Is RF officially ramsacked by the secular movement?

[Curious George]

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.

Non sequitur.

Some of them always respond with insults and 'woo woo' statements, and this is the mind of a mocker- not a thinker.

So you respond to these ad hominem with an ad hominem?

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.

a human characteristic that I would suggest we have no reason to believe is more prevalent in atheism than theism.

That isn't getting into when you ask strong atheists about why they accept scientific materialism alone as valid,

does this assume strong atheism entails materialism?

or why they think there is good and bad,

Morality is an immense subject, it seems that you would pigeonhole non-theists into one line of thinking with respect to morality, is that the case?

and how they determine the processes they believe generates emotions is more meaningful than magnetism

Not sure from where this one is coming.

Then they divert into gas-lighting, pummeling you with endless questions in attempt to slither out, or they admit it's their personal preference.

seems like you have already determined how these conversations are going to play out before they actually do so.

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.

price of tea in China?

It is these atheists I think have not thought about their views much at all. What I am here describing.

It sounds like you have many more issues with atheists than whether some are gnostic or agnostic.
[/Quote]
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

Not all atheists do reject all religions. In fact there are atheists who are religious. For me, it is the rejection of all possible gods that makes me atheist. I believe no god exists, this does not entail that I also reject all religion.

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.

It is true some may start there. I try to understand why. I imagine that when someone leaves a religion and moves directly to atheism it is because they are still in part the person they were when they were involved in there previous religion. We can imagine a case where a Christian has rejected all other religions and then they reject Christianity, what is left? It is true that some of the reasons why they may have rejected other gods or religions might also be undermined in their rejection of Christianity but that is ok. Every journey begins with a step right. They can revisit those assumptions later. It sounds more like you are upset that they have not sorted it all out before believing no god exists. We do not choose our beliefs.

 

[Curious George]

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

They sure do have an highly effective niche though.

Your use of "everybody" makes me wonder if you are trying to evaluate people when we are discussing beliefs.

 

[osgart]

Your use of "everybody" makes me wonder if you are trying to evaluate people when we are discussing beliefs.

No, just the content. I think you are reading into it. Are you evaluating me?

I have not made anything personal. But you keep trying to do that. Why? Because I disagree with you all.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

So you respond to these ad hominem with an ad hominem?

Aren't you being a bit defensive? I don't mean atheists any harm.

a human characteristic that I would suggest we have no reason to believe is more prevalent in atheism than theism.

I don't necessarily disagree

does this assume strong atheism entails materialism?

The ones I debate with tell me it does

Morality is an immense subject, it seems that you would pigeonhole non-theists into one line of thinking with respect to morality, is that the case?

That wasn't what I was going for here

Not sure from where this one is coming.

For those atheists that believe human feelings, emotions, etc are nothing more than chemical processes in the brain- how do they determine that human feeling and emotion are worth anything more than magnetism? Magnetism is a process. Based on what do they determine this?

Even non-philosophical ancient pagans had a reason they felt human life had worth. Because it expresses the gods, or fulfills some will of heaven.

seems like you have already determined how these conversations are going to play out before they actually do so.

How they did play out. Had nothing to do with me...

price of tea in China?

You honestly don't see how individualism and preference are problematic in ethics?

It sounds like you have many more issues with atheists than whether some are gnostic or agnostic.

Not really...

 

[Curious George]

No, just the content. I think you are reading into it. Are you evaluating me?

I am trying to evaluate what you are saying in this particular thread.

The last post seemed to diverge from the point we were earlier discussing. It also had an everyone is equal tone. And while that may or may not be so, all ideas are not equally efficient for the same purpose.

 

[osgart]

I am trying to evaluate what you are saying in this particular thread.

The last post seemed to diverge from the point we were earlier discussing. It also had an everyone is equal tone. And while that may or may not be so, all ideas are not equally efficient for the same purpose.

I didn't see the point in carrying on with your discussion.

I believe there are levels of equality, where there is common equality among all law abiding citizens.

I agree with the last sentence too.

Other than that , it's a hard row trying to speak to you. Too critical, and to judgmental, I find it unnecessary.

The average guy would just let it go. And I've seen you blow a few posts grammatically also.

 

[blü 2]

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

Well, yes and no. I'd have said it does no harm to one's subjective experiences and practices of love to have a working knowledge of the underlying biochemistry, which explains a lot. But of course a great many people get by very well without that.

They sure do have an highly effective niche though.

D'ac.

 

[Curious George]

I didn't see the point in carrying on with your discussion.

I believe there are levels of equality, where there is common equality among all law abiding citizens.

I agree with the last sentence too.

Other than that , it's a hard row trying to speak to you. Too critical, and to judgmental, I find it unnecessary.

The average guy would just let it go. And I've seen you blow a few posts grammatically also.

Hmmm, why do you find me too judgemental? That said, I get the observation of "too critical" and I am not surprised to hear that I have made grammatical errors. I would encourage you to point out ones that "blow posts," because I would like to correct errors that detract so much from a post that the content is incoherent.

What exactly is the problem with having a secular society? I am still not seeing it. We are ultimately discussing ideas behind the establishment and free exercise clauses.

Based on what criteria should any push towards secularism be resisted?

 

[Buddha Dharma]

What exactly is the problem with having a secular society?

