| Author |
Topic:
Atheism Discussion 2.0 - Roundtable Discussion in Progress
|
SuperWatto
Registered:
Sep '00
|
Date Posted:
5/11 2:36am
Subject:
RE: Atheism Discussion 2.0 - (Humanism, just don't tell Adler..)
|
LOH posted:
Sorry, I'll drop out for a while until the topic changes - discussing humanism is like watching paint dry.
LOH posted:
Agreed.
That's exactly why I think we should keep this as on-topic as possible; it's the only way to prevent the neverending exchanges about generalizations - that make up the bulk of this thread - from happening.
I mean... if Brooks agrees with you... you must be onto something!
I find it extremely tiring to see that whenever a missionary drops in to change the topic and sling some vague, unfounded criticism this way, most atheists jump on it and fall over each other trying to phrase the smartest rebuke. After 150 pages, we should know better and not let them ruffle our feathers this way.
-----signature-----
Trandoshan flatcakes!
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
redxavier
Registered:
Jan '03
|
Date Posted:
5/11 3:51am
Subject:
RE: Atheism Discussion 2.0 - (Humanism, just don't tell Adler..)
|
And once again, Darth Brooks, you dodge having to support your assertions by attempting to turn the tables (by trying to have me provide evidence that you are wrong), crying persecution, moving the goal posts, and a wishful argumentum ad populum ("common knowledege" for who exactly?)
Darth_Brooks posted:
It would seem to be that you feel I should embark on conducting a class on the history of western civilization,...I think that's not going to happen, nor is it even realistic to suggest.
I did a quick Google search for you, and chose Wikipedia, known for it's liberal slant;
Your amusing attempt at an insult aside, this is classic moving the goal posts. We are not talking about Western Civilisation, but of a Western philosophy - humanism - and the emphasis of compassion and equality on Western moral attitude as having derived from the Judeo-Christian tradition. It's useless therefore to cite a paragaph from Wikipedia to support an argument that you aren't even making.
Darth_Brooks posted:
We will note that 2 days ( I think )ago one of my comments stated that the the influences on western civ are attibutable to "Greece" and "Jerusalem, so to speak." This was prior to the google search.
Well done for making a simplistic statement naming two out of many influences on Western culture. Notably however, you were even called out on why you chose to ignore the numerous other influences.
Darth_Brooks posted:
"How you could possibly claim that there's been any emphasis on compassion and equality in Western civilisation arisen from the Judeo-Christian rationale given the actual historical record baffles the mind. It is somewhat ironic that you pick these principles in particular since they are certainly emphasised in scripture, but not in the way you think. Quite the opposite actually."
Please elucidate how "...the actual historical record baffles the mind."
Gods know why I'm playing along with your "I'm not going to support my asserion, you post proof that I'm wrong instead" approach but here goes... the historical record quite clearly demonstrates that the period of Judeo-Christian philosophical dominance in Western nations saw no emphasis on equality - evidenced by the marriage with feudalism, the treatment of women as second-class citizens, and the implicit endorsement of slavery to name but a few. Furthermore, I'm not even sure where you get the idea that equality is a tenet of Judeo-Christian philosophy in the first place. Indeed, the history of the equal rights movement in the West has had virtually nothing to do with Judeo-Christian philosophy - unless of course you mistakenly believe that Jefferson was quoting scripture in his preamble.
There's no evidence that the people of the Abrahamic tradition were anymore compassionate than those that were not - indeed, Christians seem as compassionate as any other group of people when dealing with outsiders and those they don't like, i.e., see treatment of heretics, homosexuals, women, and the enemy. Don't dare say that Christians placed any kind of emphasis on compassion when for hundred years there was a "kill em all, God knows his own" attitude in place. Don't dare say that a person is being compassionate as he sets alight the wood beneath another person.
Darth_Brooks posted:
Please provide for me, specifically, which "...principles in particular..." from scriptures are "emphasized" and how they are "emphasized"..."not in the way you [ Darth Brooks }think." And, how they are "Quite the opposite actually" from the way I think.
There are numerous quotes in the scriptures about how followers are to treat homosexuals, women, people of different faith, people of no faith and other assorted sinners, none of which is compassionate in our current view. Christian 'New Testament' philosophy is significantly better, but that's not your argument.
You know what my favourite part of your 'rebuttal' was? How you ignored the one paragaph in which I demonstrably showed that you were speaking bollocks on your "humanism is reformulated Judeo-Christian philosophy" point. Here it is again because I know how much you love to be corrected - after all, you did say "If, I'm in error, and you factually show me, I will certainly accept that correction."
From Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism#History):
Contemporary humanism can be traced back through the Renaissance back to the Islamic Golden Age to its ancient Greek roots. Humanism can also be traced back to the time of Gautama Buddha (563-483 BCE) and Confucius (551–479 BCE) and the Warring States Period, though the term "humanism" is more widely associated with Western philosophers.
Reformulated Judeo-Christian philosophy how? What's more, the christian humanism that had been developed up to the Renaissance was sporadic, strongly influenced by the Greeks, and resisted in the West by the Church.
-----signature-----
"You've just made me vomit in my own mouth."
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Lowbacca_1977
Title: Senate Moderator
Registered:
Jun '06
|
Date Posted:
5/11 3:59am
Subject:
RE: Atheism Discussion 2.0 - (Humanism, just don't tell Adler..)
|
Subnigma posted:
Lowbacca_1977 posted:
A question i'd pose is can someone be a secular humanist, but also be religious, or does the qualities of secular humanism make it imcompatible with being a theist, or at least limiting the types of theism available (deism vs christianity, for example)
Secularity in itself is non-condemning of religious activities. Secular activities are nothing more than non-religious activities. In the context of humanism, a religious person can not be considered secular. The idea of humanism is based on morality/ethics: since morality has a direct relation to religion, especially monothesistic religion, humanism can never be secular to a theist. (at least by definition)
I suppose I'm looking more at religious beliefs like deism, or eastern religions that tend to be a bit less dogmatic as far as rules go. Deism, for example, doesn't prescribe a moral code, I think. Although, checking into it more, Deism may violate it as a belief that should be validated before being accepted. Would an agnostic viewpoint be considered more acceptable because it acknowledges not actually being able to know if there's a god or not compared to a gnostic viewpoint which claims knowledge that can't be tested?
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Lowbacca_1977
Title: Senate Moderator
Registered:
Jun '06
|
Date Posted:
5/11 4:05am
Subject:
RE: Atheism Discussion 2.0 - (Humanism, just don't tell Adler..)
- Date Edited:
5/11 4:05am (1 edits total)
Edited By:
Lowbacca_1977
|
|
Re subjects: this thread isn't meant to be a free-for-all that goes in circles. Its to allow for discussion that is at least somewhat productive in covering new ground. Doesn't mean you have to be involved in every subject, but before complaining that the topic is too boring, note how many suggestions you have PMed for possible topics that you believe would be interesting and fall under atheism.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
nancyallen
Registered:
Nov '07
|
Date Posted:
5/11 4:46am
Subject:
RE: Atheism Discussion 2.0 - (Humanism, just don't tell Adler..)
|
|
I think it is possible for someone to be religious as well as humanist. A lot of theists do operate based on what they work out in their minds what is right and wrong, as well as use a little common sense. By that the number of those who are defined by atheists as crazy are in the very small minority, the ones who don't engaged their (pea sized?) brains before acting. In fact I would wager the percentage of theists who are crazy and atheists who believe they are zealots called in to wipe the world of religion would be just about even. And for those that are not crazy you may be surprised to find that both theists and atheists use humanist styles of thinking, I think the big difference arises in their conclusions. Take sex education for example, the theist might see sex as immoral and very much try and skirt the issue with their children, where the atheist might chuck them in at the deep end. That's not to say one approach is right and one is wrong, they're different.
-----signature-----
Even as I walk through the valley of the shadow of death I will fear no evil, for God is with me.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
VadersLaMent
Registered:
Apr '02
|
Date Posted:
5/11 5:23am
Subject:
RE: Atheism Discussion 2.0 - (Humanism, just don't tell Adler..)
|
I think secular humanism can be strict or soft. Strict in that:
Thus, secular humanists do not rely upon gods or other supernatural forces to solve their problems or provide guidance for their conduct. They rely instead upon the application of reason, the lessons of history, and personal experience to form an ethical/moral foundation and to create meaning in life.
But even the entire spectrum of religious people conduct themselves in a secular manner as a soft version when it comes to things like getting your car fixed. Oh you might pray that the damned thing will start, but eventually you know you will have to get it to a mechanic.
