Regarding Atheism, Agnosticism, Humanism, Rational Skepticism, etc...

... from the thread: What if atheists went door-to-door talking to mormons?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mithrandir

I do hate to repeat myself...

If you want to discuss Atheïsm, religion, whatever topic which is not about this movie, start a new thread. Ignore this post again and :whip:.

---

so here's a new thread to discuss all things critical of organized religion and religious dogma...

firstly, a few definitions to get the ball rolling... (wikipedia is very useful...)

Atheism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

Agnosticism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

Antireligion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antireligion

Freethought
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freethought

Empiricism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism

Rationalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalism

Nontheism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontheism

Humanism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism

Secular Humanism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism

Common Sense
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_sense

Skepticism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skepticism

Scientific Method
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Evolutionary Sciences
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

Logic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic

Nihilism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism

Irreligion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreligion

Antitheism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitheism

Secularism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism

Naturalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural...8philosophy%29

Separation of Church and State
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separat...urch_and_state

Discrimination against Atheists
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrim...ainst_atheists
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_atheists

A list of prominent Atheists
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheists

Demographics of Atheism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism

Secular Ethics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_ethics

How Atheists have been treated by different Religious groups:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism_and_religion

Utilitarianism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism

Russel's Teapot
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russel%27s_teapot

Transcendental argument for the non-existence of God
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transce...istence_of_God

Criticism of Religion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_religion

Religious Wars
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_wars

Arguments against the existance of god
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existen...istence_of_God

criticism of Intelligent design
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelli...from_ignorance

criticism of creationism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creatio...of_creationism


that should do for the moment...



and people, lets try to avoid the typical bashing and insults that frequently occur on the subject of religion and criticisms of religion... please lets have a civilized discussion...

No, no, no. That's not how you start a controversial religious thread. Declare yourself a god and inform everyone of the futility to resist you. Post pictures of you floating and speaking to animals. Make elaborate sayings tied to pointless meanings. Juggle mice with your mind before turning them into elephants.

...or you can just say that you denounce the flying spaghetti monster. That'll get people to entertain you with their rage brought on by something someone wrote on some internet forum.

...or you can just invite everyone to a mass suicide.

Have fun!!!!!!! ->_<-

You mock the Flying Spaghetti Monster? He'll thwap you with his Noodly Appendage and drown you in righteous Meatball Sauce.

I am a rationalist, empiricist, antitheist, antireligionist, secular humanist, skeptical, freethinking athiest and you can't prove otherwise. :wink:

I try very hard to be a humanist, it's the greatest level of intellect as far as I can see, you throw out all desriminations in order to respect the whole of humanity. In order to do this one must overcome hate in all it's forms. This is probably the hardest thing to achieve but probably the most fulfilling.
However when I attempt to understand the unhappiness of a people I end up hating the instigators of it, which basically just leads to the same bloody cycle over and over again.
You can be a humanist and still be religious obviuosly I just find it hard how people sometimes put a non-human god before living human beings.

Civilized?

:laugh4: Silly Cladius. Enjoy the Backroom.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

~;)

Quote:

---

o, no, no. That's not how you start a controversial religion. Declare yourself a god and inform everyone of the futility to resist you. Post pictures of you floating and speaking to animals. Make elaborate sayings tied to pointless meanings. Juggle mice with your mind before turning them into elephants.

---

Fixed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDC

Fixed.

---

No that's wrong. :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrossLOPER

No, no, no. That's not how you start a controversial religious thread. Declare yourself a god and inform everyone of the futility to resist you.

---

He already did, look at his name.

Claudius, you don't exist :P

Oh great, now people will know what they're talking about. Great way to ruin the backroom! Now we'll have intelligent, in-depth discussions of important issues.

Ah well, had to happen some time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshal Murat

Oh great, now people will know what they're talking about. Great way to ruin the backroom! Now we'll have intelligent, in-depth discussions of important issues.

---

Under all the tongue-in-teh-cheeks and sarcasms being flown around, I've yet to see one yet. :trytofly:

Claudius, how about introducing a theme for us to munch over? What angle of Humanism are you interested in reading about in terms of discussion here?

By AntiochusIII:

Quote:

---

Under all the tongue-in-teh-cheeks and sarcasms being flown around, I've yet to see one yet.

Claudius, how about introducing a theme for us to munch over? What angle of Humanism are you interested in reading about in terms of discussion here?

---

Okay, I have something to argue about. How come there are proven facts and known truths that make every single religion wrong? You name a religion and give me a link to what it is about, I can find a fault or gap in the religion that can essentially prove it to be either impossible or having the wrong fundamentals. 'kay?

on the subject of my user-name - 'Claudius the God' is the name of one of my favourite books - about the Roman Emperor Claudius - the bumbling fool with the stutter and the limp who managed to survive the deaths of most of the rest of the Julio-Claudian dynasty and who was officially deified (like Julius Caesar, Augustus, and Vespasian)... the books Claudius the God and I, Claudius were written by Robert Graves and are well worth the read - failing that one could find the DVDs or videos of the BBC TV series of I, Claudius from years ago...




on the subject of Atheism etc... I would describe myself as an Anti-Clerical Freethinking Secular Humanist.

I think that it is intellectually embarassing to believe some of the nonsense that scripture like the Holy Bible promotes.


"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived." – Isaac Asimov

I can predict that this thread will be nice and peaceful and civilized until some religious fanatic comes along and starts insulting the beliefs (or lack of beliefs) of us non-religious individuals...

I don'tr believe in Gods or devils or Heaven or Hell. I don't believe in fables such as noah's ark or the garden of Eden (though I did enjoy reading the Epic of Gilgamesh). I don't believe in the concept of Sin or divine forgiveness of Sins.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Claudius the God

I can predict that this thread will be nice and peaceful and civilized until some religious fanatic comes along and starts insulting the beliefs (or lack of beliefs) of us non-religious individuals...

---

Oh a challenge - well you will have to wait for Navaros to get your fanatic to insult your unholy belief..... Oh wait did I just insult the lack of belief? :laugh4:

Quote:

---

I don'tr believe in Gods or devils or Heaven or Hell. I don't believe in fables such as noah's ark or the garden of Eden (though I did enjoy reading the Epic of Gilgamesh). I don't believe in the concept of Sin or divine forgiveness of Sins.

---

I knew a guy like that once. He maintain that belief up to the time that the Battalion commander stated in formation that the expected causalities for us breaching the Iraqi defense during Desert Storm was going to be over 50% of us. He was right along with the rest of us Christians at the next few services held by the Chaplin.

Hell believe what you want - it frankly does not matter to me if you believe in a higher power or not.

What about Eartheist? One of the people I know from high school has that listed as her religion on facebook. :rolleyes:

Crazed Rabbit

Earthiest? Yikes. Maybe Gaiaist? Or is that too many vowels?

Hmm... ok, maybe Earthiest isn't so bad after all. Is that like a pagan thing? Wicca and all? I find Wiccans just about as silly as any other religion, except perhaps Satanists. Satanists really take the cake for inanity. They have a religion which while attempts to repudiate Judeo-Christian-Islamis beliefs by worshipping an essentially Judeo-Christian-Islamic concept - Satan. Too funny. It's rather like saying "I don't believe in orange trees, I believe in and worship oranges instead!" Dee dee dee.

Humans have reached an evolutionary plateau. We can't evolve or progress further until we throw off the last vestiges of the mental chains of religion and other superstitions we thought up before we figured out how to reason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aenlic

Humans have reached an evolutionary plateau. We can't evolve or progress further until we throw off the last vestiges of the mental chains of religion and other superstitions we thought up before we figured out how to reason.

---

Thats funny considering the progress that continues throughout history to include our times now. Science is not being held back by religion. Just check out the DAPRA website.

http://www.darpa.mil/

There is some things being researched that takes man well into the future of both progress and even evolution.

Hmm... I myself do not find discussions directly related to Humanism vs Religion in a direct antagonism to be all that interesting, which is where this potentially excellent thread seems to be heading. After all, the notion Humanism stands for a much larger and richer view on life than atheism alone, though obviously atheism can easily be a part of it.

Unlike my brethren, I do not find religion itself to be that much of a nuisance. I simply take the view that the great and endless masses would find another opium to be addicted to anyway if religion is somehow "defeated." Moreover, spirituality is very much human in its emotional impact and, in my opinion, its source, that I should just respect it as part of a circle of human experiences...

If that spirituality is exploited in the crowd mentality, however -- as is often the case -- then I do reserve a right to critique. That includes vicious and violently offensive assaults on the integrity of Everyone's Prophets and an incredibly condescending denouncement of all superstition...depending on my mood. ~;)

Quote:

---

Hmm... ok, maybe Earthiest isn't so bad after all. Is that like a pagan thing? Wicca and all? I find Wiccans just about as silly as any other religion, except perhaps Satanists.

---

The only cool Wiccan I know is the leader singer for Godsmack. He has an amazing voice, for rock music anyway. I, personally, am whatever it is called where you believe in an higher power of some sort, but I don't need the word of men to tell me how to live my life. (i.e. priests, popes, caliphs, etc.)

EDIT: I think that that is Agnostic, right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aenlic

We can't evolve or progress further until we throw off the last vestiges of the mental chains of religion and other superstitions we thought up before we figured out how to reason.

---

I've always wondered at the proposition that one should base their beliefs on reason. After all, this is a belief in itself. A meta-belief perhaps, but a belief nonetheless. How would one go justifying such a belief? Well, we could use reason, but that would be circular and beg the question, wouldn't it? We could call reason a self-evident truth, reason is reasonable perhaps, if one likes tautologies. Or we could just assume reason without a reason. After all, an irrational acceptance of epistemically basic/foundational propositions is necessary for any rational colloquy and reflection. It's all built on irrational foundations.

I like option three best. :wink: After all, I'm human. I'm irrational. Yes, I understand reason. I have studied basic logic, and think I have the capacity to understand more advanced forms of the stuff. It's a good tool this logic. But frankly, many of my decisions and beliefs are based on irrational impulse, instinct, and intuition and even though I am quite capable of examining them with reason and rational reflection, I will give way to the former because I feel it to be the better...

Anyway, back to the topic, personally, I remain firmly convinced of the existence of God. It is not due to any argument or evidence, as I have found all three arguments for God's existence to be lacking in someway and I don't like reformed epistemology. It's due to some undeniable...thing...I can't put my finger on. I don't want to say mystical experience, but it is certainly an extremely powerful intuitive phenomena. I find myself being able to deny the existence of material objects much easier than deny God (which is quite amazing, because I am barely able to do the former to begin with).

That being said, the biggest problem lies in which religion to choose...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

I knew a guy like that once. He maintain that belief up to the time that the Battalion commander stated in formation that the expected causalities for us breaching the Iraqi defense during Desert Storm was going to be over 50% of us. He was right along with the rest of us Christians at the next few services held by the Chaplin.

---

"Religions are founded on the fear of the many and the cleverness of the few." ~ Stendhal


"I expect death to be nothingness and, for removing me from all possible fears of death, I am thankful to atheism." ~ Isaac Asimov


"If we look back at the begining we shall find that ignorance and fear created the gods; that fancy, enthusiasm, or deceit adorned or disfigured them; that weakness worships them; that credulity preserves them; and that custom, respect and tyranny support them, in order to make the blindness of man serve their own interest. If the ignorance of nature gave birth to Gods, the knowledge of nature is calculated to destroy them."
* Baron d'Holbach, France, 18th century.


"There are no atheists in foxholes."
Lt-Col. William J. Clear (1942)

"There are no atheists in foxholes" isn't an argument against atheism, it's an argument against foxholes.
James Morrow

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

I've always wondered at the proposition that one should base their beliefs on reason. After all, this is a belief in itself. A meta-belief perhaps, but a belief nonetheless. How would one go justifying such a belief?

---

because not basing one's beliefs on Reason and Rationality allows the potential for the belief in nonsense. This can be irrational, unethical, dangerous, counterproductive, and even exploitative and tyrannical...

the changes at the end of the middle ages with the renewal of the use of reason contributed the development of sciences, technology, and philosophy. the benefits of Reason are all around us today... at least in civilized areas...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Reason


(sorry about the double-post I don't know how to use multiple quotes)

I used to think 'let people believe what they want' - live and let live

but now I see that some peoples beliefs needs to involve the unacceptance of people not of that faith

from that perspective religion or organised religion has become a divider of peoples rather than a uniter

this is even excluding those who use it as a excuse to commit act which their own belief prohibits (hypocryts)

now I believe religion is something the world is better off without because its being used as a political tool to set people against each other - when essentially we are all brothers - we all share the same dreams and hopes

I now think that religion is for those of us 'sheep' who cannot think for themselves what they believe - hence they need to be told what to believe by some organisation/person/political group - and how to believe it and practice it

I dont need to be told what to believe - from my own experience I can figure out what I believe - and if I did happen to believe in a GOD or omnipotent being then no one is going to understand my relationship with that being or how best to worship/access it - than me

Given how individual human beings are I dont really understand how one person can think their beliefs are the same as anothers let alone associate their beliefs with those of goat herders 3000 years ago

I think of nations the same way as religions - they are increasingly irrelevent

If I have friends or family being bombed/killed/imprisoned/persecuted by my 'nation' in another country x - then who am I going to support - my friend/family or my nation

the sooner the human race can rid itself of these dividers the better off we and this planet will be

Quote:

---

Humans have reached an evolutionary plateau. We can't evolve or progress further until we throw off the last vestiges of the mental chains of religion and other superstitions we thought up before we figured out how to reason.

---

Oh please. I doubt religious beliefs are holding people back from evolving. Nor is religion a 'mental chain'. Religion does not stop science.

To me, eartheism or gaiaism is weird - essentially, they seem to be atheists, who believe in the absense of God, but worship a big rock.

Quote:

---

because not basing one's beliefs on Reason and Rationality allows the potential for the belief in nonsense. This can be irrational, unethical, dangerous, counterproductive, and even exploitative and tyrannical...

---

Ha! Deluded worship of 'reason' only removes the moral boundaries of religion and allows man to inflict real inhumanities upon man. It allows evil acts to be rationalized into acceptance, for what is despicable to be explained as the necessary, the just, the moral good, through the use of reason - a deluded worship of man as the ultimate abitrator.

Quote:

---

now I believe religion is something the world is better off without because its being used as a political tool to set people against each other - when essentially we are all brothers - we all share the same dreams and hopes

---

So, because of tolerance, we can't tolerate Religions?

Quote:

---

those who use it as a excuse to commit act which their own belief prohibits (hypocryts)

---

Huh.

