even tighter around us. This seemingly is a reversion to the atavistic struggles of the past in which "my God is bigger than your God" disputes resulted in some of humanity's most violent struggles.
--Salim Muwakkil
Senior editor, In These Times
Chicago Tribune, July 8, 2002
It makes no difference for us where we will die. We have chosen to die here, in Moscow, and we will take the lives of hundreds of the infidels with us.
--Veiled Chechen woman hostage-taker
Rebel videotape
New York Times, Oct. 27, 2002
. . . With terrorists attacking Israelis in Kenya, Muslims and Christians killing each other in Nigeria, a mission nurse murdered in Lebanon and Hindu worshippers and Muslim assailants shot down in Kashmir, this seems like an especially bad period for the abuse of religion.
--Martin Woollacott
The Guardian, Dec. 11, 2002
Has there ever been a big, powerful country that is as patriotic as America? And patriotic in the tinniest way, with so much flag-waving? You'd really think we were some poor little republic and that if one person lost his religion for one hour, the whole thing would crumble. My feeling is that you're patriotic if you're obsessed with America because it's a democracy and its obligation is to improve all the time, not to stop and take bows and smell its armpits and say, "Ambrosia." --Author Norman Mailer Daily Telegraph interview New York Daily News, Feb. 19, 2002
The religious cant that will send American troops into battle is perhaps the most sickening aspect of this surreal war-to-be. Bush has an arm-lock on God. And God has very particular political opinions. God appointed Israel to be the nexus of America's Middle Eastern policy, and anyone who wants to mess with that idea is a) anti-Semitic, b) anti-American, c) with the enemy, and d) a terrorist.
--Novelist John le Carre
"The United States of America has gone mad"
[London] Times, Jan. 15, 2003
I'm an atheist, and I'm becoming more and more atheistic as I grow older.
--Scientist Oliver Sacks
San Diego Union-Tribune
Book section, Nov. 24, 2002
As an atheist I have always taken perverse pleasure in watching the slow encroachment of science on the realm of the spirit and the supernatural. . . .
People often ask me, 'If you don't believe in a god, then what happens when you die?' I don't know, and no one else does, either. The difference between me and them is that I don't care. Even if this is all we get, I'd still rather live here on earth with the knowledge that it's humanity, physics, and chance that chart our course--not some bearded guy sitting on a fluffy cloud watching football while people burn.
--Kris Frieswick, essayist
Boston Phoenix, Nov. 7-14, 2002
(featured in HarperCollins' More Mirth of a Nation)
I have yet to find a sect that treats women like fully fledged human beings. Is this the key? Is religion in its essence a guy thing with a female following that was trained from birth? How easily led must the pope think Italian women are, that he would dare, as he did this year, to order them to have more babies?
--Columnist Heather Mallick
"This Xmas, Keep your religion to yourself"
[Toronto] Globe & Mail, Dec. 14, 2002
Atheism . . . is a rational view of the world where you stand up proudly, in your humanity, you look life straight in the face, you look the universe straight in the face, you do your level best to understand it, to understand why you exist, what the universe is about, you recognise that when you die that's it, and therefore life is very, very precious and you devote your life to making the world a better place, to leading a good life so when you die you can say to yourself I have led a good life. Now, that seems to me to be a worthwhile goal to put in place of the medieval superstition which is religion.
--Scientist Richard Dawkins
The Dubliner, October 2002
[One of] three themes which are utterly taboo as far as most American publishers are concerned is . . . the total atheist who lives a happy and useful life, and dies in his sleep at the age of 106.
--Author Vladimir Nabokov
1956
(Submitted by Steven Denenberg)
Humankind made god/s, not the other way around. Eventually it will unmake them.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Elok
|
|
Land of Ramen Dragons
Mar 2003
time: 00:34
|
|
I define "opinion" differently from you, for the third time at least. Absolute morality is profoundly deistic in nature, as it assumes something beyond human nature to define the context of our actions. I'm not going to say this again. Now stop asking.
