An attack on secularism?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Thats the argument part. The rest of it is just fluff. However, you cannot use fluff alone to justify an action such as:
"As a Christian, I believe homosexuals burn in hell, so lets make it illegal"

There is a difference between the two, you can use fluff along with the argument, but you cannot use the fluff as an argument.

It would be equal to:
"As a homophobe, I believe homosexual intercourse is nasty, so lets make it illegal".

Now, which statement is more valid than the other? There is no argument in either statements, they are simply that, statements.

"Those without money end up committing crime out of desperation, so I believe we should help them be able to help themselves, and provide that means" - Valid Argument.

"I believe as a Christian, that those without money are doing it out of desperation, turn away from teachings of God. My relationship with God helps me understand that these people need our help, in order to help themselves, we should provide that means" - Valid Argument + Religious Fluff.


Now, lets look at PVC's statement, the Anti-H one, and the "Help the Needy" one.

As you see, both PVC's and 'Help the Needy' examples are legitimate arguments which no one has any problems with being used and can be used in a secular environment.

However, the Anti-H, using both a religious and a non-religious argument, is where people have problems. Typically, it is far more associated with religion as this is historically the driving force of such laws.

Does that clear it up?

Um, Beskar, I said nothing about homosexuality, did I?

Now, your "this is the argument and this is the fluff" approach doesn't hold water, because it is not self evident, from a naturalistic standpoint, that we are all created equal. In fact, it is manifestly obvious that by every naturalistic measure we are all of us profoundly unequal. My belief in human equality is one I hold in defience of numbers and statistics because I believe in the essential equality of the human soul and the universal love which God bears all his children.

I can't see a way to defend the principle of universal equality without atleast resorting to some form of Deism.

[Beskar]

Um, Beskar, I said nothing about homosexuality, did I?

Did I ever say you did?

I can't see a way to defend the principle of universal equality without atleast resorting to some form of Deism.

I can make plenty without resorting to it at all.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

[QUOTE=Beskar;2053199973]Did I ever say you did?[quote]

'fraid so: "Now, lets look at PVC's statement, the Anti-H one, and the "Help the Needy" one."

I can make plenty without resorting to it at all.

Give me an alternative rationalisation - otherwise I submit your morality runs with a sort of "post Christian" inertia, or rather that your morality is based on metaphysical assumptions which are essentially Christian, but with the figure of God surgically removed. If this is so you have a massive structural whole in your philosophy.

Often I find among Secular Hummanists the phrase, "how the world should be" but "should" is a spiritual word in this context, it implies something divorced from the physical, some supernatural standard from which the world is fallen. The idea is one the West has inherrited directly from Christianity, and it doesn't really work shawn of God.

So, I oppose most violently your charactarisation of my most insoluable beliefs as "fluff".

[Beskar]

'fraid so:

That is a reading miscomprehension on your part. If you see my post, I made three references to yours, the Anti-H one and the "Help the Needy" one.

Let's change that order:
The Anti-H one, "Help the Needy" and PVC's.

It is still exactly the same, except out of order of how I made the statements.

It is part of the "Rule of Three" in the English language: "I think PVC is charming, handsome and witty". It doesn't mean "charming handsome and witty".

Give me an alternative rationalisation - otherwise I submit your morality runs with a sort of "post Christian" inertia, or rather that your morality is based on metaphysical assumptions which are essentially Christian, but with the figure of God surgically removed. If this is so you have a massive structural whole in your philosophy.

Nope. Why does not killing another person have to do with a range of named or unamed dieties? Was does treating another brother or sister with respect have anything to do with a deity? There is no reason for God to be there. God is just slapped on like a sticker. God even spoke about owning slaves, my morality rejects slavery.

Why does treating others like I want to be treated and that we are all as humans equal, have anything to do with any high power? I don't want to be murdered, so does the person next to be, so lets not murder. I want to say what is true, so does the person next to me, so lets speak the truth. It is all things based on freedom and liberty. To be able what you want to do, within a shared sense of order and social function.

It is the basics of ethics. God doesn't even need a place there.

So, I oppose most violently your charactarisation of my most insoluable beliefs as "fluff".

God has decreed that Pork is an unclean food and should not be eaten.

The argument for this back in the 'day' was as Cute Wolf said in the otherthread about pigs having a lot of parasites, spoils easy and was generally eaten quite raw in those days, which complicated matters.

So in the spirit of things:

God says Pork is Bad = Fluff
A reasonable and sound argument against the eating of pork in a desert = Argument

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That is a reading miscomprehension on your part. If you see my post, I made three references to yours, the Anti-H one and the "Help the Needy" one.

