Is RF officially ramsacked by the secular movement?

[Curious George]

You believe people read this

I am subject to change. And experience is also a teacher.

And get this

It says we learn from our subjective experiences, as well as objective science.

?

 

[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?

You act like the secular view is the one true way, the only truth in town.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

You act like the secular view is the one true way, the only truth in town.

I wonder how it is that secularists would explain materialism to a society that had never considered it? I mean a society like China prior to colonialism, when they had materialism forced on them. The Chinese believed in the open-ended cosmos of Taoism for the most part, prior to that. Taoists will hardly talk about anything certainly, and like Buddhists- that the world should exist at all is so amazing and unspeakable, it might be called a magical display.

 

[Curious George]

You act like the secular view is the one true way, the only truth in town.

That is actually not at all what I think. I am highlighting to best achieve what you want secularism is optimal. It has no bearing on truth. Quite simply there could be no bigger picture for us to discover. If such is the case then secularism might not be better suited as the goal might change.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

The thread 'Religious Fervor or Mental Illness' is an anti religious thread on RF

No it's not.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I would suggest the prosecution of Westboro Church then specifically. Instead of Christianity as a whole. Making a monolith of Christianity or any other ideology by lumping in extremist is not acceptable. It's the same as blaming Islam for the Taliban. Or the same as blaming atheist for the horrors and atrocities Marxist communism brought to the world.

But here’s the thing about the Westboro Baptist Church: in a lot of ways, they’re actually moderate.

They make a lot of noise, but they don’t do anything to actually deny anyone any rights or physically hurt them in any way; they just gloat about how sure they are that God will hurt the people they hate after they die.

On the issue of same-sex marriage, “moderate” Christians who want civil unions for same-sex couples but not full marriages are actually more extremist than the WBC.

 

[atanu]

No it's not.

Author opines "...,.but I have a sneaking suspicion that there is a deep relationship between what we would normally consider as mental illness and 'religious fervor'."

To me it appears that author is suspicious. OMG, I just echoed the author?

 

[Curious George]

Author opines "...,.but I have a sneaking suspicion that there is a deep relationship between what we would normally consider as mental illness and 'religious fervor'."

To me it appears that author is suspicious. OMG, I just echoed the author?

I have seen both theism and atheism attacked on here but the thread at hand is not overtly doing so. I imagine that the author is suspicious that there is a higher correlation of mental illness in religious extremists than we see in most religious people.

 

[sayak83]

Author opines "...,.but I have a sneaking suspicion that there is a deep relationship between what we would normally consider as mental illness and 'religious fervor'."

To me it appears that author is suspicious. OMG, I just echoed the author?

Sneaking. Gollum Gollum.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Debating is the main reason I have taken leave from the forum for a few times and very lengthy at that. I am very firm in my beliefs yet many of my opinions have changed over the years as well so I am not stubborn or unreasonable about them either. Looking back on it I am not even sure if my of my opinions have the same foundation even if they are the same.

Over time I think I will stop debating period but as of now I will put up a fight or two

 

[icehorse]

You act like the secular view is the one true way, the only truth in town.

It's the "meta" way. The way that allows us to explore all the other ways.

 

[Revoltingest]

The thread 'Religious Fervor or Mental Illness' is an anti religious thread on RF

I can understand how that could be viewed as hostile.
But there are counterparts which are also valid inquiries.
I've heard the claim that atheists are either "spiritually
blind" or "in denial of their innate knowledge of God".
Those aren't necessarily hostile either. (I find them
humorous).
I say that we should all thicken our skin, & discuss such
things. But when posters do get abusive, they should
be spanked.

 

[Curious George]

It's the "meta" way. The way that allows us to explore all the other ways.

Great, now they think secularists are nerds.

 

[icehorse]

Great, now they think secularists are nerds.

some of us are!

 

[blü 2]

You act like the secular view is the one true way, the only truth in town.

Well, it seems fair to say that if one wants to answer the question "What's true in reality?" one asks a scientist, not a theologian.

If that question isn't one's priority, so be it.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

I've heard the claim that atheists are either "spiritually
blind" or "in denial of their innate knowledge of God".

I think atheists don't think about their own claims enough, or they'd probably be agnostic. That's my two cents. Take it, leave it, or go see if there's a store that'll still sell you a Red Hot for $0.02

 

[Curious George]

I think atheists don't think about their own claims enough, or they'd probably be agnostic. That's my two cents. Take it, leave it, or go see if there's a store that'll still sell you a Red Hot for $0.02

So we have here a problem with definitions. We have a group of people who assert anyone who is a non-theist is an atheist. These people categorize the different types of atheists. Of the different types only some of the atheists (strong atheists) are eligible to not fall into the agnostic category. I am assuming you are not using this definition because most atheists under this definition fall into the agnostic category.

The other definition of atheist is people who believe that no god exists(what the other group calls strong atheists). Of these, many if not most are still agnostic. That is they do not claim certainty. Of this group I have found few that do not examine their beliefs. While I have seen many people cross into atheistic belief in a reactionary way, few stay for reactionary reasons. That is, even people who are "mad at their god or gods" eventually reexamine their beliefs and decide to either return to theism, take up a form of non-theism or remain strong atheists for different reasons.

The idea that people believe a certain way because they have failed to examine their viewpoint is naïve. It is simply fallacious reasoning. Do you think this is because you do not understand the atheistic viewpoint?

 

[Buddha Dharma]

The idea that people believe a certain way because they have failed to examine their viewpoint is naïve. It is simply fallacious reasoning. Do you think this is because you do not understand the atheistic viewpoint?

I don't think that at all. I know that many atheists have not examined their views, because they always have a ready made response from the four horsemen when a religious person approaches them. Some of them always respond with insults and 'woo woo' statements, and this is the mind of a mocker- not a thinker. I don't mean to imply all atheists are thoughtless. I have encountered many of them though that shrug off any other view with what I just said. Mockery and contempt. That is ignorance by one of it's most basic definitions. To outright dismiss what you don't understand, or don't want to try to understand.

That isn't getting into when you ask strong atheists about why they accept scientific materialism alone as valid, or why they think there is good and bad, and how they determine the processes they believe generates emotions is more meaningful than magnetism. Then they divert into gas-lighting, pummeling you with endless questions in attempt to slither out, or they admit it's their personal preference. Honestly, can there be a worse justification for anything than that? A serial killer's preference is killing and they find it enjoyable, so they claim.

It is these atheists I think have not thought about their views much at all. What I am here describing. I think philosophical atheists like humanists do better, but those are becoming less and less over time. I understand why that is, but it would be taking the conversation another way. I understand why humanism is dying though.

Another question one might ask is what made atheists reject all religions, just because they concluded Christianity doesn't work for them? You can't tell me they made a reasoned and thought out decision if they simply jumped from Christianity to atheism. That's actually a simple-minded person, thinking their parents were supposed to be the authority on everything- and they let them down.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think atheists don't think about their own claims enough, or they'd probably be agnostic.

Most of us are agnostic (a subset of atheism, ie, "weak atheism").

 

[osgart]

That is actually not at all what I think. I am highlighting to best achieve what you want secularism is optimal. It has no bearing on truth. Quite simply there could be no bigger picture for us to discover. If such is the case then secularism might not be better suited as the goal might change.

Well, it seems fair to say that if one wants to answer the question "What's true in reality?" one asks a scientist, not a theologian.

If that question isn't one's priority, so be it.

With love, relationships and ultimate questions they are no better than everybody else.

They sure do have an highly effective niche though.