And Socrates was pre-Christian, and not being Jewish, as far as I am concerned had no meaningful religion. He was, however, an enemy of the sophists, who were precisely the sort of trash you seem to be elevating as better people. The very question of "what is the real truth" implies that there is a real truth to be found, which, as I said, is more idealistic than "realistic." Your Secular Humanism, from what I can read of its actual message separated from the litany of quasi-eugenic propaganda and religion-bashing, has no real Socratic roots.
The values it stands for, against "bigotry, censorship, isolationism, McCarthyism," whatever, are apparently held to be ends in and of themselves, to judge by the words used. That's not Socratic. The whole attitude it's based on is that there are certain ends to be rationalized. Shallow, and only superficially thoughtful.
Now, having slogged through all your self-important quotes, I must insist that you read some real Orthodox Christian theology, C.S. Lewis, some sort of Kabbalistic thought, or other thoughtful belief, and THEN, and only then, attack religion. If you're going to base your opinion of such a huge idea, encompassing thousands of years of traditions from across the world, on its most ignorant and primitive members, your opinion is meaningless. I might as well base my opinion of biology on the people who insist that daddy longlegs are poisonous but have defective teeth, or of neurology based on the guys who babble about ninety percent of the brain being unused.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kuciwalker
|
 |
of Schmooism
Feb 2001
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Elok
I define "opinion" differently from you, for the third time at least. Absolute morality is profoundly deistic in nature, as it assumes something beyond human nature to define the context of our actions. I'm not going to say this again. Now stop asking.
And Socrates was pre-Christian, and not being Jewish, as far as I am concerned had no meaningful religion. He was, however, an enemy of the sophists, who were precisely the sort of trash you seem to be elevating as better people. The very question of "what is the real truth" implies that there is a real truth to be found, which, as I said, is more idealistic than "realistic." Your Secular Humanism, from what I can read of its actual message separated from the litany of quasi-eugenic propaganda and religion-bashing, has no real Socratic roots.
The values it stands for, against "bigotry, censorship, isolationism, McCarthyism," whatever, are apparently held to be ends in and of themselves, to judge by the words used. That's not Socratic. The whole attitude it's based on is that there are certain ends to be rationalized. Shallow, and only superficially thoughtful.
Now, having slogged through all your self-important quotes, I must insist that you read some real Orthodox Christian theology, C.S. Lewis, some sort of Kabbalistic thought, or other thoughtful belief, and THEN, and only then, attack religion. If you're going to base your opinion of such a huge idea, encompassing thousands of years of traditions from across the world, on its most ignorant and primitive members, your opinion is meaningless. I might as well base my opinion of biology on the people who insist that daddy longlegs are poisonous but have defective teeth, or of neurology based on the guys who babble about ninety percent of the brain being unused. |
This isn't sophistry 
1. There is no evidence for the assertion "there is a god".
2. That assertion is, for all practical purposes, false.
This is the same logic behind:
1. There is no evidence for the assertion "little green undetectible elves live on the surface of electrons".
2. That assertion is, for all practical purposes, false.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Elok
|
|
Land of Ramen Dragons
Mar 2003
time: 00:34
|
|
The very statement that claims there is a God, in my case, goes on to explain why God is not readily apparent; the means of perception has been darkened by way of the fall. There is a state that can be reached in which one can feel the existence of God, but it is very hard and requires continual effort to maintain. If you are unwilling to make that effort, or cannot find the strength, then yes, there is no "evidence." Much as there is no evidence of light to a man with his eyes shut.
"Secular humanism" is intrinsically opposed to Socrates because it is based not on a direct search for truth, but, the way Molly tells it at least, merely justifies acepted social principles in a context opposed to God. Ideals are created in terms of what the thinker would like them to be, rather than actual discovery by introspection. There is no introspection in that big fat manifesto. Lots of big scary words about how religion is wrong, but the actual ideas it supports appear to have formed directly in reaction to religious faith and left to stand unquestioned. With Socrates as a mascot. Blech.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.
Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
16-02-2004 09:19
|