-----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
|
DorkmanScott
Title: Manager Emeritus
Registered:
Mar '01
|
Date Posted:
5/11 10:46am
Subject:
RE: Atheism Discussion 2.0 - (Humanism, just don't tell Adler..)
|
|
It is quite possible to be a religious humanist. But I don't think you can be a "religious secular humanist" by definition.
-----signature-----
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Quixotic-Sith
Title: Manager Emeritus
Registered:
Jun '01
|
Date Posted:
5/11 11:33am
Subject:
RE: Atheism Discussion 2.0 - (Humanism, just don't tell Adler..)
|
Lowbacca_1977 posted:
While its an interesting topic, its getting quite off topic. I would redirect to here:
http://boards.theforce.net/the_senate_floor/b10320/22965104/p72/?1788
And I figure there the question can be addressed of why a rebuttal criticising there being a gay gene is relevant when Quix's sources cite hormones, not genes.
Well, strictly speaking, hormones and demonstrable anatomical differences in the structure of men's and women's brains, with individuals who are attraced to the same sex showing more neuroanatomical correlates with the opposite sex, but that *is* for the other thread. 
-----signature-----
Yeah, mind power, Swede; mind power.
You can never have too much precision in your soup.
Exit, pursued by a bear
More Rockets = More Science
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
nancyallen
Registered:
Nov '07
|
Date Posted:
5/11 5:37pm
Subject:
RE: Atheism Discussion 2.0 - (Humanism, just don't tell Adler..)
|
DorkmanScott posted:
It is quite possible to be a religious humanist. But I don't think you can be a "religious secular humanist" by definition.
Exactly by what basis do you make that statement?
-----signature-----
Even as I walk through the valley of the shadow of death I will fear no evil, for God is with me.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Subnigma
Registered:
May '08
|
Date Posted:
5/11 9:27pm
Subject:
RE: Atheism Discussion 2.0 - (Humanism, just don't tell Adler..)
|
nancyallen posted:
DorkmanScott posted:
It is quite possible to be a religious humanist. But I don't think you can be a "religious secular humanist" by definition.
Exactly by what basis do you make that statement?
Nancy, read my message on 183
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
DorkmanScott
Title: Manager Emeritus
Registered:
Mar '01
|
Date Posted:
5/12 2:46am
Subject:
RE: Atheism Discussion 2.0 - (Humanism, just don't tell Adler..)
- Date Edited:
5/12 2:50am (1 edits total)
Edited By:
DorkmanScott
|
nancyallen posted:
DorkmanScott posted:
It is quite possible to be a religious humanist. But I don't think you can be a "religious secular humanist" by definition.
Exactly by what basis do you make that statement?
On the basis of the English language -- or rather English colloquialism -- in which "secular" is defined as "non-religious." So one cannot be a "non-religious religious humanist". You can either be a secular humanist, or a religious humanist. Both of them are humanists, but they have, by definition, incompatible views on religious belief.
-----signature-----
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
VadersLaMent
Registered:
Apr '02
|
Date Posted:
5/12 2:11pm
Subject:
RE: Atheism Discussion 2.0 - (Humanism, just don't tell Adler..)
|
|
Well that was not exactly my point though my point could be quite wrong. As far as I see people do not actually sit around waiting for a mircale with every little thing they do.
-----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
|
nancyallen
Registered:
Nov '07
|
Date Posted:
5/12 5:03pm
Subject:
RE: Atheism Discussion 2.0 - (Humanism, just don't tell Adler..)
|
|
Surely someone doesn't have to be secular, separate from religion, to be able to rationally and logically work things out. If someone is religious and humanist then that can't be bad, can it?
-----signature-----
Even as I walk through the valley of the shadow of death I will fear no evil, for God is with me.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
DorkmanScott
Title: Manager Emeritus
Registered:
Mar '01
|
Date Posted:
5/12 7:29pm
Subject:
RE: Atheism Discussion 2.0 - (Humanism, just don't tell Adler..)
|
|
That wasn't the question, nancy. The question was: can someone be both religious a secular humanist? The answer, by definition, is no. They can be a religious humanist, but not a secular humanist. No one stated or implied anything to the effect of one being better or worse than the other.
-----signature-----
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
nancyallen
Registered:
Nov '07
|
Date Posted:
5/12 7:46pm
Subject:
RE: Atheism Discussion 2.0 - (Humanism, just don't tell Adler..)
|
|
And by saying that you think maybe you score some sort of point? Because by raising I see it as splitting hairs.
-----signature-----
Even as I walk through the valley of the shadow of death I will fear no evil, for God is with me.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
