5 Questions for the secular

[ggazoo]

Though the secular view of the world is rationally possible, I don’t think that it make as much sense of the world as the view that God exists. The theory that there is a God who made the world accounts for the evidence we see better than the theory that there is no God (that statement alone requires it’s own thread, which I would be more than happy to start). Those who argue against the existence of God use induction, language, and their cognitive faculties, all of which make far more sense in a universe in which God has created and supports them all by his power.

Based on that, I’d like to impose the following 5 questions to the secularists.



If, as the evolutionary scientists say, what our brains tell us about morality, love, and beauty is not real – if it is merely a set of chemical reactions designed to pass on our genetic code – then so is what their brains tell them about the world. Then why should we trust them?


Many people on here are proponents of strong rationalism, which is nearly impossible to defend, mostly because it can’t live up to it’s own standards. How could you empirically prove that no one should believe something without empirical proof?


Many say that the Bible stunts our growth as a progressive society. How can we use our time’s standard of “progressive” as the plumbline by which we decide which parts of the Bible are valid and which are not?


How could you possibly know that no religion can see the whole truth unless you yourself have the superior, comprehensive knowledge of spiritual reality you claim that none of the religions have?


The last question pertains to altruistic behavior . If we see a total stranger fall into the river we jump in after him, or feel guilty for not doing so. In fact, most people will feel the obligation to do so even if he person in the water is an enemy. How could that trait have come down by a process of natural selection?

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

1 has nothing to do with whether there's a god.
2Let me know if you're building a bridge or high rise so I can stay far away.
3You'd rather use the standards of times & places more violent & less knowledgable?
How could that trait have not come from natural selection and/or nurture/environment? How could that trait have come from an ultraviolent egotistical god bully?
There is no evidence that a god created the world. IF there were enough evidence then WHICH god? And where has it been hiding & why?
IF there were gods that want us to know, it wouldn't be a matter of us debating which view is more sensible. It's not a matter of us being responsible for figuring all this. They are.

[Crunchy Cat]

If, as the evolutionary scientists say, what our brains tell us about morality, love, and beauty is not real – if it is merely a set of chemical reactions designed to pass on our genetic code – then so is what their brains tell them about the world. Then why should we trust them?


Many people on here are proponents of strong rationalism, which is nearly impossible to defend, mostly because it can’t live up to it’s own standards. How could you empirically prove that no one should believe something without empirical proof?


Many say that the Bible stunts our growth as a progressive society. How can we use our time’s standard of “progressive” as the plumbline by which we decide which parts of the Bible are valid and which are not?


How could you possibly know that no religion can see the whole truth unless you yourself have the superior, comprehensive knowledge of spiritual reality you claim that none of the religions have?


The last question pertains to altruistic behavior . If we see a total stranger fall into the river we jump in after him, or feel guilty for not doing so. In fact, most people will feel the obligation to do so even if he person in the water is an enemy. How could that trait have come down by a process of natural selection?


1. Because reality (external to the human mind) agrees with them. That's what truth is, when an idea / notion represented in your mind corresponds to actual reality.

2. The rule of thumb is, that the more fantastic / important a claim is the more evidence-based thinking should be applied. To apply pure evidence-based thinking to absolutely all information isn't realistic.

3. The bible isn't important so why invest the effort?

4. Religion deals with emotional satiation and human relationships. It is unrelated to objective truth.

5. We're a cooperative social species and we have developed mirror neurons that strongly influence how we interact with each other. When we see a person drowning, our mirror neurons place ourselves in that situation and elicit emotion that motivates us to help or feel guilt for being mean (not helping).

[S.A.M.]

Secular != atheist :mad:

[Norsefire]

I was about to say that. I am secular but not an atheist, do you still want me to respond?

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

I don't believe this extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence. Evidence is evidence & either something is supported by evidence or it isn't.
There is no evidence for gods. Many of the claims of evidence are just plain silly. Some are as much evidence for some other unproven theory as they are for gods.
(For the trillionth time) If a god had to have created the universe, something had to have created the god. It's turtles allllllllllllll the way.
Again, this allpowerful god hiding itself & requiring us to find it is absurd.

[Norsefire]

Actually you're wrong stranger. If a god had to have created the universe, and time began with our universe, then time might not have applied to anything prior and therefore chronological order is unnecessary. You're assuming time existed before the universe.

[Fungezoid]

If, as the evolutionary scientists say, what our brains tell us about morality, love, and beauty is not real – if it is merely a set of chemical reactions designed to pass on our genetic code – then so is what their brains tell them about the world. Then why should we trust them?

The last question pertains to altruistic behavior . If we see a total stranger fall into the river we jump in after him, or feel guilty for not doing so. In fact, most people will feel the obligation to do so even if he person in the water is an enemy. How could that trait have come down by a process of natural selection?


My opinion is that a creator God could have used the process of natural selection and/or evolution to further its own means, but that doen't mean that evolution/natural selection was the ONLY tool in God's toy box.