If you don't see the problem with how self-oriented people are getting with pet ideologies like Libertarianism, disregard for other's well-being, lack of social responsibility, apathy, and the glorification of greed and selfishness as good- let it bear more fruit. You'll see what is wrong.

I mean by the way, the current secular society and the path it's on. I don't mean secularism can't work.

Whenever I said I know why humanism is fading before- that is why. Because people are no longer human in their minds. They are consumerist cattle. They exist to work, buy stuff, enjoy sense pleasures- then ultimately die. Boy what a life!

If people knew they were human and what it meant- they'd see it as something precious to look after.

 

[Curious George]

If you don't see the problem with how self-oriented people are getting with pet ideologies like Libertarianism, disregard for other's well-being, lack of social responsibility, apathy, and the glorification of greed and selfishness as good- let it bear more fruit. You'll see what is wrong.

I mean by the way, the current secular society and the path it's on. I don't mean secularism can't work.

Whenever I said I know why humanism is fading before- that is why. Because people are no longer human in their minds. They are consumerist cattle. They exist to work, buy stuff, enjoy sense pleasures- then ultimately die. Boy what a life!

I do see plenty of issues with various ideologies, but I do not attribute those problems to secularism. Do you think such problems are attributed to secularism?

 

[Buddha Dharma]

I do see plenty of issues with various ideologies, but I do not attribute those problems to secularism. Do you think such problems are attributed to secularism?

American secularism coupled with Capitalism, I see as one of the causes. It isn't the only cause. Did you read my post and really process it? That doesn't horrify you? Do you have any moral horror left, to feel shock at something out of place and wrong?

 

[Buddha Dharma]

I am personally horrified when some modern young person, purely secular- tells me they don't see why they should have to care about anyone else. What is anyone else's happiness and well being to them?

Is that seriously what we're going for, as ideal? As the glorified man? What- the glorified brute?

 

[Curious George]

American secularism coupled with Capitalism, I see as one of the causes. It isn't the only cause. Did you read my post and really process it? That doesn't horrify you? Do you have any moral horror left, to feel shock at something out of place and wrong?

Yes, I did read; yes, I did process. But, I do not see the reasoning to attribute it to secularism. The argument seems to be that because secularism does not guard against ideologies X and Y, that secularism is to blame for X and Y. I do not see this line of thinking as correct.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

Yes, I did read; yes, I did process. But, I do not see the reasoning to attribute it to secularism. The argument seems to be that because secularism does not guard against ideologies X and Y, that secularism is to blame for X and Y. I do not see this line of thinking as correct.

You do not see how ideologies like inhuman capitalism have piggy backed on secularism and become nearly unstoppable? You do not see that?

 

[Curious George]

You do not see how ideologies like inhuman capitalism have piggy backed on secularism and become nearly unstoppable? You do not see that?

Again, that secularism does not guard against x and y, does not make it reasonable to blame secularism for x and y.

 

[osgart]

Hmmm, why do you find me too judgemental? That said, I get the observation of "too critical" and I am not surprised to hear that I have made grammatical errors. I would encourage you to point out ones that "blow posts," because I would like to correct errors that detract so much from a post that the content is incoherent.

What exactly is the problem with having a secular society? I am still not seeing it. We are ultimately discussing ideas behind the establishment and free exercise clauses.

Based on what criteria should any push towards secularism be resisted?

I have to agree with what BuddhaDharma said. That explains it. I can't explain it any better then that.

And i say, Without a good basis of moral code of justification to the secular movement, it becomes very dangerous instead of very helpful. If religion is to be held accountable, so must the secular movement be as well.

They don't get an almighty free pass.

I'm not going to nit pick every post.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

@osgart as my Tibetan Buddhist roommate would say. Secularists can blame religion all they want for endangering the world, but only through the advent of the technological sciences did humans gain the ability to really destroy our world.

 

[Curious George]

I have to agree with what BuddhaDharma said. That explains it. I can't explain it any better then that.

And i say, Without a good basis of moral code of justification to the secular movement, it becomes very dangerous instead of very helpful. If religion is to be held accountable, so must the secular movement be as well.

They don't get an almighty free pass.

I'm not going to nit pick every post.

You do not think that it unreasonable to hold religion accountable for products that are not a result of what the religion entails?

I think we should hold ideas accountable for what they actually entail.

I do not think this is asking for a free pass for secularism, or in any way a double standard.

I wouldn't expect you to nitpick every post. However, if my grammar causes a significant loss of meaning to the point where comprehension is impossible, it would be kind of you to point out the problem. This would enable me to rectify my mistake. That, IMO, is hardly nitpicking.

 

[Curious George]

@osgart as my Tibetan Buddhist roommate would say. Secularists can blame religion all they want for endangering the world, but only through the advent of the technological sciences did humans gain the ability to really destroy our world.

Meeting some secularists' bad logic with more bad logic may be meme worthy, but ultimately gets us nowhere.

 

[osgart]

You do not think that it unreasonable to hold religion accountable for products that are not a result of what the religion entails?

I think we should hold ideas accountable for what they actually entail.

I do not think this is asking for a free pass for secularism, or in any way a double standard.

I wouldn't expect you to nitpick every post. However, if my grammar causes a significant loss of meaning to the point where comprehension is impossible, it would be kind of you to point out the problem. This would enable me to rectify my mistake. That, IMO, is hardly nitpicking.

Well, Thank you for your hospitality and kindness, and I apologize if some of my statements are not as clear as I would like.

I agree