| Author |
Topic:
Atheism Discussion 2.0 - Roundtable Discussion in Progress
|
redxavier
Registered:
Jan '03
|
Date Posted:
5/8 4:13pm
Subject:
RE: Atheism Discussion 2.0 - (Humanism, just don't tell Adler..)
|
_Darth_Brooks_ posted:
RED_X,
I think it doesn't need supporting, it's pretty obvious.
The perspective that I'm coming from is observing it's characteristics as that of a sociological phenomenon.
I don't think it's obvious at all - remember that there's a stark difference between Judeo-Christian philosophy and philosophy born from nations with a Judeo-Christian tradition. It seems like you're dangerously close to saying that a Western philosophical concept stemmed from Western philosophy... well duh.
For your argument to work, you need to draw upon scriptural parallels and establish their uniqueness and the lack of other similar influences on humanism. I'm not in the least bit surprised you haven't done so, because it's so much easier to say that it's true because you said it is.
-----signature-----
"You've just made me vomit in my own mouth."
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
VadersLaMent
Registered:
Apr '02
|
Date Posted:
5/8 4:41pm
Subject:
RE: Atheism Discussion 2.0 - (Humanism, just don't tell Adler..)
|
Secular humanism:
Testing, reason, scientific method, factual evidence, betterment of humans for humans.
Christianity:
Dogma, tradition, faith, mysticism, authoritarianism, all in the name of God over humans.
To call secular humanism repackaged religion of any sort is dishonest. It's like you think no one is gonna to think things through or make use of google for comparisons as brought by others. But if lies are told often enough they become the truth don't they?
-----signature-----
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic--Arthur C. Clarke
Any sufficiently advanced extraterrestrial intelligence is indistinguishable from God--Michael Shermer
I am officially Awesome.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
_Darth_Brooks_
Registered:
Sep '00
|
Date Posted:
5/8 5:42pm
Subject:
RE: Atheism Discussion 2.0 - (Humanism, just don't tell Adler..)
- Date Edited:
5/8 6:13pm (2 edits total)
Edited By:
_Darth_Brooks_
|
Never mind.
-----signature-----
"I once wanted to become an atheist but I gave up . . . they have no holidays. "
I AM AN ACT OF GOD. If you doubt it ask my insurance agent.
Whom the Mod's would destroy they first drive mad.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Lowbacca_1977
Title: Senate Moderator
Registered:
Jun '06
|
Date Posted:
5/8 8:37pm
Subject:
RE: Atheism Discussion 2.0 - (Humanism, just don't tell Adler..)
|
Re the placebo religion comment... I would think it far better to suggest that they're both trying to fill a fundamental need of people to have some optimism, be it based fundamentally upon god or gods, or upon the good of people. While one may be able to make a case for a 'need' that people have, I think saying its a need for religion is far too narrow.
_Darth_Brooks_ posted:
And, yes, I know, 'all atheists have their own belief,' or non-belief, or whatever,...many just all happen to read the same authors, borrow the same lines and concepts, visit the same web-sites,...but otherwise have nothing in common and cannot be pidgeon-holed. Okay.
Going to ask because I'm curious here.... sooo.... what authors and websites are you assuming i read/visit? I'm just wondering if I actually have read or visited any of them.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
DorkmanScott
Title: Manager Emeritus
Registered:
Mar '01
|
Date Posted:
5/8 8:39pm
Subject:
RE: Atheism Discussion 2.0 - (Humanism, just don't tell Adler..)
- Date Edited:
5/8 8:44pm (1 edits total)
Edited By:
DorkmanScott
|
Wasn't Brooks claiming that we were "bad atheists" for NOT all reading the same books and holding the same philosophical viewpoints earlier?
Scummy, if you're still here I'd be interested in what aspects of humanism you find disagreeable. I think that would be good to open up the discussion. 
-----signature-----
 Obama/Biden 2008 Let's bring back America. http://www.ryanvsdorkman.com Check out my blog: http://dorkmanscott.blogspot.com
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
MasterZap
Registered:
Aug '02
|
Date Posted:
5/9 10:04am
Subject:
RE: Atheism Discussion 2.0 - (Humanism, just don't tell Adler..)
|
_Darth_Brooks_ posted:
By placebo religion, just an expression,...the idealism embodied in humanism is basically reformulated Judeo-Christian philosophy. That's all I'm saying.
But without God! That's the point.
Christians seem to think they have the market on compassion and philosophy cornered, but that's hogwash at best.