[Fungezoid]

Actually you're wrong stranger. If a god had to have created the universe, and time began with our universe, then time might not have applied to anything prior and therefore chronological order is unnecessary. You're assuming time existed before the universe.

Correct.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

As long as anything exists or has existed there is/was time. Feels silly to say this but even if there wasn't time, that still misses the point. Time has nothing to do with it.

[Crunchy Cat]

Secular != atheist :mad:

Nor is it mututally exclusive:

http://atheism.about.com/od/secularismseparation/p/Secularism101.htm

[Norsefire]

As long as anything exists or has existed there is/was time. Feels silly to say this but even if there wasn't time, that still misses the point. Time has nothing to do with it.

Yes, it does. And you don't know what it was like before the universe so you can't assume anything.

[scorpius]

Actually you're wrong stranger. If a god had to have created the universe, and time began with our universe, then time might not have applied to anything prior and therefore chronological order is unnecessary. You're assuming time existed before the universe.
have you seen this one yet:

Draygombs paradox

Without Time God didn't have enough Time to decide to create Time.

God is defined as The Conscious First Cause -
The First Cause is That which caused Time.
Consciousness is that which lets one make a decision.
A Decision is the action of changing ones mind from undecided to decided.
Time is the measure of change.

Premises:

Something which is caused can't be required by that which causes it.

Conclusions:

Time is required for Change.
A Decision is a Change.
Decisions require Time.
Consciousness can't let one make a decision without Time.
Consciousness requires Time.
God is Conscious.
God requires Time.
God can't be the cause of Time if God requires Time.
God isn't the cause of Time.
God isn't The First Cause.
If God isn't The Conscious First Cause then God doesn't exist.
God doesn't exist.
---------------------
what do you think?

[KennyJC]

The last question pertains to altruistic behavior . If we see a total stranger fall into the river we jump in after him, or feel guilty for not doing so. In fact, most people will feel the obligation to do so even if he person in the water is an enemy. How could that trait have come down by a process of natural selection?
[/LIST]

None of your questions interested me enough to post a response, but this one..

When will you get over this? I'm pretty sure I and others have given you plausible reasons for this that don't depict invisible sky daddies.

How many people would dive into the river to save their own child?

How many people would dive into the river to save another persons child?

How many people would dive into the river to save a stranger?

How many people would dive into the river to save an enemy?

I am pretty sure that the percentage for the above 4 scenarios would decline from top to bottom. It's a lie to say that people would jump into a river to save an enemy the same amount of times as we would for our own child.

Nevertheless, we evolved to be largely cooperative species, and once upon a time we may not have encountered enemies often, and most of the people around us were included in our social network. So today, in large cities were just about everyone is a stranger, the overwhelming response to be altruistic will prevail. Even though the notion is that people from smaller towns will be more friendly and altruistic than those living in populated areas, altruism to a lesser degree persists in cities.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

I don't need to know what it was like "before the universe" to know As long as anything exists or has existed there is/was time. It's obvious. Nothing can exist without time.
Regardless of time, any question as to the origin of the universe must also be applied to gods.

[Enmos]

lol @ this thread :D

[S.A.M.]

Nor is it mututally exclusive:

http://atheism.about.com/od/secularismseparation/p/Secularism101.htm

India is a secular country. We are theists.

Most of the athiests on this board are not secular. They mock theists and consider themselves better than them. Thats discrimination. Not secularism.

[Nasor]

I don't believe this extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence. Evidence is evidence & either something is supported by evidence or it isn't.
Well sure, evidence is evidence. But if I told you that I had a stapler on my desk and showed you a picture of my desk with a stapler on it, that could reasonably be enough evidence for you to believe my claim. If I claim to have a space alien's head on my desk and show you a picture of my desk with what appears to be an alien's severed head sitting on it, you would probably want more evidence before you believed it. Both claims are supported by exactly the same amount of evidence, but since one is more extraordinary, it requires more evidence to be convincing.

Similarly, an ancient document saying "A guy named Pontius supervised a work crew that built a bridge across this river in 25 AD" could reasonably be considered enough evidence to believe that a guy named Pontius did indeed probably supervise the construction of a bridge. But if the document said "A guy names Pontius used his magic powers to conjure a bridge across the river out of thin air in 25 AD," well, that's probably not going to be enough evidence to convince me that Pontius actually had magic powers.

[Enterprise-D]

Though the secular view of the world is rationally possible, I don’t think that it make as much sense of the world as the view that God exists. The theory that there is a God who made the world accounts for the evidence we see better than the theory that there is no God (that statement alone requires it’s own thread, which I would be more than happy to start). Those who argue against the existence of God use induction, language, and their cognitive faculties, all of which make far more sense in a universe in which God has created and supports them all by his power.

Based on that, I’d like to impose the following 5 questions to the secularists.



If, as the evolutionary scientists say, what our brains tell us about morality, love, and beauty is not real – if it is merely a set of chemical reactions designed to pass on our genetic code – then so is what their brains tell them about the world. Then why should we trust them?