Oh, and did you think up atheism all for yourself? Wake up one day without ever hearing of it and decide God doesn't exist? Or are you just listening to the opinions of other atheists?

Crazed Rabbit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Ha! Deluded worship of 'reason' only removes the moral boundaries of religion and allows man to inflict real inhumanities upon man. It allows evil acts to be rationalized into acceptance, for what is despicable to be explained as the necessary, the just, the moral good, through the use of reason - a deluded worship of man as the ultimate abitrator.

---

Rubbish!
firstly, Reason is not worshiped (it is highly valued as a way of thinking and solving problems, but never worshipped).

Most Religions and scripture have numerous moral codes which are highly obsolete, and reduce morals and ethics so absurd things such as Sins...

Religious scripture and Religious Fanatics have been inflicting damage upon Humanity for millenia...

non-religious ethics don't allow evil acts to be rationalized or accepted, instead it allows people the right to think about important issues and make educated decisions without the limitations imposed by dogma and ancient traditions.

instead of stoning adulterers to death and killing anyone who doesn't listen to priests. Reason has given Humanity some level of dignity.

and Humanism is not in any way the 'worship' of mankind.

this is what Humanism is:
http://www.secularhumanism.org/index...ge=declaration

Quote:

---

Secular humanism is a vital force in the contemporary world. It is now under unwarranted and intemperate attack from various quarters. This declaration defends only that form of secular humanism which is explicitly committed to democracy. It is opposed to all varieties of belief that seek supernatural sanction for their values or espouse rule by dictatorship.

Democratic secular humanism has been a powerful force in world culture. Its ideals can be traced to the philosophers, scientists, and poets of classical Greece and Rome, to ancient Chinese Confucian society, to the Carvaka movement of India, and to other distinguished intellectual and moral traditions. Secularism and humanism were eclipsed in Europe during the Dark Ages, when religious piety eroded humankind's confidence in its own powers to solve human problems. They reappeared in force during the Renaissance with the reassertion of secular and humanist values in literature and the arts, again in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries with the development of modern science and a naturalistic view of the universe, and their influence can be found in the eighteenth century in the Age of Reason and the Enlightenment.

Democratic secular humanism has creatively flowered in modern times with the growth of freedom and democracy. Countless millions of thoughtful persons have espoused secular humanist ideals, have lived significant lives, and have contributed to the building of a more humane and democratic world. The modern secular humanist outlook has led to the application of science and technology to the improvement of the human condition. This has had a positive effect on reducing poverty, suffering, and disease in various parts of the world, in extending longevity, on improving transportation and communication, and in making the good life possible for more and more people. It has led to the emancipation of hundreds of millions of people from the exercise of blind faith and fears of superstition and has contributed to their education and the enrichment of their lives.

Secular humanism has provided an impetus for humans to solve their problems with intelligence and perseverance, to conquer geographic and social frontiers, and to extend the range of human exploration and adventure. Regrettably, we are today faced with a variety of antisecularist trends: the reappearance of dogmatic authoritarian religions; fundamentalist, literalist, and doctrinaire Christianity; a rapidly growing and uncompromising Moslem clericalism in the Middle East and Asia; the reassertion of orthodox authority by the Roman Catholic papal hierarchy; nationalistic religious Judaism; and the reversion to obscurantist religions in Asia.

New cults of unreason as well as bizarre paranormal and occult beliefs, such as belief in astrology, reincarnation, and the mysterious power of alleged psychics, are growing in many Western societies. These disturbing developments follow in the wake of the emergence in the earlier part of the twentieth century of intolerant messianic and totalitarian quasi religious movements, such as fascism and communism. These religious activists not only are responsible for much of the terror and violence in the world today but stand in the way of solutions to the world's most serious problems.

Paradoxically, some of the critics of secular humanism maintain that it is a dangerous philosophy. Some assert that it is "morally corrupting" because it is committed to individual freedom, others that it condones "injustice" because it defends democratic due process. We who support democratic secular humanism deny such charges, which are based upon misunderstanding and misinterpretation, and we seek to outline a set of principles that most of us share.

Secular humanism is not a dogma or a creed. There are wide differences of opinion among secular humanists on many issues. Nevertheless, there is a loose consensus with respect to several propositions. We are apprehensive that modern civilization is threatened by forces antithetical to reason, democracy, and freedom. Many religious believers will no doubt share with us a belief in many secular humanist and democratic values, and we welcome their joining with us in the defense of these ideals.

1.


Free Inquiry

The first principle of democratic secular humanism is its commitment to free inquiry. We oppose any tyranny over the mind of man, any efforts by ecclesiastical, political, ideological, or social institutions to shackle free thought. In the past, such tyrannies have been directed by churches and states attempting to enforce the edicts of religious bigots. In the long struggle in the history of ideas, established institutions, both public and private, have attempted to censor inquiry, to impose orthodoxy on beliefs and values, and to excommunicate heretics and extirpate unbelievers. Today, the struggle for free inquiry has assumed new forms. Sectarian ideologies have become the new theologies that use political parties and governments in their mission to crush dissident opinion. Free inquiry entails recognition of civil liberties as integral to its pursuit, that is, a free press, freedom of communication, the right to organize opposition parties and to join voluntary associations, and freedom to cultivate and publish the fruits of scientific, philosophical, artistic, literary, moral and religious freedom. Free inquiry requires that we tolerate diversity of opinion and that we respect the right of individuals to express their beliefs, however unpopular they may be, without social or legal prohibition or fear of sanctions. Though we may tolerate contrasting points of view, this does not mean that they are immune to critical scrutiny. The guiding premise of those who believe in free inquiry is that truth is more likely to be discovered if the opportunity exists for the free exchange of opposing opinions; the process of interchange is frequently as important as the result. This applies not only to science and to everyday life, but to politics, economics, morality, and religion.
2. Separation Of Church And State

Because of their commitment to freedom, secular humanists believe in the principle of the separation of church and state. The lessons of history are clear: wherever one religion or ideology is established and given a dominant position in the state, minority opinions are in jeopardy. A pluralistic, open democratic society allows all points of view to be heard. Any effort to impose an exclusive conception of Truth, Piety, Virtue, or Justice upon the whole of society is a violation of free inquiry. Clerical authorities should not be permitted to legislate their own parochial views - whether moral, philosophical, political, educational, or social - for the rest of society. Nor should tax revenues be exacted for the benefit or support of sectarian religious institutions. Individuals and voluntary associations should be free to accept or not to accept any belief and to support these convictions with whatever resources they may have, without being compelled by taxation to contribute to those religious faiths with which they do not agree. Similarly, church properties should share in the burden of public revenues and should not be exempt from taxation. Compulsory religious oaths and prayers in public institutions (political or educational) are also a violation of the separation principle. Today, nontheistic as well as theistic religions compete for attention. Regrettably, in communist countries, the power of the state is being used to impose an ideological doctrine on the society, without tolerating the expression of dissenting or heretical views. Here we see a modern secular version of the violation of the separation principle.
3. The Ideal Of Freedom

There are many forms of totalitarianism in the modern world - secular and nonsecular - all of which we vigorously oppose. As democratic secularists, we consistently defend the ideal of freedom, not only freedom of conscience and belief from those ecclesiastical, political, and economic interests that seek to repress them, but genuine political liberty, democratic decision making based upon majority rule, and respect for minority rights and the rule of law. We stand not only for freedom from religious control but for freedom from jingoistic government control as well. We are for the defense of basic human rights, including the right to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In our view, a free society should also encourage some measure of economic freedom, subject only to such restrictions as are necessary in the public interest. This means that individuals and groups should be able to compete in the marketplace, organize free trade unions, and carry on their occupations and careers without undue interference by centralized political control. The right to private property is a human right without which other rights are nugatory. Where it is necessary to limit any of these rights in a democracy, the limitation should be justified in terms of its consequences in strengthening the entire structure of human rights.
4. Ethics Based On Critical Intelligence

The moral views of secular humanism have been subjected to criticism by religious fundamentalist theists. The secular humanist recognizes the central role of morality in human life; indeed, ethics was developed as a branch of human knowledge long before religionists proclaimed their moral systems based upon divine authority. The field of ethics has had a distinguished list of thinkers contributing to its development: from Socrates, Democritus, Aristotle, Epicurus, and Epictetus, to Spinoza, Erasmus, Hume, Voltaire, Kant, Bentham, Mill, G. E. Moore, Bertrand Russell, John Dewey, and others. There is an influential philosophical tradition that maintains that ethics is an autonomous field of inquiry, that ethical judgments can be formulated independently of revealed religion, and that human beings can cultivate practical reason and wisdom and, by its application, achieve lives of virtue and excellence. Moreover, philosophers have emphasized the need to cultivate an appreciation for the requirements of social justice and for an individual's obligations and responsibilities toward others. Thus, secularists deny that morality needs to be deduced from religious belief or that those who do not espouse a religious doctrine are immoral. For secular humanists, ethical conduct is, or should be, judged by critical reason, and their goal is to develop autonomous and responsible individuals, capable of making their own choices in life based upon an understanding of human behavior. Morality that is not God-based need not be antisocial, subjective, or promiscuous, nor need it lead to the breakdown of moral standards. Although we believe in tolerating diverse lifestyles and social manners, we do not think they are immune to criticism. Nor do we believe that any one church should impose its views of moral virtue and sin, sexual conduct, marriage, divorce, birth control, or abortion, or legislate them for the rest of society. As secular humanists we believe in the central importance of the value of human happiness here and now. We are opposed to absolutist morality, yet we maintain that objective standards emerge, and ethical values and principles may be discovered, in the course of ethical deliberation. Secular humanist ethics maintains that it is possible for human beings to lead meaningful and wholesome lives for themselves and in service to their fellow human beings without the need of religious commandments or the benefit of clergy. There have been any number of distinguished secularists and humanists who have demonstrated moral principles in their personal lives and works: Protagoras, Lucretius, Epicurus, Spinoza, Hume, Thomas Paine, Diderot, Mark Twain, George Eliot, John Stuart Mill, Ernest Renan, Charles Darwin, Thomas Edison, Clarence Darrow, Robert Ingersoll, Gilbert Murray, Albert Schweitzer, Albert Einstein, Max Born, Margaret Sanger, and Bertrand Russell, among others.
5. Moral Education

We believe that moral development should be cultivated in children and young adults. We do not believe that any particular sect can claim important values as their exclusive property; hence it is the duty of public education to deal with these values. Accordingly, we support moral education in the schools that is designed to develop an appreciation for moral virtues, intelligence, and the building of character. We wish to encourage wherever possible the growth of moral awareness and the capacity for free choice and an understanding of the consequences thereof. We do not think it is moral to baptize infants, to confirm adolescents, or to impose a religious creed on young people before they are able to consent. Although children should learn about the history of religious moral practices, these young minds should not be indoctrinated in a faith before they are mature enough to evaluate the merits for themselves. It should be noted that secular humanism is not so much a specific morality as it is a method for the explanation and discovery of rational moral principles.
6. Religious Skepticism

As secular humanists, we are generally skeptical about supernatural claims. We recognize the importance of religious experience: that experience that redirects and gives meaning to the lives of human beings. We deny, however, that such experiences have anything to do with the supernatural. We are doubtful of traditional views of God and divinity. Symbolic and mythological interpretations of religion often serve as rationalizations for a sophisticated minority, leaving the bulk of mankind to flounder in theological confusion. We consider the universe to be a dynamic scene of natural forces that are most effectively understood by scientific inquiry. We are always open to the discovery of new possibilities and phenomena in nature. However. we find that traditional views of the existence of God either are meaningless, have not yet been demonstrated to be true, or are tyrannically exploitative. Secular humanists may be agnostics, atheists, rationalists, or skeptics, but they find insufficient evidence for the claim that some divine purpose exists for the universe. They reject the idea that God has intervened miraculously in history or revealed himself to a chosen few or that he can save or redeem sinners. They believe that men and women are free and are responsible for their own destinies and that they cannot look toward some transcendent Being for salvation. We reject the divinity of Jesus, the divine mission of Moses, Mohammed, and other latter day prophets and saints of the various sects and denominations. We do not accept as true the literal interpretation of the Old and New Testaments, the Koran, or other allegedly sacred religious documents, however important they may be as literature. Religions are pervasive sociological phenomena, and religious myths have long persisted in human history. In spite of the fact that human beings have found religions to be uplifting and a source of solace, we do not find their theological claims to be true. Religions have made negative as well as positive contributions toward the development of human civilization. Although they have helped to build hospitals and schools and, at their best, have encouraged the spirit of love and charity, many have also caused human suffering by being intolerant of those who did not accept their dogmas or creeds. Some religions have been fanatical and repressive, narrowing human hopes, limiting aspirations, and precipitating religious wars and violence. While religions have no doubt offered comfort to the bereaved and dying by holding forth the promise of an immortal life, they have also aroused morbid fear and dread. We have found no convincing evidence that there is a separable "soul" or that it exists before birth or survives death. We must therefore conclude that the ethical life can be lived without the illusions of immortality or reincarnation. Human beings can develop the self confidence necessary to ameliorate the human condition and to lead meaningful, productive lives.
7. Reason

We view with concern the current attack by nonsecularists on reason and science. We are committed to the use of the rational methods of inquiry, logic, and evidence in developing knowledge and testing claims to truth. Since human beings are prone to err, we are open to the modification of all principles, including those governing inquiry, believing that they may be in need of constant correction. Although not so naive as to believe that reason and science can easily solve all human problems, we nonetheless contend that they can make a major contribution to human knowledge and can be of benefit to humankind. We know of no better substitute for the cultivation of human intelligence.
8. Science And Technology

We believe the scientific method, though imperfect, is still the most reliable way of understanding the world. Hence, we look to the natural, biological, social, and behavioral sciences for knowledge of the universe and man's place within it. Modern astronomy and physics have opened up exciting new dimensions of the universe: they have enabled humankind to explore the universe by means of space travel. Biology and the social and behavioral sciences have expanded our understanding of human behavior. We are thus opposed in principle to any efforts to censor or limit scientific research without an overriding reason to do so. While we are aware of, and oppose, the abuses of misapplied technology and its possible harmful consequences for the natural ecology of the human environment, we urge resistance to unthinking efforts to limit technological or scientific advances. We appreciate the great benefits that science and technology (especially basic and applied research) can bring to humankind, but we also recognize the need to balance scientific and technological advances with cultural explorations in art, music, and literature.
9. Evolution

Today the theory of evolution is again under heavy attack by religious fundamentalists. Although the theory of evolution cannot be said to have reached its final formulation, or to be an infallible principle of science, it is nonetheless supported impressively by the findings of many sciences. There may be some significant differences among scientists concerning the mechanics of evolution; yet the evolution of the species is supported so strongly by the weight of evidence that it is difficult to reject it. Accordingly, we deplore the efforts by fundamentalists (especially in the United States) to invade the science classrooms, requiring that creationist theory be taught to students and requiring that it be included in biology textbooks. This is a serious threat both to academic freedom and to the integrity of the educational process. We believe that creationists surely should have the freedom to express their viewpoint in society. Moreover, we do not deny the value of examining theories of creation in educational courses on religion and the history of ideas; but it is a sham to mask an article of religious faith as a scientific truth and to inflict that doctrine on the scientific curriculum. If successful, creationists may seriously undermine the credibility of science itself.
10. Education

In our view, education should be the essential method of building humane, free, and democratic societies. The aims of education are many: the transmission of knowledge; training for occupations, careers, and democratic citizenship; and the encouragement of moral growth. Among its vital purposes should also be an attempt to develop the capacity for critical intelligence in both the individual and the community. Unfortunately, the schools are today being increasingly replaced by the mass media as the primary institutions of public information and education. Although the electronic media provide unparalleled opportunities for extending cultural enrichment and enjoyment, and powerful learning opportunities, there has been a serious misdirection of their purposes. In totalitarian societies, the media serve as the vehicle of propaganda and indoctrination. In democratic societies television, radio, films, and mass publishing too often cater to the lowest common denominator and have become banal wastelands. There is a pressing need to elevate standards of taste and appreciation. Of special concern to secularists is the fact that the media (particularly in the United States) are inordinately dominated by a pro religious bias. The views of preachers, faith healers, and religious hucksters go largely unchallenged, and the secular outlook is not given an opportunity for a fair hearing. We believe that television directors and producers have an obligation to redress the balance and revise their programming. Indeed, there is a broader task that all those who believe in democratic secular humanist values will recognize, namely, the need to embark upon a long term program of public education and enlightenment concerning the relevance of the secular outlook to the human condition.