/Z
-----signature-----
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
_Darth_Brooks_
Registered:
Sep '00
|
Date Posted:
5/9 10:13am
Subject:
RE: Atheism Discussion 2.0 - (Humanism, just don't tell Adler..)
|
Lowbacca,
"Going to ask because I'm curious here.... sooo.... what authors and websites are you assuming i read/visit? I'm just wondering if I actually have read or visited any of them."
I don't know.
What I do know, is that individuals like Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, Hitchens, et el, are popularly read( even by those of us who are not atheists, such as yours truly ), and their brand of rhetoric, both in style and conception is reiterated very frequently. Organizations like Infidels.Org gets frequently referred to in debates across the net, as well as other sites. Considering that the last topic was Dawkins, and that another poster linked to some articles at another site...I think it's fair to suggest many people are drinking at the same watering holes. Now, of course it's one thing to read a source, but another to present reiterations of arguments which parallel some of those sources. Some items come up over and over, and generally, I don't think that's merely a coincidence. There's a lot of conceptually shared territory. Y'know, I could cite some specific instances in this thread, but I really don't want to go into rehash mode,...
AND, I am not making the statements as a complaint, only in observation of certain claims to each individuals unique 'conceptual autonomy', which to some extents is a fair premise, but in the overall picture does not appear reflective of the actuality in whole.
-----signature-----
"I once wanted to become an atheist but I gave up . . . they have no holidays. "
I AM AN ACT OF GOD. If you doubt it ask my insurance agent.
Whom the Mod's would destroy they first drive mad.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
king_alvarez
Registered:
May '07
|
Date Posted:
5/9 10:15am
Subject:
RE: Atheism Discussion 2.0 - (Humanism, just don't tell Adler..)
|
|
Many Christians also seem to think that the morals we have today are because of religion. I say that the morals we have today are in spite of religion.
-----signature-----
Because there are no story-book romances, no fairy-tale endings. So before you run out and change the world, ask yourself, "What do you really want?"
Because life... is not a movie. Everyone lies. Good guys lose. And love... does not conquer all.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
_Darth_Brooks_
Registered:
Sep '00
|
Date Posted:
5/9 10:22am
Subject:
RE: Atheism Discussion 2.0 - (Humanism, just don't tell Adler..)
- Date Edited:
5/9 10:52am (1 edits total)
Edited By:
_Darth_Brooks_
|
DorkmanScott,
"Wasn't Brooks claiming that we were "bad atheists" for NOT all reading the same books and holding the same philosophical viewpoints earlier?"
I don't believe that was my statement. I believe I was pointing out that atheism inherently possesses philosophical moral, and ethical questions, ramifications if you will,...which is why I also presented some authors names which anyone can check out on-line or at the local library.
My suggestion was and remains that you simply inform yourself. R.I.F.
If you can't grasp that, gee, I don't know what to say.
By contrast to some of the comments made in this thread, yes, I was a much better, in the sense of being more informed atheist/ agnostic in regards to potential philosophical implications.
Again, there's a plethora ( like that word, never get to use it  ) of authors exploring the deep underlying philosophical issues which are attached to atheism from many perspectives...such as, again, Camus, Sartre, Nietzsche, Russell,( to list a few )...all of which can be considered classics to some extent.
-----signature-----
"I once wanted to become an atheist but I gave up . . . they have no holidays. "
I AM AN ACT OF GOD. If you doubt it ask my insurance agent.
Whom the Mod's would destroy they first drive mad.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
_Darth_Brooks_
Registered:
Sep '00
|
Date Posted:
5/9 10:28am
Subject:
RE: Atheism Discussion 2.0 - (Humanism, just don't tell Adler..)
|
King_Alvarez,
"Many Christians also seem to think that the morals we have today are because of religion. I say that the morals we have today are in spite of religion."
You can "say" anything you like, but that doesn't mean that it possesses any historical veracity.
Everyone has "morals", to some degree, such as cannibals,...but we will note their morality is not identical to ours. The specific emphasis placed upon ideals of compassion, equality, and so forth, are undeniably arisen from principles of Judeo-Christian rationale in western civ. That's simply historical. You seem to be expressing a view that 'your world' has always been the same, but quite honestly it hasn't.
So, when you say "in spite of religion", then perhaps, you'll provide some specifics?
-----signature-----
"I once wanted to become an atheist but I gave up . . . they have no holidays. "
I AM AN ACT OF GOD. If you doubt it ask my insurance agent.
Whom the Mod's would destroy they first drive mad.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
king_alvarez
Registered:
May '07
|
Date Posted:
5/9 10:31am
Subject:
RE: Atheism Discussion 2.0 - (Humanism, just don't tell Adler..)
|
_Darth_Brooks_ posted:
By contrast to some of the comments made in this thread, yes, I was a much better, more informed atheist/ agnostic.