Many people on here are proponents of strong rationalism, which is nearly impossible to defend, mostly because it can’t live up to it’s own standards. How could you empirically prove that no one should believe something without empirical proof?


Many say that the Bible stunts our growth as a progressive society. How can we use our time’s standard of “progressive” as the plumbline by which we decide which parts of the Bible are valid and which are not?


How could you possibly know that no religion can see the whole truth unless you yourself have the superior, comprehensive knowledge of spiritual reality you claim that none of the religions have?


The last question pertains to altruistic behavior . If we see a total stranger fall into the river we jump in after him, or feel guilty for not doing so. In fact, most people will feel the obligation to do so even if he person in the water is an enemy. How could that trait have come down by a process of natural selection?


1. Nobody ever said your emotions aren't real, they've just pointed out that there is no magical origin for them.

2. Belief is highly subjective. As many theists prove on a daily basis, belief appears to have very little to do with empirical evidence. At least at this stage of humanity's evolution.

3. Perhaps a better question should be...how is it that theists expect us to usefully apply many of the tenets of an ancient and non-contextual tome such as the bible in our progressive time?

4. Because no two distinct religions agree on their truths.

5. Dawkins explained an interesting theory about this in one of his books...and it seemed logical. In short, tribal behaviours way back when encouraged "altruistic" behaviour of a sort, except that the favours were expected to be returned. Hence beginning a humanitarian deed became automatic. As our own morals evolved, we began to note the value of committing to altruism without expecting returns.

(I also like KennyJC's answer to #5, where he points out the distinction that people will make that decision dependant on the identity of the drowning person)

[Sarkus]

The last question pertains to altruistic behavior . If we see a total stranger fall into the river we jump in after him, or feel guilty for not doing so. In fact, most people will feel the obligation to do so even if he person in the water is an enemy. How could that trait have come down by a process of natural selection?
Here's an idea regarding this: just me rambling, but it seems to be a reasonable idea, i think:

Ever see how monkeys and apes clean each other, picking bugs etc off each other, and this is then reciprocated?
Even some fish have evolved to act in synergy with others, cleaning larger fish in return for some protection from other predators as well as for food.

So we have animals that seem to "help" each other out, and get something in return.

Not altruistic, but let's start there anyway.

We then move into the domain of a society. Survival is an instinct, and in a society, the survival of that society benefits the individuals within. Animals (not just humans) have noted that groups are stronger than individuals - mutually beneficial.
So it becomes natural to help the society, and in return the society helps you. It becomes the vehicle by which the give and take is moved one step from direct give/take between two people, to a more interconnectedness: you give to one, who gives to someone else, who gives back to you etc.

From the outside it might look as though one person giving without return is altruistic, but the society gives. Some might give more than take, some take more than give... but it all balances - and one never knows when they'll be on one side of the scale or another.

Anyhoo - just a thought :)

[spidergoat]

If, as the evolutionary scientists say, what our brains tell us about morality, love, and beauty is not real – if it is merely a set of chemical reactions designed to pass on our genetic code – then so is what their brains tell them about the world. Then why should we trust them?

Morality, love, and beauty are subjective judgments. This brain of chemical reactions is able to determine the methods for objective judgments about the world. They call it the scientific method. Besides that, the emergent properties of love, beauty, etc., are not necessarily genetically programmed. We do develop our own responses that can be contrary to the best interests of the genes.


Many people on here are proponents of strong rationalism, which is nearly impossible to defend, mostly because it can’t live up to it’s own standards. How could you empirically prove that no one should believe something without empirical proof?

I can't say that no one should believe in something, but I can say that that thing they believe in has no logical or rational support. Besides proof (which even in science is often impossible and irrelevant), we can show statistically the results of a certain pattern of behavior.



Many say that the Bible stunts our growth as a progressive society. How can we use our time’s standard of “progressive” as the plumbline by which we decide which parts of the Bible are valid and which are not?

The bible is like an inkblot test. It contains so many contradictory statements that anyone can read into it what they want. I say chuck the whole thing out as a suitable guide to living and make up your own based on intuition, feeling, and the desires of the people.


How could you possibly know that no religion can see the whole truth unless you yourself have the superior, comprehensive knowledge of spiritual reality you claim that none of the religions have?

If religion confined itself to amorphous spiritual matters, it would be difficult to make objective judgments about it. However, it makes claims about the physical world that can be tested.


The last question pertains to altruistic behavior . If we see a total stranger fall into the river we jump in after him, or feel guilty for not doing so. In fact, most people will feel the obligation to do so even if he person in the water is an enemy. How could that trait have come down by a process of natural selection?


Easily. We evolved in small tribal groups. It is likely that anyone you might meet from your tribe will share a certain percentage of your genes. Therefore, it is beneficial to assist them in emergencies as well as other activities. Of course, we don't think this through like that because evolution has already shaped our brains to act in this way. Rather, people that acted this way tended to live and preserve the tendency to act this way. In fact, all social creatures behave altruistically, it's natural. Religions only codified what was already there.