Conclusion

Democratic secular humanism is too important for human civilization to abandon. Reasonable persons will surely recognize its profound contributions to human welfare. We are nevertheless surrounded by doomsday prophets of disaster, always wishing to turn the clock back - they are anti science, anti freedom, anti human. In contrast, the secular humanistic outlook is basically melioristic, looking forward with hope rather than backward with despair. We are committed to extending the ideals of reason, freedom, individual and collective opportunity, and democracy throughout the world community. The problems that humankind will face in the future, as in the past, will no doubt be complex and difficult. However, if it is to prevail, it can only do so by enlisting resourcefulness and courage. Secular humanism places trust in human intelligence rather than in divine guidance. Skeptical of theories of redemption, damnation, and reincarnation, secular humanists attempt to approach the human situation in realistic terms: human beings are responsible for their own destinies. We believe that it is possible to bring about a more humane world, one based upon the methods of reason and the principles of tolerance, compromise, and the negotiations of difference.

We recognize the need for intellectual modesty and the willingness to revise beliefs in the light of criticism. Thus consensus is sometimes attainable. While emotions are important, we need not resort to the panaceas of salvation, to escape through illusion, or to some desperate leap toward passion and violence. We deplore the growth of intolerant sectarian creeds that foster hatred. In a world engulfed by obscurantism and irrationalism it is vital that the ideals of the secular city not be lost.

---

now I don't see any problems with this sort of perspective at all... it is both sensible and ethical. Why do even moderate religious people have problems with this sort of thing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Claudius the God

Rubbish!
firstly, Reason is not worshiped (it is highly valued as a way of thinking and solving problems, but never worshipped).

Most Religions and scripture have numerous moral codes which are highly obsolete, and reduce morals and ethics so absurd things such as Sins...

Religious scripture and Religious Fanatics have been inflicting damage upon Humanity for millenia...

non-religious ethics don't allow evil acts to be rationalized or accepted, instead it allows people the right to think about important issues and make educated decisions without the limitations imposed by dogma and ancient traditions.

instead of stoning adulterers to death and killing anyone who doesn't listen to priests. Reason has given Humanity some level of dignity.

and Humanism is not in any way the 'worship' of mankind.

this is what Humanism is:
http://www.secularhumanism.org/index...ge=declaration



now I don't see any problems with this sort of perspective at all... it is both sensible and ethical. Why do even moderate religious people have problems with this sort of thing?

---

Probably from the way it is presented - especially this little douzey of a comment.


I think that it is intellectually embarassing to believe some of the nonsense that scripture like the Holy Bible promotes.

If one was to take the metraphorical lessons in the bible literally then you might have a point. But when a moderate religious person who takes the bilble as a book that contains metraphorical lessons in which to enable a person to live a better life, such statements as yours is normally seen as an "oh Please, look at the rubbish being spouted once again because I believe in a higher power."

I wonder why atheists think that I have to take the bible literally to be a believer in a higher power? That in itself is the fallacy in your initial comment.

When you begin by attacking an individuals ability to think and their intelligence the course of the discussion goes down hill quickly.

When you face your morality - and you maintain your humanist belief - it will make you a better individual then the many self-avowed atheists that I have seen take comfort in religion when they come face to face with the fact that man is not immortal. It leaves me more sceptal (SP) of atheists then of someone of limited belief or even my own moderate ways. Fanatics are the curse of not only religions - but even of those who claim not to believe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Oh, and did you think up atheism all for yourself? Wake up one day without ever hearing of it and decide God doesn't exist? Or are you just listening to the opinions of other atheists?

Crazed Rabbit

---

maybe I watched all the people killing each other 'in the name of GOD' and decided GOD didnt exist :yes:

or maybe I woke up one day and actually thought about what I believed - and stopped believing what other people/organisations told me too :whip:

or maybe I just WOKE UP ! :idea2:

but I didnt say I was an athiest... I just said I didnt believe in religion - theres a difference if you must classify people by their beliefs .. something the religions like to do

On the subject ever notice how many references to sheep and goats there is in the bible.. this is for two reasons... so the sheep herders could relate to it, and its showing you how to believe in their religion ... by being a sheep and waiting for the good sheppard to show you the way to the promised land

Finally people that say they belong to a certain religion but dont follow all the practices of that religion - are not of that religion ie. 'casual' catholics who dont follow exactly what the POPE preaches to the letter - are not catholics. If I ask a religious person what they believe then they only need refer to their holy book or leader - because they themselves should have no individual beliefs of their own but only those of their religion - word for word

or they are not of that religion :smash:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yunus Dogus

maybe I watched all the people killing each other 'in the name of GOD' and decided GOD didnt exist :yes:

or maybe I woke up one day and actually thought about what I believed - and stopped believing what other people/organisations told me too :whip:

or maybe I just WOKE UP ! :idea2:

but I didnt say I was an athiest... I just said I didnt believe in religion - theres a difference if you must classify people by their beliefs .. something the religions like to do

On the subject ever notice how many references to sheep and goats there is in the bible.. this is for two reasons... so the sheep herders could relate to it, and its showing you how to believe in their religion ... by being a sheep and waiting for the good sheppard to show you the way to the promised land

Finally people that say they belong to a certain religion but dont follow all the practices of that religion - are not of that religion ie. 'casual' catholics who dont follow exactly what the POPE preaches to the letter - are not catholics. If I ask a religious person what they believe then they only need refer to their holy book or leader - because they themselves should have no individual beliefs of their own but only those of their religion - word for word

or they are not of that religion :smash:

---

When one believes in religion only - they begin to go down the path that you described here.

For instance I am a Christian but I don't believe in any of the doctrines of the organized churches that are out there. I have found that most "leaders" of the organized religion are hyocrites in thier own practice of relgion. I prefer the quiet reflection and mediation on the life lessons given in parable form in the New Testiment. Those parables contain lessons on how one can lead a better life, and it seems to me that most of the organized Christian Churches have lost that orginal meaning.

But that is only my opinion on it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Probably from the way it is presented - especially this little douzey of a comment.


I think that it is intellectually embarassing to believe some of the nonsense that scripture like the Holy Bible promotes.

If one was to take the metraphorical lessons in the bible literally then you might have a point. But when a moderate religious person who takes the bilble as a book that contains metraphorical lessons in which to enable a person to live a better life, such statements as yours is normally seen as an "oh Please, look at the rubbish being spouted once again because I believe in a higher power."

---

well lets have a look at some of the nonsense in the Holy Bible...

The God of the Bible and the Bible itself promotes Ritual Human Sacrifice, Murder (including mass-murder), Rape, Slavery, and an incredible intollerance towards non-conformists - even with it's message of love and hope and acceptance...

The Biblical God kills 371,186 people directly and orders another 1,862,265 people murdered.

There are also over a hundred contradictions in the Bible. listing them all would make this post very very long, so I won't...

...but here is a website that helpfully highlights everything awful about the Holy Bible:
http://www.evilbible.com/
(NOTE Some may find this site offensive...)

Quote:

---

non-religious ethics don't allow evil acts to be rationalized or accepted,

---

Oh really? And what of eugenics, totaltarianistic communism, Stalin's purges, Hitler's purges, the 'Reign of Terror' and others?

Quote:

---

Reason is not worshiped (it is highly valued as a way of thinking and solving problems, but never worshipped).

---

Why call it reason? Why not merely logic or a way of thinking through things? Instead, it becomes a concept a way of thinking with more connotations than one would think.

What I see in this thread are some people holding up 'reason' as a process to be revered beyond its contributions. Worship may not have been the precisely correct word, but the meaning is similar.

Quote:

---

but I didnt say I was an athiest... I just said I didnt believe in religion - theres a difference if you must classify people by their beliefs .. something the religions like to do

---

Put in 'intolerant agnostic' in place of atheist then.

Quote:

---

Finally people that say they belong to a certain religion but dont follow all the practices of that religion - are not of that religion

---

Says who? Jesus said that we are all sinners - thus we all do not follow all of his teachings all the time - but Christians are still Christians.

Quote:

---

Most Religions and scripture have numerous moral codes which are highly obsolete, and reduce morals and ethics so absurd things such as Sins

---

So 'Do Not Kill' is obsolete? Or are you refering to the old codes no longer held as guidance?

Quote:

---

If I ask a religious person what they believe then they only need refer to their holy book or leader - because they themselves should have no individual beliefs of their own but only those of their religion

---

Funny that Cladius pointed to a website with a definition of humanism. An atheist (or agnostic) might simple call themselves an atheist (or agnostic); does that mean they have no individual beliefs, and thus no capacity for reason?

Quote:

---

and stopped believing what other people/organisations told me too

---

And started believing what other agnostics and agnostic organizations told you?

I still find it funny, Dogus, that your belief in free thought and tolerance has led you to intolerance of those who don't agree with you.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

When one believes in religion only - they begin to go down the path that you described here.

For instance I am a Christian but I don't believe in any of the doctrines of the organized churches that are out there. I have found that most "leaders" of the organized religion are hyocrites in thier own practice of relgion. I prefer the quiet reflection and mediation on the life lessons given in parable form in the New Testiment. Those parables contain lessons on how one can lead a better life, and it seems to me that most of the organized Christian Churches have lost that orginal meaning.

But that is only my opinion on it.

---

I couldnt agree more Redleg - so my questions is - would you regard yourself as being one of a particular religion or something of your own design?

I think there is a big difference between a spiritual person and a religious person.

I find it very interesting that many so called 'Christians' feel its ok to kill depending on the circumstances, despite both the ten commandments (old testament) and Jesus saying 'love thy neighbour" (new) - yet many are all to prepared to goto war for 'the right reasons' or keep a gun under the bed 'for home defence' - so they are planning for the moment when they wont be a Christian and kill someone coming in their window. Circumstantial Christians (they are Christian when it suites them or the circumastances allow). In my book these people cannot be Christians - if you follow the teaching of Christ then killing or hurting another human should be aborhent - not something circumstantial. :no:

my 5c but Im willing to listen to alternates

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Claudius the God

well lets have a look at some of the nonsense in the Holy Bible...

The God of the Bible and the Bible itself promotes Ritual Human Sacrifice, Murder (including mass-murder), Rape, Slavery, and an incredible intollerance towards non-conformists - even with it's message of love and hope and acceptance...

The Biblical God kills 371,186 people directly and orders another 1,862,265 people murdered.

There are also over a hundred contradictions in the Bible. listing them all would make this post very very long, so I won't...

...but here is a website that helpfully highlights everything awful about the Holy Bible:
http://www.evilbible.com/
(NOTE Some may find this site offensive...)

---

Thanks for proving my point. LOL

But I will give you a question to ponder. If one believes the bible is an inaccurate history book with methraphorical lessons - does that equate to believing the bible is the literial truth?

Your approach here is that you want to force me to believe that the Bible is the literial truth - I must question your ability at reading - ie you just embrassed your own intelligence attempting this response when I clearly stated and you quoted the following comment.

But when a moderate religious person who takes the bilble as a book that contains metraphorical lessons in which to enable a person to live a better life, such statements as yours is normally seen as an "oh Please, look at the rubbish being spouted once again because I believe in a higher power."


Whats wrong - are you one of those that are challenged when faced with moderate believers because they contradict your preconcieved notion about all Christians?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Oh really? And what of eugenics, totaltarianistic communism, Stalin's purges, Hitler's purges, the 'Reign of Terror' and others?

---

We've been over this stuff over and over. Those are not the result of reason or atheism or whatever. To argue that either religion or reason promotes or denounces violent acts is faulty in that people ultimately decide what reason or religion calls for. People have the capacity to misuse both.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

And started believing what other agnostics and agnostic organizations told you?

I still find it funny, Dogus, that your belief in free thought and tolerance has led you to intolerance of those who don't agree with you.

CR

---

you may choose not to believe me - but I arrived at my beliefs all by myself

although I will admit to being heavily influenced by my study of Geology - and through that the study of life on this planet since there was life - and that takes a bit of the 'specialness' from mankind. Also studying history - there has been lots of religions on this earth all claiming to be the one true religion and representing the one or many true GODs, so which one is right, or are they all wrong.

Finally watching the actions of these religious people - who seem to me not to obey the rules of their own religion


I didnt say I was perfect

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yunus Dogus

I couldnt agree more Redleg - so my questions is - would you regard yourself as being one of a particular religion or something of your own design?

---

Actually I like to think that I am following the Church that Jesus states in the New Testament. I believe that by reading and reflecting on the parables in the bible that I might learn how to be a more spiritual healthly person. Currently when I have time - I am finding and reading some of the texts that were not including in the New testiment. Someone provided a link in an earlier thread - can't remember which one now - but there is some good reading available in some of those texts

Quote:

---

I think there is a big difference between a spiritual person and a religious person.