Your punctuation is off, it should be: "I made three references; to yours, the Anti-H one, and the "Help the Needy one"

Let's change that order:
The Anti-H one, "Help the Needy" and PVC's.

See, here, you have used a colon to indicate where the list begins.

It is still exactly the same, except out of order of how I made the statements.

It is part of the "Rule of Three" in the English language: "I think PVC is charming, handsome and witty". It doesn't mean "charming handsome and witty".

I'm sorry, but you are just slightly grammatically wrong Beskar; though I accept that you did not mean to refer to me.

Nope. Why does not killing another person have to do with a range of named or unamed dieties? Was does treating another brother or sister with respect have anything to do with a deity? There is no reason for God to be there. God is just slapped on like a sticker. God even spoke about owning slaves, my morality rejects slavery.

Why does treating others like I want to be treated and that we are all as humans equal, have anything to do with any high power? I don't want to be murdered, so does the person next to be, so lets not murder. I want to say what is true, so does the person next to me, so lets speak the truth. It is all things based on freedom and liberty. To be able what you want to do, within a shared sense of order and social function.

It is the basics of ethics. God doesn't even need a place there.

The basis of all ethics are a set of metaphysical and moral assumptions about the nature of the universe and our place within it; they were formed by Classical philosophers whoe were either theistic or Deistic, Plato's "forms" were like Gods, or aspects of "a God" because they were an ineffable ideal which was reflected in the natural world without the Form itself being identifyable present in said world.

The principle behind all this is "absolute truth", the belief that somewhere, out there, is a perfect reality and a perfectly "Right" way of interacting with that reality. In Christian thought this is termed "God".

The problem I see with your philosophy is that you are using Christian and Classical assumptions whilst having shawn them of their divine roots. Your ethics are necessarily free-floating, they are not grounded. All you have referenced as an anchor thus far is individual and group benefit, which can change with time and circumstance, but your moral positions appear fixed.

So, why are your positions fixed?



God has decreed that Pork is an unclean food and should not be eaten.

The argument for this back in the 'day' was as Cute Wolf said in the otherthread about pigs having a lot of parasites, spoils easy and was generally eaten quite raw in those days, which complicated matters.

So in the spirit of things:

God says Pork is Bad = Fluff
A reasonable and sound argument against the eating of pork in a desert = Argument[/QUOTE]

[Tuuvi]

I ended up skipping some of this thread because I just stayed up all night because I couldn't sleep so I'm really impatient and there's a couple things I want to say.

Just because some religious people and organizations try to force their beliefs on others does not mean that all religion has the intention of doing so. Secular Humanists/Atheists aren't innocent of this crime either. When some atheists talk about religion, they use words and phrases like "fanatic", "fairy-tales", "imaginary friends", "big magic man in the sky", " superstitious", "dogma", "Jewish zombie", "delusion", etc. These kinds of words have the effect of ridiculing those with religious beliefs, and ridicule is one of the most common ways people attempt to control others.

I do not believe that its wrong for a person to let their religious beliefs influence their political views, and I don't really think its possible for someone to stop their religion of choice from influencing their political thinking to one degree or another, because religion and politics are the same thing, they are beliefs. Letting your religion and politics mix does not mean that your are trying to force your religion on others. If a politician's religious beliefs state that abortion is murder so he/she tries to ban abortion, he/she is not trying force his beliefs on the whole country; what that person is trying to do is prevent something that he/sees as immoral and unjust. I can't even think of a way someone could try to force a whole country into believing that abortion is wrong through law and government. A real example of trying to force your religion on others would be writing a law that says everyone has to go to church on Sunday, or requiring a test on the contents of the bible in order to graduate from school.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Letting your religion and politics mix does not mean that your are trying to force your religion on others.

Thankyou!

[ajaxfetish]

Now, lets look at PVC's statement, the Anti-H one, and the "Help the Needy" one.

I'm sorry, PVC, but this statement is a correctly punctuated list. If I say "I went to the store to buy milk, bread, and broccoli," the three products are independent of each other. There is the potential for confusion in Beskar's sentence, since the item with you as possessor comes first (and because you're known to be religious and religion is often associated with 'Anti-H'), but on a careful reading it can't be interpreted as you possessing all three viewpoints.

I made three references; to yours, the Anti-H one, and the "Help the Needy one"

This violates English punctuation standards. A semi-colon is used to separate like elements. It could be used to separate items within a list (especially if the items have internal commas), but not to separate an independent clause from the list items. A colon where the semi-colon is would be acceptable.

On the non-grammatical issue at hand, I have yet to see Beskar ground his principle of universal equality, in spite of claiming he could defend it in many ways. He spent his time saying it has nothing to do with God, apparently as a way of avoiding explaining what objective rationale there is for it.

Ajax