[Nin']

If, as the evolutionary scientists say, what our brains tell us about morality, love, and beauty is not real – if it is merely a set of chemical reactions designed to pass on our genetic code – then so is what their brains tell them about the world. Then why should we trust them?

Well if you really want to get down to it, you can't prove anything other then your own existence. We trust them just like you trust that the reality you perceive is real.


Many people on here are proponents of strong rationalism, which is nearly impossible to defend, mostly because it can’t live up to it’s own standards. How could you empirically prove that no one should believe something without empirical proof?

I really don't understand this question.


Many say that the Bible stunts our growth as a progressive society. How can we use our time’s standard of “progressive” as the plumbline by which we decide which parts of the Bible are valid and which are not?

We attempt to subjectively understand what is fair and moral through the use of our BRAINS. It's really not hard to understand.


How could you possibly know that no religion can see the whole truth unless you yourself have the superior, comprehensive knowledge of spiritual reality you claim that none of the religions have?

lol wat?

I wasn't aware that I needed knowledge of 'spiritual reality' to say religion is wrong. There's also a strong double standard here, you wouldn't tell someone they needed to have comprehensive knowledge of children's fairy tales to see if they are fictional or not. Or do you?


The last question pertains to altruistic behavior . If we see a total stranger fall into the river we jump in after him, or feel guilty for not doing so. In fact, most people will feel the obligation to do so even if he person in the water is an enemy. How could that trait have come down by a process of natural selection?
[/LIST]

There are entire books on this, see The Selfish Gene.

Guilt comes from empathy because as intelligent self-aware Human beings we know what if feels like for others to suffer. Monkeys have been shown to have feelings just like us, yet biblically they are just dirty, souless animals.

[JDawg]

I love how theists with no knowledge of any of the sciences try to argue science and logic to back their claim for god, trying to shift the burden of proof...ridiculous.

[SkinWalker]

As SAM and Norsefire already pointed out, one can be both secular and religious, but I'll answer the questions anyway.


Based on that, I’d like to impose the following 5 questions to the secularists.


[LIST=1]
If, as the evolutionary scientists say, what our brains tell us about morality, love, and beauty is not real – if it is merely a set of chemical reactions designed to pass on our genetic code – then so is what their brains tell them about the world. Then why should we trust them?

I don't know of any evolutionary scientists that assert what are brains tell us isn't real with regard to morality, love, etc. Chemical reactions, synaptic activity, and cognitive functions are definitely real. It is true that the cognitive priorities we place on constructs like morality and beauty are based on our own experiences, but this doesn't devalue the reality of the effect.

Question 1 mischaracterizes the positions of science. Its a strawman.

Many people on here are proponents of strong rationalism, which is nearly impossible to defend, mostly because it can’t live up to it’s own standards. How could you empirically prove that no one should believe something without empirical proof?

True rationalism can neither be strong or weak. Something is either as rationally described or evaluated as possible or it isn't. But even if the argument you're positing is held by the so-called "secularists" is truly held, I would ask why should equal value be given to things that can be empirically demonstrated as things that cannot? Moreover, if you believe that things that cannot be empirically demonstrated have prima facie value, where then do you draw a line? Just the "spiritual" or superstitions in your own culture or do you give equal value to the "spirituality" and superstitions of other cultures? If so, would this apply even to the superstitions of cultures that contradict your own?

Question 2 is a mischaracterization of what those who hold secular beliefs assert. It is a strawman.

Many say that the Bible stunts our growth as a progressive society. How can we use our time’s standard of “progressive” as the plumbline by which we decide which parts of the Bible are valid and which are not?

The bible isn't capable of "stunting" the progress of society. It's just a piece of overrated literature. People stunt the progress of society. It could be people who have irrational ideologies based on irrational, literal, or even liberal interpretations of biblical passages, cherry-picked and defined or re-defined to suit their ideologies. Moreover, there's no reason, that I can see, to bother with validating any portion of the bible -assuming that by "validating" one means assigning certain portions to divine authorship. If you have another definition of "validating," feel free to clarify.

Question 3 mischaracterizes the nature of societization, progress, and cultural evolution. It is a strawman.

How could you possibly know that no religion can see the whole truth unless you yourself have the superior, comprehensive knowledge of spiritual reality you claim that none of the religions have?

The general position of secular philosophy isn't that no religion can see the whole truth so much as it is there's no good reason to assume that any single religion can reveal truth based on its superstitions. Moreover, "spiritual reality" is a meaningless and baseless term except to note that humans have superstitions which they refer to as "spiritual" and the existence of such superstitions is an apparent "reality."

Question 4 mischaracterizes the nature of secular philosphy which doesn't set out to disprove superstition but, rather, to claim only that superstitions are not necessary to lead a humanistic and moral life. Indeed, many secular humanists also have religious beliefs, the simply don't think that one must be of their own religion to have morals, ethics, love, beauty, etc.