Nope. Scanning through some philosophical works does not make someone a better, more informed atheist or agnostic.
-----signature-----
Because there are no story-book romances, no fairy-tale endings. So before you run out and change the world, ask yourself, "What do you really want?"
Because life... is not a movie. Everyone lies. Good guys lose. And love... does not conquer all.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
king_alvarez
Registered:
May '07
|
Date Posted:
5/9 10:34am
Subject:
RE: Atheism Discussion 2.0 - (Humanism, just don't tell Adler..)
|
_Darth_Brooks_ posted:
You seem to be expressing a view that 'your world' has always been the same, but quite honestly it hasn't.
Huh? Quite honestly I don't understand how you arrive at your conclusions for what you think I say.
_Darth_Brooks_ posted:
So, when you say "in spite of religion", then perhaps, you'll provide some specifics?
Quite frankly, I'm not interested in debating the subject with you. I am familiar enough now with how you debate, and I don't find it at all useful to engage in discussions with you.
-----signature-----
Because there are no story-book romances, no fairy-tale endings. So before you run out and change the world, ask yourself, "What do you really want?"
Because life... is not a movie. Everyone lies. Good guys lose. And love... does not conquer all.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
_Darth_Brooks_
Registered:
Sep '00
|
Date Posted:
5/9 10:34am
Subject:
RE: Atheism Discussion 2.0 - (Humanism, just don't tell Adler..)
|
Zap,
"But without God! That's the point."
Okay. But, again, before we go too far afield from my initial statements,...I was observing this from a sociological premise, in that the parallels to religion are there to be seen...that's all.
"Christians seem to think they have the market on compassion and philosophy cornered, but that's hogwash at best."
I don't see anyone suggesting that, least of all a "Christian".
-----signature-----
"I once wanted to become an atheist but I gave up . . . they have no holidays. "
I AM AN ACT OF GOD. If you doubt it ask my insurance agent.
Whom the Mod's would destroy they first drive mad.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
_Darth_Brooks_
Registered:
Sep '00
|
Date Posted:
5/9 10:43am
Subject:
RE: Atheism Discussion 2.0 - (Humanism, just don't tell Adler..)
- Date Edited:
5/9 11:05am (2 edits total)
Edited By:
_Darth_Brooks_
|
King_Alvarez,
"Huh? Quite honestly I don't understand how you arrive at your conclusions for what you think I say."
How about failure to display an accurate depiction of the history and development of philosophical thought in western civilization in your otherwise unfounded assertions?
There's a saying, "Every man has a right to be wrong in his opinions, no man has a right to be wrong in his facts."
If, I'm in error, and you factually show me, I will certainly accept that correction.
"Quite frankly, I'm not interested in debating the subject with you. I am familiar enough now with how you debate, and I don't find it at all useful to engage in discussions with you."
Your cat-calls have gotten stale.
I think it's reasonable to ask for "evidence", or to ask questions, or to challenge some assertions which come across to me as merely dogmatic, unfounded, or questionable.
"Nope. Scanning through some philosophical works does not make someone a better, more informed atheist or agnostic."
So, your opinion, as expressed, appears to indicate that you do not believe education, if even self-education, makes someone more informed? Or, at least, atheists and agnostics are somehow exempt? As written, apparently I am not understanding what you trying to convey.
-----signature-----
"I once wanted to become an atheist but I gave up . . . they have no holidays. "
I AM AN ACT OF GOD. If you doubt it ask my insurance agent.
Whom the Mod's would destroy they first drive mad.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
king_alvarez
Registered:
May '07
|
Date Posted:
5/9 10:53am
Subject:
RE: Atheism Discussion 2.0 - (Humanism, just don't tell Adler..)
|
_Darth_Brooks_ posted:
I think it's reasonable to ask for "evidence", or to ask questions, or to challenge some assertions which come across to me as merely dogmatic, unfounded, or questionable.
If that were all you were doing, I would have no problem with it. Instead, I tire of wading through all of your disingenuous posts and the ensuing debates just to get to the interesting, insightful posts. That is all I have to say on the matter. Disagree with that all you want, I'm not going to debate it as I'm tired of derailing produtive threads with mindless discussions.
-----signature-----
Because there are no story-book romances, no fairy-tale endings. So before you run out and change the world, ask yourself, "What do you really want?"
Because life... is not a movie. Everyone lies. Good guys lose. And love... does not conquer all.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