---

Some make religion infaliable forgetting that men are prone to errors. I lean more toward the spiritual aspects of Christianity.

Quote:

---

I find it very interesting that many so called 'Christians' feel its ok to kill depending on the circumstances, despite both the ten commandments (old testament) and Jesus saying 'love thy neighbour" (new) - yet many are all to prepared to goto war for 'the right reasons' or keep a gun under the bed 'for home defence' - so they are planning for the moment when they wont be a Christian and kill someone coming in their window. Circumstantial Christians (they are Christian when it suites them or the circumastances allow). In my book these people cannot be Christians - if you follow the teaching of Christ then killing or hurting another human should be aborhent - not something circumstantial. :no:

my 5c but Im willing to listen to alternates

---

Killing is indeed against the basic teachings of Christ. Something that I have to reflect on because of my time in the military.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Thats funny considering the progress that continues throughout history to include our times now. Science is not being held back by religion. Just check out the DAPRA website.

http://www.darpa.mil/

There is some things being researched that takes man well into the future of both progress and even evolution.

---

Well, I hope you were being facetious. I certainly didn't mean scientific progress. That would be silly.

We're being held back in our progress as human beings, retarded if you will, by those clinging to the last vestiges of superstitious beliefs. Those beliefs developed from a time when humans looked at the world without knowledge and logic and attempted to explain the unknown by assuming "higher powers" and mystical wonders.

Such beliefs became so basic that they remained stuck in our human experience after reasoning provided more logical explanations. Intead of throwing off the old superstitions, we codified them and made them into dogma as we learned to write down our thoughts.

To me, it's obvious that current religious belief can be traced directly back to our first upright ancestors cowering from lightning on the savannah. One can even trace the advent of monotheism as it relates to sedentary homogenous societies as opposed to the polytheism prevalent in nomadic and fractured societies.

And, yes, religious superstition holds us back in our progress as humans. One need only look at the prevalence in the conserative evangelical community of the idea that cloning is somehow wrong because it is science altering "God's design" for humans. And yet, many of these same people have no qualms about getting facelifts and liposuction, getting their hair dyed, painting their lips and combing their hair over their bald spots. It's superstitious unreason which causes people to be so incredibly unable to see the silliness and hypocrisy of their own beliefs and actions.

It isn't just one religion, either. We have Scientologists like Tom Cruise proclaiming all psychiatry to be invalid. We have fundamentalist Islamic sects putting their own spin on the Quran and relegating women to near slave status. We have Raelians believing that aliens have come to save a select few. We have chiropractors and other faith healers deluding the faithful. They all think their own particular brand of superstition is reasonable and right, even when they can manage to see the silliness in other beliefs.

And in all of that, real progress, not just limited scientific progress which doesn't offend one or another relgious group but all progess whether in science or philosophy or society, can't happen. We stagnate in a fractured mess of conflicting superstitious beliefs that prevent us from working together to improve the lot of all of our fellows, not just those who believe as we do. Religion retards our ability to move beyond superstition to reasoned responses to problems. It divides us for reasons which should have lost their hold on our consciousness when we first realized that the lightning and thunder on the savannah weren't caused by the gods.

But that's just my take on it all. :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Oh really? And what of eugenics, totaltarianistic communism, Stalin's purges, Hitler's purges, the 'Reign of Terror' and others?

---

if you had read the Humanist Declaration I posted above, you would see that Humanism very much opposes these sorts of things. communism and totalitarian secular states have nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Why call it reason? Why not merely logic or a way of thinking through things? Instead, it becomes a concept a way of thinking with more connotations than one would think.

What I see in this thread are some people holding up 'reason' as a process to be revered beyond its contributions. Worship may not have been the precisely correct word, but the meaning is similar.

---

well compare rational behaviour to irrational behaviour; or reasonable behaviour to unreasonable behaviour; or logical behaviour to illogical behaviour... I know which one is more beneficial...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

So 'Do Not Kill' is obsolete? Or are you refering to the old codes no longer held as guidance?

---

No. but we don't need dogma of ancient scripture to know that. Heck, as I said before "The Biblical God kills 371,186 people directly and orders another 1,862,265 people murdered." as well as demanding that followers kill for all sorts of things...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Funny that Cladius pointed to a website with a definition of humanism. An atheist (or agnostic) might simple call themselves an atheist (or agnostic); does that mean they have no individual beliefs, and thus no capacity for reason?

---

firstly my user-name is CLAUDIUS...

I find that most Atheists and Agnostics already do have Humanist standards and perspectives. I've always had these standards and this perspective my whole life, but I didn't know what Humanism was until a year or two ago. This isn't something that is promoted in the media or in state education.

generally speaking, the few Atheists and Agnostics that do not agree with Humanist values are the minority in the non-religious population.

if you want more information on secular ethics, then this link is one I provided earlier
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_ethics

Atheism and variants thereof generally do not have any sort of Dogma like organized religions do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

And started believing what other agnostics and agnostic organizations told you?

I still find it funny, Dogus, that your belief in free thought and tolerance has led you to intolerance of those who don't agree with you.

---

I have yet to meen an Atheist or an Agnostic who told me what to think or what to believe. there is a general ideological agreement that we should have the right to think for ourselves, observe the evidence ourselves, and come to our own conclusions, and not let tyrannical and exploitative groups such as some organized religions tell us what to believe.

should we tollerate people who try to enslave us, or degrade us, persecute us, or even kill us for thinking differently?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Thanks for proving my point. LOL

But I will give you a question to ponder. If one believes the bible is an inaccurate history book with methraphorical lessons - does that equate to believing the bible is the literial truth?

Your approach here is that you want to force me to believe that the Bible is the literial truth - I must question your ability at reading - ie you just embrassed your own intelligence attempting this response when I clearly stated and you quoted the following comment.

But when a moderate religious person who takes the bilble as a book that contains metraphorical lessons in which to enable a person to live a better life, such statements as yours is normally seen as an "oh Please, look at the rubbish being spouted once again because I believe in a higher power."


Whats wrong - are you one of those that are challenged when faced with moderate believers because they contradict your preconcieved notion about all Christians?

---

I originally said:
"I think that it is intellectually embarassing to believe some of the nonsense that scripture like the Holy Bible promotes."

I realise that most moderate Christians see the Bible as largely metaphorical, but there are many who take it literally.

even taken as metaphorical, it still has quite a bit of material on persecution/discrimination against others, especially non-believers...

I'm responding to numerous posts right now so forgive me for going over your post too quickly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Killing is indeed against the basic teachings of Christ. Something that I have to reflect on because of my time in the military.

---

Jesus sends the devils into 2000 pigs, causing them to jump off a cliff and be drowned in the sea. Clearly Jesus could have simply sent the devils out, yet he chose instead to place them into pigs and kill them. This is called animal abuse. Mark 5:12-13

Jesus condemns entire cities to dreadful deaths and to the eternal torment of hell because they didn’t care for his preaching. Matthew 11:20

Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets. He hasn’t the slightest objection to the cruelties of the Old Testament. Matthew 5:17

Jesus explains why he speaks in parables to confuse people so they will go to hell. Mark 4:11-12

Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating. He defends himself by attacking them for not killing disobedient children according to the commandment: “He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.” Matthew 15:4-7

Jesus criticizes the Jews for not killing their disobedient children according to Old Testament law. Mark 7:9

Jesus kills a fig tree for not bearing figs, even though it was out of season. Mark 11:13

Wathcing these little threads is like watching the Western Front of WWI, or two brick walls arguing. You just know neither side will give way.

Still, as a friend of mine pointed out, the purpose of debate is not in convincing another, but in forming proper arguements.

Personally, I'm atheist, in the manner of, I don't care who or what you woship, as long as you don't make it a public show. Yes, that means I'm opposed to all those organized religions, but not faith in particular. If you want to believe in God (or a rock, or whatever), or pray to him, then do it yourself ... why need agents to speak to him for you? After all, is not God everywhere, hears everything?

I'm with Aenlic on this one, until faith becomes a private, personal thing, we're going to stagnate. Sticking to old morality just doesn't work anymore, not with our current technological capabilites and, unless humanity, as a whole, actually adapts it's moral views to the current state of advancement, we're really going bye-bye.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aenlic

Well, I hope you were being facetious. I certainly didn't mean scientific progress. That would be silly.

---

Only partly, since I find the orginal statement to be inaccurate about the Human Condition.

Your followup explanation is good - while there are some points I disagree with your conclusion - it is at least a rational discussion on the subject versus the normal dogmatic approach of other posters.

Quote:

---

And in all of that, real progress, not just limited scientific progress which doesn't offend one or another relgious group but all progess whether in science or philosophy or society, can't happen. We stagnate in a fractured mess of conflicting superstitious beliefs that prevent us from working together to improve the lot of all of our fellows, not just those who believe as we do. Religion retards our ability to move beyond superstition to reasoned responses to problems. It divides us for reasons which should have lost their hold on our consciousness when we first realized that the lightning and thunder on the savannah weren't caused by the gods.

---

Your premise seems to be that religion holds back the ability to think beyond the human existance. Is this correct? Because if that is your premise - then there is several points we can discuss.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Claudius the God

I originally said:
"I think that it is intellectually embarassing to believe some of the nonsense that scripture like the Holy Bible promotes."

I realise that most moderate Christians see the Bible as largely metaphorical, but there are many who take it literally.

even taken as metaphorical, it still has quite a bit of material on persecution/discrimination against others, especially non-believers...

I'm responding to numerous posts right now so forgive me for going over your post too quickly.

---

Nothing to forgive.

However it seems your still trying to forget one aspect of the discussion - I have already stated I look at the Bible as an inaccurate history text with metaphorical lessons. Because you see persecution/discrimination in the text does that discount it as a history? We can find persecution/discrimination in any history book - to include some from modern secular societies. Should I condemn all communist philisophy because of Stalin and Pol Pot? Should I point out the hypocrisy in your own statements just above this text?

Or as CrossLOPER pointed out earlier and Crazed Rabbit pointed out prior to this edit.

We've been over this stuff over and over. Those are not the result of reason or atheism or whatever. To argue that either religion or reason promotes or denounces violent acts is faulty in that people ultimately decide what reason or religion calls for. People have the capacity to misuse both.

Quote:

---

Jesus sends the devils into 2000 pigs, causing them to jump off a cliff and be drowned in the sea. Clearly Jesus could have simply sent the devils out, yet he chose instead to place them into pigs and kill them. This is called animal abuse. Mark 5:12-13

Jesus condemns entire cities to dreadful deaths and to the eternal torment of hell because they didn’t care for his preaching. Matthew 11:20

Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets. He hasn’t the slightest objection to the cruelties of the Old Testament. Matthew 5:17

Jesus explains why he speaks in parables to confuse people so they will go to hell. Mark 4:11-12

Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating. He defends himself by attacking them for not killing disobedient children according to the commandment: “He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.” Matthew 15:4-7

Jesus criticizes the Jews for not killing their disobedient children according to Old Testament law. Mark 7:9

Jesus kills a fig tree for not bearing figs, even though it was out of season. Mark 11:13

---

Pulling comments from the Skeptics Annotated Bible and using them as your own I see?

Rather disingenuous of you. But it definitely once again proves my point from earlier.

Whats wrong - are you one of those that are challenged when faced with moderate believers because they contradict your preconcieved notion about all Christians?

I don't want to get into the current debate about what is more evil, secularism or religion, but do want to point out this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Claudius the God

because not basing one's beliefs on Reason and Rationality allows the potential for the belief in nonsense.

---

Claudius, this was your response to my inquiry of "why should we base our beliefs on reason". I just wanted to let you know, that was a rhetorical question. I answered it later in my post.

Also, plenty of beliefs that you would call nonsense, can firmly be based on reason and empirical evidence.

I also want to know why you did not respond or even quote the second and most important part of my statement:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenkmeister

I've always wondered at the proposition that one should base their beliefs on reason. After all, this is a belief in itself. A meta-belief perhaps, but a belief nonetheless. How would one go justifying such a belief? Well, we could use reason, but that would be circular and beg the question, wouldn't it? We could call reason a self-evident truth, reason is reasonable perhaps, if one likes tautologies. Or we could just assume reason without a reason. After all, an irrational acceptance of epistemically basic/foundational propositions is necessary for any rational colloquy and reflection. It's all built on irrational foundations.

---

Bolded part is the part I speak of.

Quote:

---

if you had read the Humanist Declaration I posted above, you would see that Humanism very much opposes these sorts of things. communism and totalitarian secular states have nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

---

And Catholicism today is against everything you use to condemn it- so how is it bad? How can you complain about religion using outdated examples and argue it shouldn't be followed, while ignoring the evils that the use of 'reason' has brought upon us and not condemn atheism and the reverance of reason?

The core problem with atheism and the like is that there are no hard and fast moral boundaries. Look at the 'Reign of Terror' during the French revolution - when tens of thousands were killed by the authorities and mobs. Why? Well due to simple reason; supporters of the revolution viewed it as a moral good that needed to succed, so they needed to remove obstacles to its success, and if that meant killing people, then killing those people was good because it supported the revolution.

Quote:

---

No. but we don't need dogma of ancient scripture to know that. Heck, as I said before "The Biblical God kills 371,186 people directly and orders another 1,862,265 people murdered." as well as demanding that followers kill for all sorts of things...

---

Christianity has infused our culture to the point that people view killing as bad- what argument can there be made for not killing from a purely 'reasonable' view?
Say that I have a family and we are starving and cannot get food. If I have to kill a person and steal his property to eat, then is that not an overall benefit - I am saving more lives than I am taking, no?

Quote:

---

firstly my user-name is CLAUDIUS...

---

My apologies.

Quote:

---

Atheism and variants thereof generally do not have any sort of Dogma like organized religions do.

---

It seems that they do - 'there is no God', 'we all came from a single cell 4 billion years ago', 'all religions are wrong', etc.

Quote:

---

I have yet to meen an Atheist or an Agnostic who told me what to think or what to believe.

---

Hmmm...

Quote:

---

I find that most Atheists and Agnostics already do have Humanist standards and perspectives. I've always had these standards and this perspective my whole life, but I didn't know what Humanism was until a year or two ago. This isn't something that is promoted in the media or in state education.

generally speaking, the few Atheists and Agnostics that do not agree with Humanist values are the minority in the non-religious population.

if you want more information on secular ethics, then this link is one I provided earlier
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_ethics

---

Sure they might now say 'believe this', but you seem to anyways.

Quote:

---

there is a general ideological agreement that we should have the right to think for ourselves, observe the evidence ourselves, and come to our own conclusions, and not let tyrannical and exploitative groups such as some organized religions tell us what to believe.