Question 4 is a strawman.

[5]The last question pertains to altruistic behavior . If we see a total stranger fall into the river we jump in after him, or feel guilty for not doing so. In fact, most people will feel the obligation to do so even if he person in the water is an enemy. How could that trait have come down by a process of natural selection?

How could it have not? Non-human primates exhibit similar attributes and characteristics of altruism as do several species of birds and canines. Does this imply they are religious?

Question 5 mischaracterizes the nature of altruism and implies that altruism cannot be naturally selected for without demonstrating why. Merely stating it so is expecting it to be an accepted statement without premises is an appeal to force.

Question 5 is both a strawman and argumentum ad baculum or a fortiori.

I hope you found this helpful.

[Enterprise-D]

If religion confined itself to amorphous spiritual matters, it would be difficult to make objective judgments about it. However, it makes claims about the physical world that can be tested.


Duh...excellent answer SG...simple and powerful statement.

[S.A.M.]

Like ethics, morality and politics?

[SkinWalker]

Like ethics, morality and politics?

On cognitive, sociological, anthropological and psychological levels, yes. But each of these disciplines looks at these social constructs with somewhat differing perspectives.

The claims about the physical world are, nevertheless, there: claims of global flood, limited ages of the planet, temporary cessation of planetary rotation, intercessory prayer, etc.

These sorts of claims are at least potentially testable in that the physics can be worked out, the fossil/geological record can be examined, double-blind studies conducted, etc.

So, to answer your question: no. Not like ethics, morality and politics. Social constructs like this are informed by human behavior and experiences, which include religion.

[S.A.M.]

These sorts of claims are at least potentially testable in that the physics can be worked out, the fossil/geological record can be examined, double-blind studies conducted, etc.

What I find interesting in these studies [and I am not debating the validity of either premise here] is that there is an assumption on the part of the investigator that "disproving" any of these theories is somehow a negation of theism.

[SkinWalker]

They aren't negations of theism. They're only negations of the specific claims of theism. Nor does negating a single claim of theism necessarily invalidate other claims of theism unless one claim is dependent upon another.

However, I would say that more and more claims of theism may come into question as more and more are negated.

Also, if you're of the belief that your doctrine is the literal work of your god and inherently inerrant, then you might be predisposed to believe that to negate a single claim negates all, therefore you protect the single regardless of the evidence to the contrary.

I'm trying very hard to word this as carefully as possible so as not to seem like the typical "angry atheist," and I hope I did. I'd rather the content of my words be the main focal point rather than my personal worldview.

[ggazoo]

Well if you really want to get down to it, you can't prove anything other then your own existence.

How can we even prove that? Who's to say that we all didn't come into existence just 5 minutes ago, but our memories are programmed to take us back further than that?

[S.A.M.]

First of all Sharia is not divine guidance. It is based on Fiqh and contains all the legal systems with arguments on jurisprudence from Muslim societies. It includes for example,old pagan Arab Bedouin laws, commercial law from Mecca, agrarian law from Madina, laws from the conquered countries under Muslims, Roman law and Jewish law.

Its not "my" idea of secularism that I was explaining. It was Mohammed's. My own idea is that sharia is not limited to Muslims. In a society like that covered by the Dastur ul Medina, where political, cultural and social rights are equal and shared, sharia [or consensus] is extended to everyone.

I think it is a fatal mistake to believe that Islam is for the Muslims. It is for everyone.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

India is a secular country. We are theists.

Most of the athiests on this board are not secular. They mock theists and consider themselves better than them. Thats discrimination. Not secularism.

I certainly don't intend to be mean. but it's nigh impossible to discuss these things without seeming to mock & nearly as difficult not to actually fall into a mocking mood. Plenty of theists mock atheists & religions other than theirs much nastier than I've seen from atheists. At least I have logic behind me rather than faith.
Try telling a mechanic autos actually don't run on gasoline. The gasoline disappears as divine spirits make the parts move. Because The Holy Babble says so.
If the sun stood still, as the Holy Babble says, primitive people wouldn't have noticed it a bit.
The Holy Babble says Earth has 4 corners, there was a day before the sun or Earth were created, in some cases a rape victim should be forced to marry her attacker, people should suffer horribly for eternity simply for believing the "wrong" thing, menstruation is a sickness, a man with defective genitals can't enter the temple, go ye therefore into the world & preach the gospel to every CREATURE, etc etc
Criticizing someone for mocking absurdities is absurd.

[S.A.M.]

Criticizing someone for mocking absurdities is absurd.

If you think a difference in belief is absurdity, you're intolerant.

Do you go to other countries and laugh at people who do things differently than you?

[Enterprise-D]

How can we even prove that? Who's to say that we all didn't come into existence just 5 minutes ago, but our memories are programmed to take us back further than that?

As good old Commander Riker addressed this comment once in Star Trek..."Anything is possible. What however is the likelyhood of such an event?"

