Is RF officially ramsacked by the secular movement?

[Jayhawker Soule]

I prefer to take as neutral a position as I can, but when I fall to a side, I tend to go the dialectic route, and eschew all debate.

To eschew or not eschew, that is the question!

Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer the sophistry of discourse laced with words like eschew and dialectic is the other question. ​

 

[columbus]

That is the problem right there. You need to be more specific.

How about you develop better reading skills?
I didn't say that. You implied it. Not me.
Tom

 

[columbus]

You joined them about the same time I became a
creationist & a deacon at Westboro Baptist Church.

You're a deacon at the Westboro Baptist Church.
I figured you for one, but I wasn't going to say it out loud. This forum is overrun with atheists. The staff is even worse.

I know what those people do at night. And it's always night somewhere.
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

You're a deacon at the Westboro Baptist Church.
I figured you for one, but I wasn't going to say it out loud. This forum is overrun with atheists. The staff is even worse.

I know what those people do at night. And it's always night somewhere.
Tom

I joined as part of their diversity outreach program.

 

[osgart]

Is it not only the secular worldview that allows for this?

I sure hope so. That's a great trait there. Religion should be amendable as well.

Because naturalism is most associated with secular conviction; the belief that life arises from mindless physical laws, and that intelligence is an emergent fluke, and that this is established fact, I withdraw from being secular.

I see otherwise good things about secular convictions. When it doesn't exclude groups of people from some of it's convictions.

I don't want to impose religion in law. And I don't want to impose naturalism in law as well.

Those subjects should be taught in schools objectively.

Also I believe in methodological naturalism for science, but I'm sure there is other methods too besides the one method. Perhaps methodological intelligence would be worth considering.

 

[Enoch07]

How about you develop better reading skills?
I didn't say that. You implied it. Not me.
Tom

No, you implied it with your generalization. Be more specific and I would not be able to counter your argument. By you being specific and saying "some Christians" that is the truth, if which I cannot argue against. Just a tiny bit of effort on your part could have saved several back and forth arguments.

 

[Curious George]

I sure hope so. That's a great trait there. Religion should be amendable as well.

Because naturalism is most associated with secular conviction; the belief that life arises from mindless physical laws, and that intelligence is an emergent fluke, and that this is established fact, I withdraw from being secular.

I see otherwise good things about secular convictions. When it doesn't exclude groups of people from some of it's convictions.

I don't want to impose religion in law. And I don't want to impose naturalism in law as well.

Those subjects should be taught in schools objectively.

Also I believe in methodological naturalism for science, but I'm sure there is other methods too besides the one method. Perhaps methodological intelligence would be worth considering.

Well I think that we both acknowledge that we lack some knowledge. The question that we face is what is the best way we can make decisions. I am suggesting that only the secular worldview allows for such evaluations and progress. So, I then must wonder why is pushing for this secular view harmful? If we have the goal of acquiring the bigger picture in mind and it is only with secularism that we can be open to the idea that our former ideas might be false or invalid, is secularism not the best path for us to tread in order to achieve this goal?

 

[osgart]

Well I think that we both acknowledge that we lack some knowledge. The question that we face is what is the best way we can make decisions. I am suggesting that only the secular worldview allows for such evaluations and progress. So, I then must wonder why is pushing for this secular view harmful? If we have the goal of acquiring the bigger picture in mind and it is only with secularism that we can be open to the idea that our former ideas might be false or invalid, is secularism not the best path for us to tread in order to achieve this goal?

I share convictions with it. But I remain open to other possibilities emerging, other ways of learning. Secularism is effective, no doubt.

 

[Curious George]

I share convictions with it. But I remain open to other possibilities emerging, other ways of learning. Secularism is effective, no doubt.

Well that doesn't answer my question at all. Did you understand my question?

 

[columbus]

. Be more specific and I would not be able to counter your argument.

Tell me what "Christianity" means, and I will do my best.

If it just means, " Believes that Jesus is Lord", then everyone from medieval Popes to Westboro Baptist Church to you and Mike Pence, are Christians.
Maybe you mean something else.
Feel free to explain.
Tom

 

[Kuzcotopia]

Not worried, but pointing out an issue, yes.



I didn't originally speak out. Osgart started this thread. Your ad hominem is also part of the problem. You are attacking me and/or Osgart, instead of the ideas proposed here.



Who said anything about oppression? I am not offended by someone saying something negative. Again your ad hominem is not helpful to the discussion at hand.

All we are asking is that the prosecutor provide some evidence or citation to reinforce their argument for, or against, any idea.

I'm just trying to understand what your talking about. But it looks like you've decided to backpedal from this statement. . .

None.... yet.

Should we have to wait until after we have our rights taken away to speak up?

So it's all good. My ad hominem was a hypothetical one based on your clairifacation of this post.

You passed!

 

[Enoch07]

Tell me what "Christianity" means, and I will do my best.

If it just means, " Believes that Jesus is Lord", then everyone from medieval Popes to Westboro Baptist Church to you and Mike Pence, are Christians.
Maybe you mean something else.
Feel free to explain.
Tom

I honestly have no idea what you are even talking about at this point. Your response has nothing to do with my post.

 

[osgart]

Well that doesn't answer my question at all. Did you understand my question?

The approach isn't harmful at all. What's harmful is using it to denigrate other people with it. And only some people look to do that. They take a cause to discredit and eliminate opposition, Instead of to enlighten, and encourage.

If religion deserves scrutiny, so does secularity. And I believe they both need it.

 

[osgart]

Well that doesn't answer my question at all. Did you understand my question?

I don't like when I go to rf, to talk religion, and there's no more religious people, and all you hear is anti religious points of view. So I thought perhaps the tones of these conversations were too negative.

 

[Enoch07]

I'm just trying to understand what your talking about. But it looks like you've decided to backpedal from this statement. . .

I have not backpedaled one bit. You seem to equate voicing an issue with claiming oppression. This is your false equivalency, not mine.

All we want is a return to proper debating.

This means returning to a innocent until proven guilty approach. In which we would have more civilized higher quality debates. Which could promote understanding and growth.

Currently the majority of post take a guilty until proven innocent approach. Which is one of the reasons why the quality of the debates here slip into uncivilized p00p slinging arguments that promote no change or growth for anyone.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

Because naturalism is most associated with secular conviction; the belief that life arises from mindless physical laws, and that intelligence is an emergent fluke, and that this is established fact, I withdraw from being secular

This is one of the stronger cases a person can bring against secular materialism. This doesn't sit well with humans.

 

[osgart]

This is one of the stronger cases a person can bring against secular materialism. This doesn't sit well with humans.

I agree! In fact science has left me to wonder if there are things beyond material explanation. I believe there are.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

I agree! In fact science has left me to wonder if there are things beyond material explanation. I believe there are.

Shhhhh! *whisper* Don't tell the people that want to have the faith position of science being the only valid verification method. It might make some people a little touchy...

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't like when I go to rf, to talk religion, and there's no more religious people, and all you hear is anti religious points of view. So I thought perhaps the tones of these conversations were too negative.

As I recall, RF rules were once different for DIRs. Someone
not of the faith could politely join in on discussions. I vacationed
over in the Buddhist forum...nice folk....much in common.
Oh, well....the good ole days.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

It's odd @osgart that as soon as one says there is nothing to indicate science should be accepted as the sole means of verification, you get a bunch of angry materialists breathing down your neck- accusing you of rejecting science and stuff. It's almost with the zeal against one that rejects a faith position. Then when you tell them you accept science too, they adopt this kind of: "do you believe science is the ONLY truth"!?