---

And what if what we come to believe leads us to the tenets of an organized religion? What if they are not the evil you make them out to be but simple ways for similar thinking people to worship together? And how can you be against organized religion and for atheist and humanist organizations?

Quote:

---

should we tollerate people who try to enslave us, or degrade us, persecute us, or even kill us for thinking differently?

---

Christianity does none of that. Yet I see here people degrading and wanting to persecuting me and my religion.

Quote:

---

I find it very interesting that many so called 'Christians' feel its ok to kill depending on the circumstances, despite both the ten commandments (old testament) and Jesus saying 'love thy neighbour" (new) - yet many are all to prepared to goto war for 'the right reasons' or keep a gun under the bed 'for home defence' - so they are planning for the moment when they wont be a Christian and kill someone coming in their window.

---

Life is a gift from God, we are obliged not to squander it, but cherish and protect it, and defend it.

Quote:

---

We've been over this stuff over and over. Those are not the result of reason or atheism or whatever. To argue that either religion or reason promotes or denounces violent acts is faulty in that people ultimately decide what reason or religion calls for. People have the capacity to misuse both.

---

I am inclined to agree, I am just trying to point that out to our reasonable friends here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

I am inclined to agree, I am just trying to point that out to our reasonable friends here.

---

What have I said about quote function rape? (!Response directly related!)

Quote:

---

Christianity does none of that. Yet I see here people degrading and wanting to persecuting me and my religion.

---

Christianity does a lot of that. Your faith has only a passing resemblence to what a lot of people view as Christianity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Nothing to forgive.

However it seems your still trying to forget one aspect of the discussion - I have already stated I look at the Bible as an inaccurate history text with metaphorical lessons. Because you see persecution/discrimination in the text does that discount it as a history? We can find persecution/discrimination in any history book - to include some from modern secular societies. Should I condemn all communist philisophy because of Stalin and Pol Pot? Should I point out the hypocrisy in your own statements just above this text?

Or as CrossLOPER pointed out earlier and Crazed Rabbit pointed out prior to this edit.

We've been over this stuff over and over. Those are not the result of reason or atheism or whatever. To argue that either religion or reason promotes or denounces violent acts is faulty in that people ultimately decide what reason or religion calls for. People have the capacity to misuse both.

---

I too see it as an inaccurate history text with some metaphorical lessons. I see a little bit of historical value in the text, and certainly see value in the text as a piece of important literature. What I question is why it should be taken as a moral absolute. the discrimination and horrors of the Bible don't discount it as a history text (there are different reasons why it shouldn't be taken literally as a historical text - namely considerable editing, omitting, etc.)

I'm not arguing that all Christians follow the more questionable ideas promoted in the Bible, but quite a few do - and get a lot of attention discriminating against one minority or another. I'm saying that for me personally, the Bible is not something that I would ever recommend to anyone as a guide to morals or ethics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Whats wrong - are you one of those that are challenged when faced with moderate believers because they contradict your preconcieved notion about all Christians?

---

I don't see all Christians as discriminating against non-Christians/non-conformists or taking the lessons of the Bible literally. To moderate Christians who practice their beliefs privately (not preaching or judging others by purely Christian morals), I generally have no problem with them - even if our methods of understanding the universe are different.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

Claudius, this was your response to my inquiry of "why should we base our beliefs on reason". I just wanted to let you know, that was a rhetorical question. I answered it later in my post.

---

right you are then. my apologies...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

Also, plenty of beliefs that you would call nonsense, can firmly be based on reason and empirical evidence.

---

care to give an example? - I find concepts such as Heaven, Hell, Purgatory, Sin, and Divine Judgement to be nonsense. how can such things be based on reason or empirical evidence?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

I also want to know why you did not respond or even quote the second and most important part of my statement:
...
Well, we could use reason, but that would be circular and beg the question, wouldn't it? We could call reason a self-evident truth, reason is reasonable perhaps, if one likes tautologies. Or we could just assume reason without a reason. After all, an irrational acceptance of epistemically basic/foundational propositions is necessary for any rational colloquy and reflection. It's all built on irrational foundations.
...
Bolded part is the part I speak of.

---

put simply, it is better to base knowledge and theories on evidence than not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

And Catholicism today is against everything you use to condemn it- so how is it bad? How can you complain about religion using outdated examples and argue it shouldn't be followed, while ignoring the evils that the use of 'reason' has brought upon us and not condemn atheism and the reverance of reason?

---

well Catholocism is hardly democratic. the Papal clergy often claim intellectual superiority on matters of ethics. weather they deserve to claim intellectual or moral superiority on anything is debatable.

what evils have Reason or Atheism brought upon the world? and I mean Atheism and Reason as ideas of themselves...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

The core problem with atheism and the like is that there are no hard and fast moral boundaries. Look at the 'Reign of Terror' during the French revolution - when tens of thousands were killed by the authorities and mobs. Why? Well due to simple reason; supporters of the revolution viewed it as a moral good that needed to succed, so they needed to remove obstacles to its success, and if that meant killing people, then killing those people was good because it supported the revolution.

---

The Reign of Terror had little to do with the principles (or lack thereof) of Atheism or of the use of Reason.

and that revolution with its anti-clerical side to it hardly represents what Reason or Atheism is. and as for the accusation that Atheism has no hard and fast moral boundaries - that is why there are ideas such as Humanism/Secular Humanism to state outright that even without a religiously inspired moral code - that non-religious people can have very reasonable and sensible ethical viewpoints. religious fanatics can't say that we have no morals because it is simply not true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Christianity has infused our culture to the point that people view killing as bad- what argument can there be made for not killing from a purely 'reasonable' view?
Say that I have a family and we are starving and cannot get food. If I have to kill a person and steal his property to eat, then is that not an overall benefit - I am saving more lives than I am taking, no?

---

Christianity may have infused our culture with the notion that killing is wrong - but with the notable exceptions of heathens/heretics, homosexuals, non-christians, etc... heck, Christian fundamentalism was very much a contributing factor to the Jewish Holocaust...

Reason/Humanism/Secular Ethics today opposes all sorts murder and killing and tyrrany and persecution, etc.

there were already philosophies in classical times which opposed killing and murder outright - philosophies such as Stoicism... Christianity is not the sole contributor towards making people realise that killing is wrong...

if people are put in such a terrible situation that they need to consider killing others just to survive, then the entire situation is wrong. this is why Humanism etc. promotes Democracy, human rights, and education, freedom of speech, etc...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

It seems that they do - 'there is no God', 'we all came from a single cell 4 billion years ago', 'all religions are wrong', etc.

---

we don't know these things as absolute facts. we follow the evidence, no matter what the evidence suggests... if the evidence pointed towards creationism then the creationists would be quite happy. unfortunately the evidence points to the wealth of information commonly known as Evolutionary Sciences...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Sure they might now say 'believe this', but you seem to anyways.

---

I find the Scientific Method far more accurate than 'divinely revealed knowledge'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

And what if what we come to believe leads us to the tenets of an organized religion? What if they are not the evil you make them out to be but simple ways for similar thinking people to worship together? And how can you be against organized religion and for atheist and humanist organizations?

---

why should it lead to something resembling an organized religion? I'm not saying that all religions are bad, but that in some ways being non-religious can be better.
And as for Atheist or Humanist organizations, I'm not a member of any such organization. I read some of the literature and agree with most of the ideas promoted, but I'm not a member of anything. being a Humanist is largely private and only a few people know that I see myself as a Humanist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Christianity does none of that. Yet I see here people degrading and wanting to persecuting me and my religion.

---

well many people claiming to be Christians have killed and violently discriminated against non-Christians for centuries...

has anyone here persecuted you or your religion yet? or have there simply been disagreements and criticisms?

and the degrading goes both ways...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Life is a gift from God, we are obliged not to squander it, but cherish and protect it, and defend it.

---

Defend it?

Defend life how?

by taking it?

dear me thats not a Christian ideal by anyones definition

didnt Jesus say "turn the other cheek" ... yes even when someone kills your friends and hangs you from a cross - arnt you sposed to forgive them? Jesus never talked about defending anything through use of arms only words and compassion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Claudius the God

I too see it as an inaccurate history text with some metaphorical lessons. I see a little bit of historical value in the text, and certainly see value in the text as a piece of important literature. What I question is why it should be taken as a moral absolute. the discrimination and horrors of the Bible don't discount it as a history text (there are different reasons why it shouldn't be taken literally as a historical text - namely considerable editing, omitting, etc.)

I'm not arguing that all Christians follow the more questionable ideas promoted in the Bible, but quite a few do - and get a lot of attention discriminating against one minority or another. I'm saying that for me personally, the Bible is not something that I would ever recommend to anyone as a guide to morals or ethics.

---

If one wants to take the bible literially I would agree with you - however on the metaphorical level the bible has some very valid moral and ethicial guides to life. Its a philisophy of life that is no better nor is it worse then the humanist approach.

Do Fundmental fantics destroy the basic good of religion - yes indeed, however religion has had its benefits for society and man over time. You can attempt to argue that the bad aspects of religion now outweigh the good aspects of religion - but to discount the history and the progress of man because of religion does little to futher the arguement that religion is holding man's evolution back. Up until the last 50 years that postion would be inaccurate. Many of the brilliant thinkers of the Enlightment Era were indeed deists (SP) if not still theists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Your premise seems to be that religion holds back the ability to think beyond the human existance. Is this correct? Because if that is your premise - then there is several points we can discuss.

---

Actually, no. My main premise is that true-believers of any religion have proven themselves to be unable to think critically and logically. I'm not blaming them, really. It's a product of the blatant brainwashing done to children by and for religion. I'm not saying it's impossible for some to oddly compartmentalize their faith on one hand and think critically about other issues. I'm saying it makes such more difficult and unlikely.

Religions promote a society in which people grow up believing nonsense and not bothering to question that nonsense in even the most basic way. They learn not to question. That's a very difficult lesson to overcome, having been ingrained since infancy by their religion. They lose the ability to think critically about other things than just their beliefs. At the far end of the spectrum, they end up following the likes of people like Ted Haggard or Meir Kahane or Osama bin Laden or Shoko Asahara or Jim Jones and many more. It is religion which makes people susceptible to believing nonsense.

Having already swallowed the biggest nonsense after being force fed it since infancy, religious people put "faith" before fact and end up swallowing all sorts of nonsense, especially if it's cloaked in a veneer of religion. You get people thinking it's OK to blow up abortion clinics and kill other people, all in the name of not killing babies. You get people thinking it's OK to fly planes into buildings full of innocent people. You get people willing to condemn millions of people to curable dieases because their god apparently doesn't like stem-cell research. You get people supposedly devoutly believing in supposedly peaceful religions cheerfully supporting wars of aggression and conquest, especially if the targets are believers in a different "truth" than their own. And worst of all, you get people who devoutly believe that other devout believers of other religions are the enemy or are somehow inferior, which leads to all of the above.

Aside from the irrational mind set which religions promote, it is religions, in the end, which prevent people - all of humanity - from coming together and working for the good of humanity as a whole, not just for their fellow believers. There are some ecumenical sects; but they are rare and deep down the true believers in them really do think that others would be better off believing as they do. But, on the whole, religions promote division instead of unity. And that, along with an ingrained tendency to believe the unbelievable, is what holds humanity back from progressing beyond mere technological innovation, holds humanity back from working together for our mutual benefit and ending the afflictions which result from irrational behavior.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aenlic

Actually, no. My main premise is that true-believers of any religion have proven themselves to be unable to think critically and logically.

---

Then how does one explain such men as Thomas Jefferson and Martin Luther King Jr.,

Quote:

---

Aside from the irrational mind set which religions promote, it is religions, in the end, which prevent people - all of humanity - from coming together and working for the good of humanity as a whole, not just for their fellow believers. There are some ecumenical sects; but they are rare and deep down the true believers in them really do think that others would be better off believing as they do. But, on the whole, religions promote division instead of unity. And that, along with an ingrained tendency to believe the unbelievable, is what holds humanity back from progressing beyond mere technological innovation, holds humanity back from working together for our mutual benefit and ending the afflictions which result from irrational behavior.

---

Here is where I will have to disagree. What holds humanity back is our own human nature. Our cultural/ethnic prejudices and wanting to identify ourselves as different ethnic groups first and foremost.

You can blame religion for some of it, but that only touches the surface of the ingrained prejudice that is based solely upon a person's ethnic makeup. To say religion is the only cause of this dilimenia (SP) does the actual reality of the problems facing man's ability to unite for our common good a major dis-service. Have you not seen the prejudice faced by groups of the same religion because of what ethnic group an individual comes from. How can religion be the root cause of such a situation when both follow the exact same religion?

Man by his very nature is a competive species - a trait that we share with all predators on this planet. To claim religion is the root cause of this - negates the human condition and leaves man trapped in his own logical fallacies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

If one wants to take the bible literially I would agree with you - however on the metaphorical level the bible has some very valid moral and ethicial guides to life. Its a philisophy of life that is no better nor is it worse then the humanist approach.

Do Fundmental fantics destroy the basic good of religion - yes indeed, however religion has had its benefits for society and man over time. You can attempt to argue that the bad aspects of religion now outweigh the good aspects of religion - but to discount the history and the progress of man because of religion does little to futher the arguement that religion is holding man's evolution back. Up until the last 50 years that postion would be inaccurate. Many of the brilliant thinkers of the Enlightment Era were indeed deists (SP) if not still theists.

---

I more or less agree...

I don't agree thar religion itself holds humanity back, I think it's the totalitarian and exploitative side of social control that some faiths are especially good at that does that...

also, the contribution of reason and science to humanity has been just as developmental - and perhaps moreso - than religious faith.


[edit]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Then how does one explain such men as Thomas Jefferson and Martin Luther King Jr.,

---

well neither of these two were religious fanatics as far as I know - heck this is what Thomas Jefferson said about religion...

"Religions are all alike—founded upon fables and mythologies."
Thomas Jefferson

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Claudius the God

care to give an example?

---

We'll use a fairly standard rational argument that leads to a conclusion that most dismiss as nonsense.

The classic:

1) If determinism is true, then there is no moral responsibility.
2) If determinism is false, then there is no moral responsibility.
C) There is no moral responsibility.

Determinism is plausible, most would grant. But even holding it false runs you into problems...

Hard determinism is by far the strongest theory, as soft determinism or compatibilism must redefine the very notion of free will to be coherent, and libertarianism (complex theories of agency) are quite "mysterious" in the way they work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Claudius the God

I find concepts such as Heaven, Hell, Purgatory, Sin, and Divine Judgement to be nonsense. how can such things be based on reason or empirical evidence?