[XPsyrixX]

Though the secular view of the world is rationally possible, I don’t think that it make as much sense of the world as the view that God exists. The theory that there is a God who made the world accounts for the evidence we see better than the theory that there is no God (that statement alone requires it’s own thread, which I would be more than happy to start). Those who argue against the existence of God use induction, language, and their cognitive faculties, all of which make far more sense in a universe in which God has created and supports them all by his power.

Based on that, I’d like to impose the following 5 questions to the secularists.



If, as the evolutionary scientists say, what our brains tell us about morality, love, and beauty is not real – if it is merely a set of chemical reactions designed to pass on our genetic code – then so is what their brains tell them about the world. Then why should we trust them?


Many people on here are proponents of strong rationalism, which is nearly impossible to defend, mostly because it can’t live up to it’s own standards. How could you empirically prove that no one should believe something without empirical proof?


Many say that the Bible stunts our growth as a progressive society. How can we use our time’s standard of “progressive” as the plumbline by which we decide which parts of the Bible are valid and which are not?


How could you possibly know that no religion can see the whole truth unless you yourself have the superior, comprehensive knowledge of spiritual reality you claim that none of the religions have?


The last question pertains to altruistic behavior . If we see a total stranger fall into the river we jump in after him, or feel guilty for not doing so. In fact, most people will feel the obligation to do so even if he person in the water is an enemy. How could that trait have come down by a process of natural selection?


Christian. Hear me. Belief in your "God" requires the assumption of the existence of a "soul". Give me evidence of a "soul", since you certainly can't give evidence of your "God". I will reply once the necessity for me to make such a ridiculous leap has been satisfied. More likely, you will hide away in a corner, mewling to your "God", just as you did in the gladiatorial arenas, as the lions paced about. You will get as much help as those lion-meals to be did.

[Roman]

Most of the athiests on this board are not secular. They mock theists and consider themselves better than them. Thats discrimination. Not secularism.

You can be discriminatory and still secular.
Secular refers to practices of the government. As far as I know, most of the atheists on this board are unemployed highschoolers.

[S.A.M.]

You can be discriminatory and still secular.
Secular refers to practices of the government. As far as I know, most of the atheists on this board are unemployed highschoolers.

Secular is an ideology, the government represents what the people want. If you are discriminatory, you're not secular. I cannot for example, be killing athiests and claim to be secular.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

You can be discriminatory and still secular.
Secular refers to practices of the government. As far as I know, most of the atheists on this board are unemployed highschoolers.

You don't know very far.

[Nin']

How can we even prove that? Who's to say that we all didn't come into existence just 5 minutes ago, but our memories are programmed to take us back further than that?

1. I think

2. Therefore, I am

I'm not saying we can prove our physical existence, just they existence of your own mind.

[Enterprise-D]

You can be discriminatory and still secular.
Secular refers to practices of the government. As far as I know, most of the atheists on this board are unemployed highschoolers.

You don't know very far.

Clearly he does not.

[Medicine*Woman]

I certainly don't intend to be mean. but it's nigh impossible to discuss these things without seeming to mock & nearly as difficult not to actually fall into a mocking mood. Plenty of theists mock atheists & religions other than theirs much nastier than I've seen from atheists. At least I have logic behind me rather than faith. Try telling a mechanic autos actually don't run on gasoline. The gasoline disappears as divine spirits make the parts move. Because The Holy Babble says so.
If the sun stood still, as the Holy Babble says, primitive people wouldn't have noticed it a bit. The Holy Babble says Earth has 4 corners, there was a day before the sun or Earth were created, in some cases a rape victim should be forced to marry her attacker, people should suffer horribly for eternity simply for believing the "wrong" thing, menstruation is a sickness, a man with defective genitals can't enter the temple, go ye therefore into the world & preach the gospel to every CREATURE, etc etc. Criticizing someone for mocking absurdities is absurd.
*************
M*W: I hadn't noticed before your wisdom. I promise to thoroughly read what you write from now on.

I am at a loss to find that this forum doesn't permit atheists to speak their peace. This is fastly becoming a theist's forum, and then I'm gone.

[ggazoo]

I certainly don't intend to be mean. but it's nigh impossible to discuss these things without seeming to mock & nearly as difficult not to actually fall into a mocking mood. Plenty of theists mock atheists & religions other than theirs much nastier than I've seen from atheists.

But what you fail to understand is that the only way that we'll all be able to get along is to get sympathetically into one another's shoes. If you don't believe in God, you need to try to understand why anybody does, or we're not going to be able to work in a pluralistic society.

When the new atheist books (Dawkins, Hitchens, and company) say that religion is bad, that's not a new thesis. What's new about those books is that they say that respect for religion is bad.

If you counsel one section of your population to belittle and disdain the beliefs of another group of people (which is exactly what you're doing) - who's beliefs give them great joy and meaning if life - and do nothing to understand the other group - that's a recipe for social disaster. I've actually ignored replies on these boards just for that reason alone.

