by nvrgnbk 60 Replies latest jw friends
Another problem with calling ourselves “atheists” is that every religious person thinks he has a knockdown argument against atheism.
The problem with calling ourselves "Christian" is that every atheist person thinks he has a knockdown argument against Christianity.
This board is exhibit "A". Only a few believers here have the temerity to show themselves on a thread like this.
Burn
Sam Harris? http://youtube.com/watch?v=FPf0jCF1wHQ
the discussion is not over. Deal with it.
Actually it is over, because unless you come up with a reply to what I already said,
Namely: atheists existed long before evolution was discovered, thusly, evolution is not required for atheism.
I refuse to continue discussing it.
I'm with Eryn.
Gopher, thank you for the influence you had on me when I was feeling very lost. You helped me see things more clearly very quickly.
Tenets
Secular humanism describes a world view with the following elements and principles: [2]
- Need to test beliefs - A conviction that dogmas, ideologies and traditions, whether religious, political or social, must be weighed and tested by each individual and not simply accepted on faith.
- Reason, evidence, scientific method - Commitment to the use of critical reason, factual evidence, and scientific methods of inquiry, rather than faith and mysticism, in seeking solutions to human problems and answers to important human questions.
- Fulfillment, growth, creativity - A primary concern with fulfillment, growth, and creativity for both the individual and humankind in general.
- Search for truth - A constant search for objective truth, with the understanding that new knowledge and experience constantly alter our imperfect perception of it.
- This life - A concern for this life and a commitment to making it meaningful through better understanding of ourselves, our history, our intellectual and artistic achievements, and the outlooks of those who differ from us.
- Ethics - A search for viable individual, social and political principles of ethical conduct, judging them on their ability to enhance human well-being and individual responsibility.
- Building a better world - A conviction that with reason, an open exchange of ideas, good will, and tolerance, progress can be made in building a better world for ourselves and our children.
A Secular Humanist Declaration was an argument for and statement of belief in Democratic Secular Humanism. The document was issued in 1980 by The Council for Democratic and Secular Humanism (CODESH), now the Council for Secular Humanism (CSH).
When humanists use the phrase secular humanism it is typically to emphasize differences relative to religion or religious humanism.
There are a number of ways in which secular and religious humanism can differ: [3]
While some humanists embrace calling themselves secular humanists, others prefer the term Humanist, capitalized and without any qualifying adjective. The terms secular humanism and Humanism overlap, but have different connotations. The term secular humanism emphasizes a non-religious focus, whereas the term Humanism deemphasizes this and may even encompass some nontheistic varieties of religious humanism. The term Humanism also emphasizes considering one's humanism to be a life stance.
Secular humanism advocates secularism but is a broader concept. Secularism has a number of usages but generally emphasizes limits on the role of religious or supernatural considerations in the affairs of society or government. Secular humanism adds to these positions a comprehensive perspective on life, including affirmation of human dignity and the importance of ethics.
Secular humanism is a broad philosophic position and not simply a statement about belief or non-belief in God. Accordingly, it is inaccurate to identify secular humanism as being the same thing as nontheism, atheism, or agnosticism. While secular humanists are generally nontheistic, atheist, or agnostic, the converse may not be true. Many nontheists, atheists, and agnostics adhere to the tenets of secular humanism, but this is not intrinsically the case. [5]
Secular humanism has appeal to atheists, agnostics, freethinkers, empiricists, rationalists, skeptics and materialists, as well as to some Buddhists, Hindus and Confucians.
Christian fundamentalist opponents of humanism typically use the term secular humanism pejoratively to mean atheism or secularism or to lump together all nontheistic varieties of humanism. Humanists object to such usage, finding it misleading or overly broad.
While secular humanist organizations are found in all parts of the world, one of the largest humanist organisations in the world (relative to population) is Norway's Human-Etisk Forbund, [6] which had over 69,000 members out of a population of around 4.6 million in 2004. [7]
In certain areas of the world, secular humanism finds itself in conflict with religious fundamentalism, especially over the issue of the separation of church and state. A faction of secular humanists may judge religions as superstitious, regressive, and/or closed-minded, while the majority of religious fundamentalists see secular humanism as a threat to the values they say are set out in religious texts, such as the Bible and the Qur'an. [8]
Some criticize the philosophy of secular humanism because it offers no eternal truths nor a relationship with the divine. [9] [10] They allege that a philosophy bereft of these beliefs [11] leaves humanity adrift in a foggy sea [12] of postmoderncynicism and anomie. [13] Humanists respond that such criticisms reflect a failure to look at the actual content of humanist philosophy, which far from being cynical and postmodern, is rooted in optimistic, [14] [15] idealistic [16] attitudes that trace back to the Enlightenment, [17] [18] [19] or further, back to Pre-SocraticGreek philosophers and Chinese Confucianism. [2]
Opponents of humanism tend to define the term secular humanism differently. Some Christians often use the presence of a moral belief structure in secular humanism as evidence of a religion. This is rejected by secular humanists, who assert that morality is not limited to religion.