---

Reason itself is not empirically based and cannot use reason to justify it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Then how does one explain such men as Thomas Jefferson and Martin Luther King Jr.,

---

The answer was in the rest of the paragraph which you didn't include in your quote of me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aenlic

I'm not saying it's impossible for some to oddly compartmentalize their faith on one hand and think critically about other issues. I'm saying it makes such more difficult and unlikely.

---

Thus, men like Jefferson and King are rare. :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redleg

Here is where I will have to disagree. What holds humanity back is our own human nature. Our cultural/ethnic prejudices and wanting to identify ourselves as different ethnic groups first and foremost.

You can blame religion for some of it, but that only touches the surface of the ingrained prejudice that is based solely upon a person's ethnic makeup. To say religion is the only cause of this dilimenia (SP) does the actual reality of the problems facing man's ability to unite for our common good a major dis-service. Have you not seen the prejudice faced by groups of the same religion because of what ethnic group an individual comes from. How can religion be the root cause of such a situation when both follow the exact same religion?

Man by his very nature is a competive species - a trait that we share with all predators on this planet. To claim religion is the root cause of this - negates the human condition and leaves man trapped in his own logical fallacies.

---

First, let me separate out one statement above before proceeding:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redleg

To say religion is the only cause of this dilimenia (SP) does the actual reality of the problems facing man's ability to unite for our common good a major dis-service.

---

I agree. And you may have noticed that I didn't say that religion was the only cause of the dilemma. I hope, then we can dispense with an argument about something I didn't say in the first place. I went to great pains to explain what I think religion does cause, but at no point did I ever say or imply that religion was the only cause. I feel it is the main cause, however.

I must respectfully disagree, also, that humans are natural predators. We are omnivores. Do we engage in predation? Certainly. Is it instinctual? Interesting question. Are instinctual behaviors in humanity that prevalent? I haven't noticed anyone trying to pick nits out of my hair and engage in similar instinctual social grooming behaviors lately.

If humans are naturally and, more importantly permanently, competitive then doesn't that call into question certain religious doctrines which require humans not to be competitive; such as, for example, certain admonitions in the Sermon on the Mount? How can the meek inherit the Earth, assuming that the premise of competitiveness as a natural human condition is true, if the meek are unnatural? That argument leads down the slippery slope into religious arguments of the nature of humans as good or evil, doesn't it? The Randian/Objectivist idea of natural human competitiveness is directly at odds with most popular religions on that point. How is it possible to believe that the "human condition" is naturally competitive on one hand and on the other hand believe that humans were created in the image of a "god" at the same time? Doesn't that mean that the god is naturally competitive? Competition with whom or what?

To extricate oneself from such a logical conundrum requires leaps of illogic and finally just resorting to "faith" and the great logical fallacy to which religions eventually appeal, the "because I (god) said so" argument. However, if one discards the Objectivist view that humans must compete because it is natural, then what follows? Perhaps a view that the natural condition is actually mutual benefit and mutual aid? Careful now. The term "mutual aid" is a clue to where this discussion could lead. :wink:

Religion began as a tool of humans to provide answers to the unknown in the absence of a system of logical, rational inquiry based on observation of fact. It's continued influence is unnatural.

Is religion the only cause of human misery and suffering? Of course not. I never said it was. Is it one of the causes and does it prevent us from working together to eliminate the other causes? Yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aenlic

The answer was in the rest of the paragraph which you didn't include in your quote of me.

Thus, men like Jefferson and King are rare. :wink:

---

Which is why I ask the direct question. Regardless of your attempt at poking fun.

I saw the contradiction between the two statement and wanted to validate something before I continued, to insure I understood exactly what you were saying.

My counter would be that what you to believe to be rare in the religious I find to be just as common as those who take the humanist approach in philisophy. I used two acknowledge men of faith that were seen by history as men of logic. Many others have existed and do exist. If an individual can think critically does it matter if he is religous? Is religious faith inheriently mean that a man can not think critically? I have to reject the generalization that men of religious faith are unable to think critically because history demonstrates that this is not accurate. Ancedotal evidence also demonstrates to me that his generalization is also not accurate.

For instance I am an individaul who believes in a higher power, am I therefore doomed to be unable to think logically and criticially of my surroundings? Am I unable to formulate rational thought to express my philisophy on life because it involves a belief in a higher being?

Quote:

---

First, let me separate out one statement above before proceeding:

I agree. And you may have noticed that I didn't say that religion was the only cause of the dilemma. I hope, then we can dispense with an argument about something I didn't say in the first place. I went to great pains to explain what I think religion does cause, but at no point did I ever say or imply that religion was the only cause. I feel it is the main cause, however.

---

I took the statement to mean only because of the focus on religion hince the statement was based soley on my interpation of the focus. If that is incorrect then by all means inform, which you have and I wasn't going to focus on something that you obviousily correct in the follow-up to my comment.

You have made a request, and so I have one - reword the rest of your post to remove the sarcasm so that I don't focus on what I precieve the meaning to be, but what your actual statements are. Sarcasm ruins my ability to focus on what your actual statement is and will lead us down the path of the type of discussion that you have stated you rather avoid.


I await your response.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

We'll use a fairly standard rational argument that leads to a conclusion that most dismiss as nonsense.

The classic:

1) If determinism is true, then there is no moral responsibility.
2) If determinism is false, then there is no moral responsibility.
C) There is no moral responsibility.

Determinism is plausible, most would grant. But even holding it false runs you into problems...

Hard determinism is by far the strongest theory, as soft determinism or compatibilism must redefine the very notion of free will to be coherent, and libertarianism (complex theories of agency) are quite "mysterious" in the way they work.

---

this statement/problem is absurd. it appears entirely designed to be irrational and confusing. not only is the numbering wrong, but the options are nonsensical. how on Earth is this even remotely a rational argument?

so again i quote your point and ask you to elaborate...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

Also, plenty of beliefs that you would call nonsense, can firmly be based on reason and empirical evidence.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Claudius the God

care to give an example? - I find concepts such as Heaven, Hell, Purgatory, Sin, and Divine Judgement to be nonsense. how can such things be based on reason or empirical evidence?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

Reason itself is not empirically based and cannot use reason to justify it.

---

the use of Evidence is empirically based and justifies the use of Reason as a way of using evidence to approach problems/questions and find accurate information...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Claudius the God

this statement/problem is absurd. it appears entirely designed to be irrational and confusing. not only is the numbering wrong, but the options are nonsensical. how on Earth is this even remotely a rational argument?

---

This is the classic "dilemma argument". It is a very reasonable argument (one can argue it presents a false dichotomy, but also has to appreciate the bite it has).

I don't know why you consider it absurd. Because it presents a dilemma? That does not make something absurd my friend.

The numbering is not wrong. The two premises are numbered, and the C is for the conclusion. There are implicit premises not present in my formulation ("determinism has to either be true or false").

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Claudius the God

the use of Evidence is empirically based and justifies the use of Reason as a way of using evidence to approach problems/questions and find accurate information...

---

Now this is an argument I'm having a hard time follow...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Claudius the God

the use of Evidence is empirically based and justifies the use of Reason as a way of using evidence to approach problems/questions and find accurate information...

---

Reenk Roink, I wonder if is attempting to describe logic and reasoning based upon a sciencitific (SP) model?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

This is the classic "dilemma argument". It is a very reasonable argument (one can argue it presents a false dichotomy, but also has to appreciate the bite it has).

I don't know why you consider it absurd. Because it presents a dilemma? That does not make something absurd my friend.

The numbering is not wrong. The two premises are numbered, and the C is for the conclusion. There are implicit premises not present in my formulation ("determinism has to either be true or false").

---

regardless of weather determinism is true or false (personally I don't care one way or the other) - why does this mean that there is no moral responsibility?

I don't care at all about determinism. I think it's a poor way to approach ethics...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

Now this is an argument I'm having a hard time follow...

---

Why do many people who take things on faith - including religion and superstition - have such a problem with those of us who understand the universe based on the rational interpretation of evidence?

the decision to use secular ethics and the scientific method and generally being non-religious is attacked by many religious people - including many 'religious moderates' as beeing unethical and short-sighted and generally stupid and "sinful".

why should non-religious people play into the manipulation and fears of the superstitious? why should non-religious people believe the often unrealistic things in religious scripture and teachings without any real evidence?

when we claim that we don't believe in this or that deity because of a lack of evidence, why are we attacked for our methods of understanding the universe and for approaching ethical matters?

why should we take the leap of faith and believe something unrealistic without evidence if we currently understand and use a method based on evidence which is obviously quite sensible?

there is this arrogance with numerous religions where it is assumed that converting to some faith will result in an ethical or intellectual improvement. While this may be somewhat practical for barbaric or uneducated populations, it doesn't work so well in civilized modern societies...

to put it simply... I would not consider it of any benefit to myself to convert to a religion in either ethical or intellectual terms. it would not be an improvement in my morals or intelligence to take religious dogma seriously.

why should we take important things on faith if we are unlikely to benefit from such a change?

now I want to make it clear that I'm not trying to be insulting to religious people. I'm explaining why it is almost insulting and degrading when religious preachers think they are morally and intellectually superior to non-religious views...

I'm not saying that non-religious views are entirely superior either, but the arrogance of many religious individuals on this matter is almost institutional.

for example - in Christianity - these are ethical lessons...
Kill everyone who has religious views that are different than your own. Deuteronomy 17:2-7

Kill anyone who refuses to listen to a priest. Deuteronomy 17:12-13

Don’t associate with non-Christians. Don’t receive them into your house or even exchange greeting with them. 2 John 1:10

Shun those who disagree with your religious views. Romans 16:17

Whoever denies “that Jesus is the Christ” is a liar and an anti-Christ. 1 John 2:22

Christians are “of God;” everyone else is wicked. 1 John 5:19

The non-Christian is “a deceiver and an anti-Christ” 2 John 1:7

Everyone will have to worship Jesus -- whether they want to or not. Philippians 2:10

A Christian can not be accused of any wrongdoing. Romans 8:33


these sorts of biblical statements (and others) are simply to promote the notion that Christians are morally and intellectually superior to everyone else. it is disgusting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Claudius the God

Why do many people who take things on faith - including religion and superstition - have such a problem with those of us who understand the universe based on the rational interpretation of evidence?

---

I think the problem is not with the logic - but the wording of the sentence used in the initial post. It might be wise to review your post to insure your not assuming something not in evidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

I think the problem is not with the logic - but the wording of the sentence used in the initial post. It might be wise to review your post to insure your not assuming something not in evidence.

---

sorry, which sentence and post is this?


IF this is the supposition that there are no gods (typical Atheist absense of belief in deities) then I'm not saying there is decent evidence to suppose this, only socio-psychological theories...

one cannot even hope to prove or disprove the existence of deities with any conclusive evidence...

but that doesn't mean that the supposition that there are no deities is any sillier than the supposition that there are deities in existence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Claudius the God

sorry, which sentence and post is this?

---

Your last sentence post #54, his last statement was directed at that comment I believe.

Quote:

---

IF this is the supposition that there are no gods (typical Atheist absense of belief in deities) then I'm not saying there is decent evidence to suppose this, only socio-psychological theories...

one cannot even hope to prove or disprove the existence of deities with any conclusive evidence...

but that doesn't mean that the supposition that there are no deities is any sillier than the supposition that there are deities in existence.

---

There was no statement toward the arguement - only the reaction from reading your post following Reenk Roink's last sentence in post #55,


In simple words your comments read like an over-reaction to his statement. A rant if you will. Rants are an emotional appeal form of logic - and are not condusive to reason and rational debate. A rant can be a relief value but it distracts from the course of the discussion. Which is why I am ignoring the majority of post #57

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Your last sentence post #54, his last statement was directed at that comment I believe.

---

oh that, admitedly it was not terribly coherent. my apologies.

it was about the use of evidence and Reason. I hope the questions and comments of mine since then have expressed my views a bit better. the philosophical reasoning for the use of Reason, Logic, and evidence is not one I can describe professionally, having never studied Philosophy itself... instead I'll give links again on these subjects.

Rationalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalism

Skepticism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skepticism

Logic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

In simple words your comments read like an over-reaction to his statement. A rant if you will. Rants are an emotional appeal form of logic - and are not condusive to reason and rational debate. A rant can be a relief value but it distracts from the course of the discussion. Which is why I am ignoring the majority of post #57

---

Yes I probably was ranting (my bad...), but I would prefer it if post #57 with those various questions was taken seriously...

One of the reasons I stated this comment Reenk Roink, I wonder if is attempting to describe logic and reasoning based upon a sciencitific (SP) model? was because I gathered your intent was to point out logic and reason based on some type of model. I guessed a scientific type of model purely based upon the wording used.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Claudius the God

Yes I probably was ranting (my bad...), but I would prefer it if post #57 with those various questions was taken seriously...

---

Then it shall have to wait until I get some rest so that I can focus on the comments to understand the meaning underneath the rant. Sarcasm and rants take time for me to sort out when I have been awake for over 20 hours. Damn sometime I just break down and let the doctor subscribe a sleep aid - but not yet.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Claudius the God

Why do many people who take things on faith - including religion and superstition - have such a problem with those of us who understand the universe based on the rational interpretation of evidence?

---

Only the fanatics have major problems with that. Now to the remaining population of faith, you can actually answer that yourself with a question that is viewed slightly different. Why does the individual who views the universe the way you do hav such a problem with understanding those who take things on faith?

Communication and its failures will tend to add enlightment to the problems posed by the question.

Quote:

---

the decision to use secular ethics and the scientific method and generally being non-religious is attacked by many religious people - including many 'religious moderates' as beeing unethical and short-sighted and generally stupid and "sinful".

---

Most of this goes under the fallacy of logic of the religious that without religion one can not have morals. Morals are what many use to define ethics and what is right and wrong. The humanist philisophy is often seen as self-serving versus community by many religious people.

Quote:

---

why should non-religious people play into the manipulation and fears of the superstitious? why should non-religious people believe the often unrealistic things in religious scripture and teachings without any real evidence?

---

Why should you? If you do not have faith you cannot believe - so why would I ask you to believe as I do?

Rethorical questions I know, but since I don't ask people to believe as I do - I really can't answer the question. Your desires and believes are yours not mine. If you chose to follow non-religous path that is your choice.

Quote:

---

when we claim that we don't believe in this or that deity because of a lack of evidence, why are we attacked for our methods of understanding the universe and for approaching ethical matters?

---

Why do those that don't believe in this or that deity feel the need to attack those that believe in a deity? Since I don't attack science because of its desire to explain the universe, I can only ask the rethorical question that is the opposite of yours. Why attack me for my faith if I do not attack your lack of faith?