[SnakeLord]

But what you fail to understand is that the only way that we'll all be able to get along is to get sympathetically into one another's shoes.

Or.... we would all get along perfectly if you kept your beliefs private - at home, where they belong.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

I understand just fine. You're too biased to see it.
The only way we'll all get along is thru truth, logic & compassion rather than faith, fear, foolishness & cruelty.
I certainly don't respect cruelty & foolishness.

[iceaura]

If, as the evolutionary scientists say, what our brains tell us about morality, love, and beauty is not real – if it is merely a set of chemical reactions designed to pass on our genetic code – That's not what "the evolutionary scientists" say.

Many people on here are proponents of strong rationalism, which is nearly impossible to defend, mostly because it can’t live up to it’s own standards. How could you empirically prove that no one should believe something without empirical proof? Rationalism and empiricism are not the same thing. And proof, in the sense used there, is not involved.

How can we use our time’s standard of “progressive” as the plumbline by which we decide which parts of the Bible are valid and which are not? The how is easy. The why you would is harder - not many people do that, not even among the two or three dozen cranks that talk about the Bible "stunting the growth of a progressive society".
How could you possibly know that no religion can see the whole truth unless you yourself have the superior, comprehensive knowledge of spiritual reality you claim that none of the religions have? Same way a grade school teacher corrects math homework without a superior, comprehensive knowledge of mathematical reality.
If we see a total stranger fall into the river we jump in after him, or feel guilty for not doing so. In fact, most people will feel the obligation to do so even if he person in the water is an enemy. How could that trait have come down by a process of natural selection? Good question. That field of research is active now, with many new things learned - if you are interested, simple Google searches will lead you to fascinating world.


The last one [4] obviously refers to the struggles of the Muslims from those who were persecuting them Obviously. To some.
What I find interesting in these studies [and I am not debating the validity of either premise here] is that there is an assumption on the part of the investigator that "disproving" any of these theories is somehow a negation of theism. Not "any", many - and in the same way, repeatedly. Each is evidence against the validity of the particualr theisms making each claim, yes. Further: Some people, including some theists, do think that all theisms share a common identity or fundamental nature (am I correct in recalling that assertion, on this very forum ?). In such a position, the step from taking the debunking of several different theism's claims in the same way, to proposing that such a pattern has implications for theism itself, is not a long one.

[Nasor]

But what you fail to understand is that the only way that we'll all be able to get along is to get sympathetically into one another's shoes. If you don't believe in God, you need to try to understand why anybody does, or we're not going to be able to work in a pluralistic society.
No, it's not necessary for me to understand why people believe things that seem ridiculous to me. All that's necessary is for the theists to stop trying to force me to be a theist and live according to their religious rules. I have never tried to force a theist to become an atheist, so I'm already doing my part.

Also, you seem to be assuming that people would automatically have respect for a belief simply because they understand it, which doesn't seem likely to be true to me. What if understanding why people believe that way they do causes me to respect them even less?

When the new atheist books (Dawkins, Hitchens, and company) say that religion is bad, that's not a new thesis. What's new about those books is that they say that respect for religion is bad.

If you counsel one section of your population to belittle and disdain the beliefs of another group of people (which is exactly what you're doing) - who's beliefs give them great joy and meaning if life - and do nothing to understand the other group - that's a recipe for social disaster. I've actually ignored replies on these boards just for that reason alone.
Are you kidding? The "lack of respect" that Dawkins etc. show for religion is nothing compared to the lack of respect that theists routinely show atheists. I love the way a christian can casually announce that all atheists are evil minions of satan who will go to hell and it's accepted as normal christian behavior, but as soon as an atheist so much as bluntly states that he thinks religion is bullshit and shouldn't be respected, suddenly that's all radical and he's being offensive and hurtful.

[Norsefire]

Or.... we would all get along perfectly if you kept your beliefs private - at home, where they belong.

Why does it belong at home?

[iceaura]

But what you fail to understand is that the only way that we'll all be able to get along is to get sympathetically into one another's shoes. The general run of theists has a long way to go, there.

[Norsefire]

I agree, iceauru, but there are also militant, reptitive, narrow minded atheists.

Besides, even if we eliminate religion, there's still going to be wars and differences, there's still going to be opression and evil.

[Nin']

I agree, iceauru, but there are also militant, reptitive, narrow minded atheists.

Besides, even if we eliminate religion, there's still going to be wars and differences, there's still going to be opression and evil.

The number of militant atheists is far, far less then the amount of their theist counterparts.

[Norsefire]

The number of militant atheists is far, far less then the amount of their theist counterparts.

The number of atheists is far, far less than their theist counterparts.

[superluminal]

I was going to answer the questions, but then I actually read them.

:wallbang:

[(Q)]

If, as the evolutionary scientists say, what our brains tell us about morality, love, and beauty is not real – if it is merely a set of chemical reactions designed to pass on our genetic code – then so is what their brains tell them about the world. Then why should we trust them?

An education will alleviate the need to trust others.