Amen.
atheists existed long before evolution was discovered, thusly, evolution is not required for atheism .
I have never claimed that.
evolution and atheism have nothing to do with each other.
But there is considerable entanglement between the two in the minds of many many athiests. If there is an Orthodox Atheism you can point me to that gives a definitive Atheist Creed evidencing the above then maybe I could swallow your statement.
I refuse to continue discussing it.
Oh joy! Does that mean you will go away?
Burn
who have I hung from a tree and what harm have I done anyone
Neither have most racists personally hung anyone from a tree. But, religious people have murdered and tortured countless persons in the propogation of their twisted ideas, probably even more than racists have ever done.
But there is considerable entanglement between the two in the minds of many many athiests.
Well - when one takes a God out of the equation, one is still left with questions about the universe; more so than while one were still believing in that God.
I guess atheists could in theory (and probably in practice, especially a few centuries ago) believe that a God indeed had created everything once, but then died, for instance (although that would be closer to deism, I suppose).
Most atheists nowadays however feel the theory of evolution is an explanation that fits the real world findings better than such a hypothesis.
So it's not so weird that most atheists accept evolution. There is still room for believers to put their God in there if they so wish though, and many do.
In many ways, it could be said that a God who starts out a universe with the properties that will inevitably then make it evolve [I here mean 'evolve' as in change when it comes to the universe, but then 'evolve' as in 'evolution' when it comes to living beings] in a certain way and eventually fulfill that God's plans, would be an even more awe inspiring God than one who creates things one-by-one. Not that I'm subscribing to that "theory" personally, but I'm sure a lot of believers nowadays do.
An atheist is one who does not believe in a God (obviously), and yes - evolution does describe life evolving in a manner where no one would need to intervene, and so an atheist would use evolution as one of many signs that there most likely is no (or doesn't need to be any) God.
But at the same time, many believers choose to accept evolution, but puts God in charge of 'abiogenesis', the cause for the 'big bang', and the planning out of the whole thing.
Neither have most racists personally hung anyone from a tree. But, religious people have murdered and tortured countless persons in the propogation of their twisted ideas, probably even more than racists have ever done.
Of course there are atheists like Stalin. Mao. Pol Pot. They murdered tens of millions in the propagation of their twisted ideas. Probably more than racists have ever done.
It would seem far more likely that it is the dark angels of man's nature that are the culprit in bringing about the miseries of the world, rather than the religions or atheist ideologies themselves.
Christians have a name for that darkness. It is called "original sin" and we all have it.
That was a very concise explanation, Awakened.
Burn
The atheist brigades say that biological evolution evidences no sentience even though sentient influences are strongly evidenced in the evolutionary process.
Sentience = The quality or state of being sentient; consciousness (American Heritage)
Anthropomorphism of a natural phenomona like evolution seems odd to me. It's like saying gravity pulls stuff down because the Earth desires it so. Interesting from a poetic standpoint, but not useful from a pragmatic one. Seems superstitious.
For many it is a choice in the end.
At some level, it is a choice for everyone.
Some of us perceive God more clearly than others.
I perceive. I just don't demand that others label what I perceive as God, nor insist that others believe in my perceptions. We perceive something. But since it is an entirely subjective process, we'll never have "proof" of the experience - nor is meaning intrinsic to the experience.
Harris thinks what I believe is complete bunk but it doesn't cost me anything and besides I really relate to it. So just what is his problem here?
If there are atheists trying to shove evolution down our throats, then the problem here is theists stunting us with superstition.
Without a grounding in the Absolute the atheists create a relative world where truth is in the eye of the perceiver.
"Absolute" is a fancy label without much definition here. Meaning of experience, interpretation of scripture, indeed everything related to "God" is highly relative to culture, time and the individual psyche.
Every "Absolute" one might try to raise falls flat under scrutiny, unless a group of people agree to what is "Absolute" - which sounds more like consensus building to me. "Choosing to believe" is a much more honest engagement than "I know the Absolute".