I believe that my faith in God is based solely upon my soul, attempts by others to explain the universe does not threaten my soul, so individuals who wish to find answers to the workings of the universe and the human dimension I don't have any issues with.

Quote:

---

why should we take the leap of faith and believe something unrealistic without evidence if we currently understand and use a method based on evidence which is obviously quite sensible?

---

Faith is based upon belief. My ancedotal evidence would not meet the scientific criteria of evidence because it can not be repeated over and over again. So if I believe something because of my interpation of the event based upon my faith - does that necessarily make it wrong? I don't expect others to believe my evidence of faith because to simply put it, it was my experience - an event that you can not duplicate. Needless to say my ancedotal evidence of God's existance is the birth of my son. Seven weeks premature with no medical issues. This after doctors initially called the pregency tubal and required abortion to prevent my wife's death. But I don't expect you or anyone else to take my ancedotal evidence as proof. Hell I even suspect some will want to ridicule my faith because they could provide very plausible scienitific explantations for why the pregency was initially ruled as tubal but ended up not.

Quote:

---

there is this arrogance with numerous religions where it is assumed that converting to some faith will result in an ethical or intellectual improvement. While this may be somewhat practical for barbaric or uneducated populations, it doesn't work so well in civilized modern societies...

---

I have never seen this claim when I was a organized church going christian - nor do I practice it.

Quote:

---

to put it simply... I would not consider it of any benefit to myself to convert to a religion in either ethical or intellectual terms. it would not be an improvement in my morals or intelligence to take religious dogma seriously.

---

One should never take the dogma of man serisousily if its not one that he is willing to follow.

Quote:

---

why should we take important things on faith if we are unlikely to benefit from such a change?

---

If it is no benefit - do you even know that it exists. If one does not directly benefit from something does one have to necessarily believe in its existance. I find this reasoning to be mote.

Quote:

---

now I want to make it clear that I'm not trying to be insulting to religious people. I'm explaining why it is almost insulting and degrading when religious preachers think they are morally and intellectually superior to non-religious views...

---

They are often insulting to those of the faith also.

Quote:

---

I'm not saying that non-religious views are entirely superior either, but the arrogance of many religious individuals on this matter is almost institutional.

---

I would disagree with this statement. I know many individuals of faith that are not arrogant toward individuals who hold non-religious views.

Quote:

---

for example - in Christianity - these are ethical lessons...
Kill everyone who has religious views that are different than your own. Deuteronomy 17:2-7

Kill anyone who refuses to listen to a priest. Deuteronomy 17:12-13

Don’t associate with non-Christians. Don’t receive them into your house or even exchange greeting with them. 2 John 1:10

Shun those who disagree with your religious views. Romans 16:17

Whoever denies “that Jesus is the Christ” is a liar and an anti-Christ. 1 John 2:22

Christians are “of God;” everyone else is wicked. 1 John 5:19

The non-Christian is “a deceiver and an anti-Christ” 2 John 1:7

Everyone will have to worship Jesus -- whether they want to or not. Philippians 2:10

A Christian can not be accused of any wrongdoing. Romans 8:33

these sorts of biblical statements (and others) are simply to promote the notion that Christians are morally and intellectually superior to everyone else. it is disgusting.

---

All philisophies to this to varying degrees. Are you disgusted with all philisophies on life that are out there? Pointing out the contradictions in the religious text is useful - but when one takes a hard line stance - are you not doing the same thing your complaining about?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

You have made a request, and so I have one - reword the rest of your post to remove the sarcasm so that I don't focus on what I precieve the meaning to be, but what your actual statements are. Sarcasm ruins my ability to focus on what your actual statement is and will lead us down the path of the type of discussion that you have stated you rather avoid.


I await your response.

---

:inquisitive:

There was no sarcasm in the rest of my post. I was somewhat light-hearted in my reference to mutual aid; but no sarcasm or personal negativity was intended. I think perhaps the subject matter is too close to the chest for you and you're misreading my post as some kind of attack. That isn't the case. But considering the sensitivity of the subject and your reaction, perhaps it would be best if we just agree to disagree at this point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aenlic

:inquisitive:

There was no sarcasm in the rest of my post. I was somewhat light-hearted in my reference to mutual aid; but no sarcasm or personal negativity was intended. I think perhaps the subject matter is too close to the chest for you and you're misreading my post as some kind of attack. That isn't the case. But considering the sensitivity of the subject and your reaction, perhaps it would be best if we just agree to disagree at this point.

---

Probably for the best.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Claudius the God

regardless of weather determinism is true or false (personally I don't care one way or the other) - why does this mean that there is no moral responsibility?

I don't care at all about determinism. I think it's a poor way to approach ethics...

---

I just wanted to point out that determinism has much to do with the topic of free will (which in turn has much to do with ethics).

I will elaborate my post in great detail.

Determinism (simplified) claims that events are casually determined by chains of prior causes. Now, determinism can thought of as universal; every event is casually determined. But to argue for determinism for human actions, one only needs to hold determinism true for human actions.

Why is determinism even plausible? Well, many actions are predictable, and we can usually predict with accuracy what someone is going to do in a certain cirumstance. Of course, we can never predict all human actions, but is this because determinism is false, or is it because we simply do not possess complete knowledge of the casual chain?

Determinism does not equal fatalism by the way.

Now, for the implication of determinism on human free will, take this example:

Suppose we hold determinism true for human actions. A person commits a murder. Now, his murder is caused by something, caused by something before it, caused by something before it, etc...

This causal chain goes back at least before the person's birth.

Thus, given the present circumstances, laws of nature, etc... the person could not have but committed the murder.

After all, he had no control over events that occurred before his birth, and those very events were the direct causes of his action of murder. Any apparent choice he may have thought he had, was nothing more than an illusion, as given the past events, he could not but have chosen the action that he chose.

How can he be held morally responsible for what he did?

Ah, you may say, determinism must certainly not be true.

Then the dilemma argument's second horn kicks in.

Say his action of murder was uncaused. Well, the problem is that now the person is completely off the hook, because he didn't cause it.

Say his action of murder was caused by a angry desire which was uncaused. Well, now the problem is that the person can't be held responsible for suddenly having an uncaused desire pop up in his head.

One may keep extending the chain further back, but will run into the same problems, or revert back to full blown determinism. Thus the dilemma argument has its name.

Here is where arguments against this dilemma come in.

First is compatibilism. This holds that if determinism is true, there can still be moral responsibility.

Compatibilism does this by arguing that even if one's actions are causally determined, as long as that person is free from compulsion or coercion and sane, then he is responsible for his actions.

Another view is agent libertarianism. This holds that determinism is not true, and uses complex theories to get around the second horn of the dilemma argument. It holds that the person himself caused the murder, yet was uncaused to do so.

Both these theories have problems. I will simplify them for the sake of time.

Compatibilism (soft determinism) has to weaken the notion of free will quite a bit. It is only concerned about immediate compulsion and coercion, and one could argue that determinism is a form of compulsion, that while not immediate, is certainly present and important.

Agency libertarianism has the problem in which it has to explain how an agent caused the act. Proponents of this theory cannot use desires, emotions, or any other property of humans to explain human actions, because then they fall into the trap of the second horn of the dilemma argument. They must hold that the person committed the murder, but not because of his anger, passion, etc. This kind of position is comparable to saying that a rock broke a window, but not because of its mass, density, weight, velocity, etc...

Hard determinism is the most straightforward and strongest position. But its conclusion of there being no moral responsibility is one that most people would hold as nonsense.

You have quoted Holbach earlier in this thread. He is one of the proponents of hard determinism, in an essay "The Illusion of Free Will".

Here is a brief expose by the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy on the topic:

Quote:

---

Free will' is the conventional name of a topic that is best discussed without reference to the will. Its central questions are 'What is it to act (or choose) freely?', and 'What is it to be morally responsible for one's actions (or choices)?' These two questions are closely connected, for freedom of action is necessary for moral responsibility, even if it is not sufficient.

Philosophers give very different answers to these questions, hence also to two more specific questions about ourselves: (1) Are we free agents? and (2) Can we be morally responsible for what we do? Answers to (1) and (2) range from 'Yes, Yes' to 'No, No' - via 'Yes, No' and various degrees of 'Perhaps', 'Possibly', and 'In a sense'. (The fourth pair of outright answers, 'No, Yes', is rare, but appears to be accepted by some Protestants.) Prominent among the 'Yes, Yes' sayers are the compatibilists, who hold that free will is compatible with determinism. Briefly, determinism is the view that everything that happens is necessitated by what has already gone before, in such a way that nothing can happen otherwise than it does. According to compatibilists, freedom is compatible with determinism because freedom is essentially just a matter of not being constrained or hindered in certain ways when one acts or chooses. Thus normal adult human beings in normal circumstances are able to act and choose freely. No one is holding a gun to their heads. They are not drugged, or in chains, or subject to a psychological compulsion. They are therefore wholly free to choose and act even if their whole physical and psychological make-up is entirely determined by things for which they are in no way ultimately responsible - starting with their genetic inheritance and early upbringing.

Incompatibilists hold that freedom is not compatible with determinism. They point out that if determinism is true, then every one of one's actions was determined to happen as it did before one was born. They hold that one cannot be held to be truly free and finally morally responsible for one's actions in this case. They think compatibilism is a 'wretched subterfuge..., a petty word-jugglery', as Kant put it (1788: 189-90 ). It entirely fails to satisfy our natural convictions about the nature of moral responsibility.

The incompatibilists have a good point, and may be divided into two groups. Libertarians answer 'Yes, Yes' to questions (1) and (2). They hold that we are indeed free and fully morally responsible agents, and that determinism must therefore be false. Their great difficulty is to explain why the falsity of determinism is any better than the truth of determinism when it comes to establishing our free agency and moral responsibility. For suppose that not every event is determined, and that some events occur randomly, or as a matter of chance. How can our claim to moral responsibility be improved by the supposition that it is partly a matter of chance or random outcome that we and our actions are as they are?

The second group of incompatibilists is less sanguine. They answer 'No, No' to questions (1) and (2). They agree with the libertarians that the truth of determinism rules out genuine moral responsibility, but argue that the falsity of determinism cannot help. Accordingly, they conclude that we are not genuinely free agents or genuinely morally responsible, whether determinism is true or false. One of their arguments can be summarized as follows. When one acts, one acts in the way one does because of the way one is. So to be truly morally responsible for one's actions, one would have to be truly responsible for the way one is: one would have to be causa sui, or the cause of oneself, at least in certain crucial mental respects. But nothing can be causa sui - nothing can be the ultimate cause of itself in any respect. So nothing can be truly morally responsible.

Suitably developed, this argument against moral responsibility seems very strong. But in many human beings, the experience of choice gives rise to a conviction of absolute responsibility that is untouched by philosophical arguments. This conviction is the deep and inexhaustible source of the free will problem: powerful arguments that seem to show that we cannot be morally responsible in the ultimate way that we suppose keep coming up against equally powerful psychological reasons why we continue to believe that we are ultimately morally responsible.

---

(One can see why the Reenkmeister abandons reason from time to time and embraces his human irrationality :wink:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Claudius the God

Why do many people who take things on faith - including religion and superstition - have such a problem with those of us who understand the universe based on the rational interpretation of evidence?

---

Well, I don't know the attitudes of every religious person, but while some religious people certainly do have a problem like you have stated, I am quite sure that it goes both ways...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Claudius the God

the decision to use secular ethics and the scientific method and generally being non-religious is attacked by many religious people - including many 'religious moderates' as beeing unethical and short-sighted and generally stupid and "sinful".

---

Claudius, aside from "sinful", you have attacked religion/religious people/religious teachings in this thread as generally unethical, short-sighted, and stupid...

****************

This generalization (though it is a generalization, I think it is a fair one) may be a sort of answer to your further questions:

People hold their personal belief systems and ideologies to be superior to others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

And Catholicism today is against everything you use to condemn it- so how is it bad? How can you complain about religion using outdated examples and argue it shouldn't be followed, while ignoring the evils that the use of 'reason' has brought upon us and not condemn atheism and the reverance of reason?

---

Isn't Catholicism against the use of condoms, abortion, and a lot of other things ? Isn't Catholicism still regarding homosexuality as bad ?
Just a few days ago, we were told that religious service would be better if spoken in latin rather than french. And if the Opus Dei isn't the inquisition-like sect described in Da Vinci Code, it's an organisation that seems rather outdated nowadays.

AFAIK, the Church was still a "fairly conservative" (ie. against everything that was invented after the 18th century) institution 60 years ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

The core problem with atheism and the like is that there are no hard and fast moral boundaries. Look at the 'Reign of Terror' during the French revolution - when tens of thousands were killed by the authorities and mobs. Why? Well due to simple reason; supporters of the revolution viewed it as a moral good that needed to succed, so they needed to remove obstacles to its success, and if that meant killing people, then killing those people was good because it supported the revolution.

---

How is that different from christians killing muslims because they thought it pleased their god ? Or from muslims killing christians ?
I could name hundreds of events that involved people from religion A killing people from religion B, although religion A moraly prohibit violence.

As a lot of people have said in this topic, genocides were committed in the name of religion as well as in the name of reason (the best example being the Holocaust, which was based both on religion and reason).
Yet, as Aenlic stated, I think religion, or more precisely organised religion is a slowdown to our "mental" evolution. As long as some people's lives are dictated by the local priest/imam, there's a serious issue.

If people want to do weird thing in private, that's up to them (as long as they don't get in the really weird and freaky things like killing animals, raping children and so on), but no religion should be allowed to trouble public order.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

So 'Do Not Kill' is obsolete? Or are you refering to the old codes no longer held as guidance?

---

Do you speak Greek?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

The core problem with atheism and the like is that there are no hard and fast moral boundaries. Look at the 'Reign of Terror' during the French revolution - when tens of thousands were killed by the authorities and mobs. Why? Well due to simple reason; supporters of the revolution viewed it as a moral good that needed to succed, so they needed to remove obstacles to its success, and if that meant killing people, then killing those people was good because it supported the revolution.

Christianity has infused our culture to the point that people view killing as bad- what argument can there be made for not killing from a purely 'reasonable' view?
Say that I have a family and we are starving and cannot get food. If I have to kill a person and steal his property to eat, then is that not an overall benefit - I am saving more lives than I am taking, no?

---

People view killing as bad because it's human nature to consider killing bad. The only people who don't are psychopaths. You take any normal person, Christian or Atheist, raised in whatever society and they won't be just up and kill someone because they can, or because they can make a buck out of it. They have to work on soldiers to get them to the point where they are willing to kill.

It doesn't matter that Atheism has no moral code, people naturally create or adopt a moral code, there was one before Christianity you know that?