Many people on here are proponents of strong rationalism, which is nearly impossible to defend, mostly because it can’t live up to it’s own standards. How could you empirically prove that no one should believe something without empirical proof?

What value is there in believing in the non-existent?


Many say that the Bible stunts our growth as a progressive society. How can we use our time’s standard of “progressive” as the plumbline by which we decide which parts of the Bible are valid and which are not?

The Bible has been shown to have invalid parts, despite "progressive"


How could you possibly know that no religion can see the whole truth unless you yourself have the superior, comprehensive knowledge of spiritual reality you claim that none of the religions have?

Are you claiming to be superior?


The last question pertains to altruistic behavior . If we see a total stranger fall into the river we jump in after him, or feel guilty for not doing so. In fact, most people will feel the obligation to do so even if he person in the water is an enemy. How could that trait have come down by a process of natural selection?

See answer to first one regarding an education.

[superluminal]

Why does it belong at home?
Really?

This is exactly the kind of blind arrogance that drives me most crazy (other than ken).

Can proponents of organized religion truly not see that an overt agenda of converting the world's population to their way of thinking is incredibly offensive?

If you want to believe in sonny jesus, go right ahead. Knock yourself out. But when you want to take that belief and use it to warp a free society into your own vision, based on arbitrary rules and standards set down by savages (yes - read your own goddamned books and disagree with me), then we have a problem. Atheists are becoming more militant because they are sick of tip-toeing around and "respecting" the institution (which is where it belongs) of religion.

[Crunchy Cat]

India is a secular country. We are theists.

Most of the athiests on this board are not secular. They mock theists and consider themselves better than them. Thats discrimination. Not secularism.

Sounds like you've got a problem.

[Norsefire]

Really?

This is exactly the kind of blind arrogance that drives me most crazy (other than ken).

Can proponents of organized religion truly not see that an overt agenda of converting the world's population to their way of thinking is incredibly offensive?

If you want to believe in sonny jesus, go right ahead. Knock yourself out. But when you want to take that belief and use it to warp a free society into your own vision, based on arbitrary rules and standards set down by savages (yes - read your own goddamned books and disagree with me), then we have a problem. Atheists are becoming more militant because they are sick of tip-toeing around and "respecting" the institution (which is where it belongs) of religion.

All societies require a common stand, a common ideological system, and religion is a very convenient one.

It doesn't have to be it, though, we also can choose from fascist nationalism, which'd be great, human idealism, etc

Take your pick. But atheism isn't one, because it's a lack of anything. It isn't a belief.

[ggazoo]

Or.... we would all get along perfectly if you kept your beliefs private - at home, where they belong.



Take your pick. But atheism isn't one, because it's a lack of anything. It isn't a belief.


You both have a worldview or a narrative identity; faith-based assumptions on the nature of things. It's an implicit religion. Why then should my views be discouraged but not yours?

[SnakeLord]

Why does it belong at home?

Same reason my sisters belief in leprechauns belongs at home.

You both have a worldview or a narrative identity; faith-based assumptions on the nature of things.

1. Such as?

2. You seemingly need to learn the difference between religious blind faith and an active confidence based upon observation.

[Norsefire]

Why does your sisters belief in leprechauns belong at home? Does my belief in M theory belong at home?

Regardless, as I said, eliminating religion won't eliminate things like wars and opression; they'll just have a justification that isn't religious.

[ggazoo]

Same reason my sisters belief in leprechauns belongs at home.

1. Such as?

2. You seemingly need to learn the difference between religious blind faith and an active confidence based upon observation.


Not so. Let's begin by asking what religion is. Some say it is a form of belief in God. But that would not fit Zen Buddhism, which does not really believe in God at all. Some say it is belief in the supernatural. But that does not fit Hinduism, which does not believe in a supernatural realm beyond the material world, but only a spiritual reality within the empirical.

What is religion then? It is a set of beliefs that explain what life is all about, who we are, and the most important things that human beings should spend their time doing. For example, some think that this material world is all there is, and we are here by accident and when we die we just rot, and therefore the important thing is to choose to do what makes you happy and not let others impose their beliefs on you. Notice that though this is not an explicit "organized" religion, it contains a master narrative, an account about the meaning of life along with the recommendation for how to live based on that account of things.

As I said, this is called a worldview or a narrative identity; faith-based assumptions on the nature of things. It's an implicit religion.

[SkinWalker]

What is religion then?

Social systems whose participants avow belief in a supernatural agent or agents whose approval is to be sought.

Other definitions of "religion" lose utility because they allow too many other human social constructs to be included. If looser definitions of religion are used, then new terms and labels will need to be developed to describe those religions that include superstitions of supernatural agents. Assuming those looser definitions, social constructs that most people wouldn't consider as "religions" now must be considered as such.

This might be useful in the grand scheme of examining human social systems and sociological behavior, but serves only to confuse those who aren't aware of the effort and want to delineate between their rituals at the First Baptist Church on Sunday and their rituals at the local horse track on Tuesdays.