As for your examples, the Inquisition was made up of Christian as was the Donner party so I'm not sure what your point was.

Not a few societies have gotten on right well without Christianity telling them it's not exactly productive to smash in your neighbour's skull over lawn ornaments. Well, more or less. Christians were happily killing each other off at, quite literally, the drop of the hat until the burgeoning states finally got something akin to a decent law-enforcement system working sometime after 1700 AD (YMMV by locale). Took even longer for the societies concerned to get to the point where the idea of killing other human beings was fundamentally and reflexively abhorrent to the average citizen.

Anyway, each and every one society, if they didn't quite regard killing people as a bad thing per ce - there's historically been no shortage of singlularly bloodthirty and/or war-fixated ones after all - nonetheless regulated fairly strictly when, where and who it was okay to whack, and came up with sanctions against people who broke those rules. It doesn't really have anything to do with religion; it's a question of pure societal functionalism to avoid stark bloody anarchy, which nobody is ever very happy with very long. That's why such chaos invariably spawns all manners of warlords who try to impose some vague semblance of (usually unpleasant) order within their sphere of influence, after all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Only the fanatics have major problems with that. Now to the remaining population of faith, you can actually answer that yourself with a question that is viewed slightly different. Why does the individual who views the universe the way you do hav such a problem with understanding those who take things on faith?

Communication and its failures will tend to add enlightment to the problems posed by the question.

---

because of the next question which is never answered satisfactorally - where/what is the evidence?

and often after deliberately questioning ideas that are based on faith rather than evidence - the skeptic is too often regarded as immoral or stubborn for taking this line and questioning doctrine and ideas. the fundamental difference is the leap of faith.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Most of this goes under the fallacy of logic of the religious that without religion one can not have morals. Morals are what many use to define ethics and what is right and wrong. The humanist philisophy is often seen as self-serving versus community by many religious people.

---

I understand this perspective and have thought about it a little in the past. religious faiths have a strong community element - they are mostly organized religions after all. Humanism and other non-religious groups are minorities in larger communities which are mostly faith-based. weather Humanism and other non-religious groups should have stronger social organization is not something i'm sure about, but the exclusiveness of many faith-based social groups presents a problem. the non-religious individual has to sacrifice their values and philosophy in order to become a part of the larger faith-based community. this is too much to ask. I would not describe Humanism as self-serving, but I agree that it doesn't as yet have a strong social organization (like a church or community groups or whatever) to be described as involvment in the wider community on many matters.

but even if the Humanists and non-religious groups were to have weekly community gatherings as a regular organized thing, would this help things between the faith based and non-faith based communities? - I'm not sure...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Why should you? If you do not have faith you cannot believe - so why would I ask you to believe as I do?

Rethorical questions I know, but since I don't ask people to believe as I do - I really can't answer the question. Your desires and believes are yours not mine. If you chose to follow non-religous path that is your choice.

---

fair enough, and thank you. There are many religious groups and individuals that will stop at almost nothing to get people to convert to one particular faith or another. it creates a lot of problems...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Why do those that don't believe in this or that deity feel the need to attack those that believe in a deity? Since I don't attack science because of its desire to explain the universe, I can only ask the rethorical question that is the opposite of yours. Why attack me for my faith if I do not attack your lack of faith?

I believe that my faith in God is based solely upon my soul, attempts by others to explain the universe does not threaten my soul, so individuals who wish to find answers to the workings of the universe and the human dimension I don't have any issues with.

---

I'm not sure about you, but from where I am it feels like self-defense. non-religious people are very much the minority and are sick of the persecution and discrimination - especially in places like the Bible Belt in the USA. You yourself may not have directly attacked non-religious views, but many of your religious peers have done so.

you don't seem to have any issues with information which many find undermines their faith - information and methods such as the use of Reason, Logic, the Scientific Method, Evolution, etc. have been seen to be directly threatening religious faith (at least in Western Civilization).

many people of religious faith find the very existence of Atheism, Humanism, etc to be offensive to their beliefs and do attack them directly.

is the rational interpretation of evidence an attack on faith? and does the promotion of faith undermine Reason and Science?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Faith is based upon belief. My ancedotal evidence would not meet the scientific criteria of evidence because it can not be repeated over and over again. So if I believe something because of my interpation of the event based upon my faith - does that necessarily make it wrong? I don't expect others to believe my evidence of faith because to simply put it, it was my experience - an event that you can not duplicate. Needless to say my ancedotal evidence of God's existance is the birth of my son. Seven weeks premature with no medical issues. This after doctors initially called the pregency tubal and required abortion to prevent my wife's death. But I don't expect you or anyone else to take my ancedotal evidence as proof. Hell I even suspect some will want to ridicule my faith because they could provide very plausible scienitific explantations for why the pregency was initially ruled as tubal but ended up not.

---

well congratulations anyway. I too was born several weeks premature...

Faith gives comfort to many. I have no desire to take this away from anybody, and I bet that most other Humanists would agree. But to deliberately try to undermine Science in the name of religious faith (like Intelligent Design being pushed into public education) is horribly disgusting, and even many people of faith - including numerous priests - have opposed the Intelligent Design movement.

I for one do not try to make people of faith 'convert' to Atheism or Humanism or whatever, I want everyone to be educated enough on all religious and non-religious philosophies to have a healthy respect for each other. Why? because too many people don't have any respect for the non-religious minority which often leads to conflict and persecution and so on...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

I have never seen this claim when I was a organized church going christian - nor do I practice it.

---

many preachers of religious faiths generally have it, though some are skillful enough to hide it. It is less common in the average follower but it is still sometimes the case. The few religious preachers that are not so arrogant and "superior" are the most civilized. I generally have little problem with these guys, they tend to respect non-religious people more...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

They are often insulting to those of the faith also.

---

good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

I would disagree with this statement. I know many individuals of faith that are not arrogant toward individuals who hold non-religious views.

---

indeed... though I've encountered plenty of arrogant Christians promoting Christianity on university Campus (students and non-stdents alike) - they are terribly arrogant and self-righteous...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

All philisophies to this to varying degrees. Are you disgusted with all philisophies on life that are out there? Pointing out the contradictions in the religious text is useful - but when one takes a hard line stance - are you not doing the same thing your complaining about?

---

good point. I generally avoid taking a hard line stance, and I'm not a student of Philosophy so I don't know enough about many to have what I would call disgust.

I will point out though that I sometimes oppose hard line Atheism (some would call it anti-theism)... I saw a pamphlet advertising an Athist Society seminar about "should religions be tollerated?" and was rather uncomfortable with the argument. I refused to attend the seminar. I prefer promoting education about Humanist philosophy and secular ethics in 'Religious Education and Ethics' classes in schools rather than encouraging petty intollerance against religious groups.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

I just wanted to point out that determinism has much to do with the topic of free will (which in turn has much to do with ethics).

I will elaborate my post in great detail.
...

---

wow, that certainly is complicated and full of hypotheticals about ethics. thanks for the explanation

I just try to use common sense, and don't see how a belief in sins or the divine or divine judgement helps to solve the problem of determinism and moral responsibility... it doesn't really solve such problems with what I would call sensible justice...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

Well, I don't know the attitudes of every religious person, but while some religious people certainly do have a problem like you have stated, I am quite sure that it goes both ways...

---

true... each sees the potential for unethical behaviour in the other...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

Claudius, aside from "sinful", you have attacked religion/religious people/religious teachings in this thread as generally unethical, short-sighted, and stupid...

---

perhaps this is so. we'll just have to agree to disagree. though I would not say that all religious teachings or people have these qualities, just a select few... the question is, what should be done about serious problems like religious intollerance or the lack of an organized community structure amongst non-religious communities? I think these two are the biggest criticisms for each side... would you agree?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

This generalization (though it is a generalization, I think it is a fair one) may be a sort of answer to your further questions:

People hold their personal belief systems and ideologies to be superior to others.

---

agreed... and so the debate continues...

Hello Claudius the God (Good name! I'm a Graves fan myself.)

I'm confused by your thread. It seems all over the place. You've got several distinct ideas, conflated discussions and a general meandering of subject matter that makes things appear rather messy. Is there one issue you are more interested in over another? Do you have a distinct position you wanted to put forward?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Hello Claudius the God (Good name! I'm a Graves fan myself.)

I'm confused by your thread. It seems all over the place. You've got several distinct ideas, conflated discussions and a general meandering of subject matter that makes things appear rather messy. Is there one issue you are more interested in over another? Do you have a distinct position you wanted to put forward?

---

thanks Pindar...

that's understandable, I'm trying to quickly respond back on several ongoing discussions...

perhaps it will help you to define my views...

I am a Secular Humanist, sometimes a Freethinker or an Atheist or simply anti-clerical (but not all the time). I strongly approve of the use of Rational skepticism and the Scientific method, and am generally distrustful of 'revealed knowledge' such as in dogma or scripture.

my main problems with organized religion is the conflict between religion and non-religion, the discrimination and lack of respect by religious fanatics primarily. I am skeptical of religious scripture, particularly the Holy Bible as Christians these days seem to get the most attention for their poor behaviour towards non-religious groups.

I don't like it when religious groups call non-religious people immoral or unethical for their lack of faith (it simply is not true, and Humanism is a good example of why it is not true)

I don't like it when faith-preachers preach their religion in public.

I am disgusted by the arrogance and hypocrisy of many Christians - the fanatics that is, and disagree on numerous subjects.

I find numerous organized religions to be corrupt and exploitative and sometimes even tyrannical and uncivilized - just look at the Moonies or Opus Dei or the Exclusive Brethren. - and to a lesser extent numerous other faiths...

some people of faith are genuinely decent, and I have no real problem with these people, just a different way of looking at things...


does that help?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Claudius the God

thanks Pindar...

that's understandable, I'm trying to quickly respond back on several ongoing discussions...

perhaps it will help you to define my views...

I am a Secular Humanist, sometimes a Freethinker or an Atheist or simply anti-clerical (but not all the time).... does that help?

---

This tells me a lot about yourself, but what is it you wish to discuss? If you're looking to engage contrary views I think it would be best to choose a single issue or put forward a single simple theses. This will draw a clear line for a fruitful discussion that can escape emoting. I think that kind of stream lining or focus will be easier for would be participants to play off each other's ideas and certainly be easier on yourself (avoiding multiple disparate conversations at once). ~:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

This tells me a lot about yourself, but what is it you wish to discuss? If you're looking to engage contrary views I think it would be best to choose a single issue or put forward a single simple theses so as to draw a clear line for a fruitful discussion that can escape emoting. I think that kind of stream lining or focus will be easier for would be participants to play off each other's ideas and certainly be easier on yourself (avoiding multiple disparate conversations at once). ~:)

---

fair enough...

okay then, perhaps without the back and forth criticisms and disagreements between the faith and non-faith sides, I should return slightly to the core subject once more...

Do Atheists and Agnostics and Humanists, etc. need to have a more organized community structure?

I ask this because this is perhaps the main criticism of secularism, etc. that Religious voices give (besides the back and forth accusations of immorality). I also ask this because non-religionists seem to sometimes feel lonely and excluded from the larger religious communities to some extent.

should there be public gatherings and places of learning and discussion primarily about the concerns of the non-religious community? with activities and food and skeptical literature and the discussion and promotion of secular ethics?



and is there a general term we can use for groups of people who are simply not religious? ... 'non-religionists' sounds a little dull to me...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Claudius the God

fair enough...

okay then, perhaps without the back and forth criticisms and disagreements between the faith and non-faith sides, I should return slightly to the core subject once more...

Do Atheists and Agnostics and Humanists, etc. need to have a more organized community structure?

I ask this because this is perhaps the main criticism of secularism, etc.

---

So you are actually wanting to just ask a question? OK, here is a reply: no there is no need.

Atheism and agnosticism are epistemic orientations regarding a metaphysical absolute and do not require anything further from the subject. Humanism refers to a rhetorical focus and/or line of inquiry that also is similarly self-enclosed (placing no further onus on the subject).

I don't think community or its lack is the main criticism of secularism.

Quote:

---

(I)s there a general term we can use for groups of people who are simply not religious? ... 'non-religionists' sounds a little dull to me...

---

I think secular would seem to do.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Atheists are hypocrites. They pretend superiority to those with irrational beliefs, based on their own irrational belief in the non-existence of a God.

Many self-proclaimed adherents of humanism are also hypocritical, claiming to be freed of the shackles of dogma, only to go on writing up tomes upon tomes of their own dogmatic points.

I think Reenk Doink got it right in noting that Reason itself must be accepted irrationally. I would caution all of my fellow Org-ahs to take care in selecting the principles by which to live their lives-- at their core, these principles cannot be rational. If you pretend that they are rational, you are fooling yourself, and may be in danger of basing your entire life on false, failed products of circular deception, far, far away from that which is Right and True.

Atheism isn't irrational. Scientifically speaking, there is no need for a God to explain the universe, and so adding a god would make the explanation more complex.

Scientifically speaking, God cannot be disproven, therefore the question itself is outside the realm of scientific investigation. The scientific process is a very useful tool for explaining our world but it lacks much as a basis for life philosophy.

You make reference to Occum's Razor, but this is merely a rule of thumb scientists use when trying to interpret data-- it is not a Law, not a Theory, not even a Hypothesis. It states that the simplest explanation is usually the best one, and its biggest weakness is that it relies on a human judgement based on the information he has on hand. Based on the data available to most people in the ancient world, the explanation of a flat Earth would have almost certainly seemed like the simplest. Later investigation, of course, proved this to be untrue.

Furthermore, I feel from the way you talk that you must have a very restrictive concept of what God could be. You say you believe in science, but science is only an imperfect human art which attempts to methodically explain observable phenomena. By its own admission, it is plagued by flaws, inaccuracies, mistaken assumptions and downright falsehoods-- all part of the continuous, and interminable, process of investigation.

So, do you believe that if humans, using the Scientific Method, arrive at a certain conclusion, that it is always correct? What if it is later proven false-- was it correct before it was disproven and incorrect afterwards? Or is there a higher truth, something that rises above human perception and control, which is constant, always, forever?

And if so, why can we not call this truth, God?

If a tree falls in the middle of the forest and nobody hears it, does it make a sound?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Del Arroyo

Scientifically speaking, God cannot be disproven,

---

I hope the police won't start working like that, sending fines to everyone because they can't prove that they didn't drive too fast.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by del aroyo

If a tree falls in the middle of the forest and nobody hears it, does it make a sound?

---

Does it really fall, or does is it just on the ground the next time someone sees is. Are we really here or is the entire world but a fignant of your imagination ?
Once you leave a room, is it still there ?

...does it matter?