I'm pushed for time so will do this in a condensed manner as is possible Perry;
You say;
Are you suggesting I'm an apologist for deism? I'm against all forms of unethical ideological influences. Ones that are based on deceit, craftiness, ignorance and especially unfairness. Call a spade a spade and bring it out in the light for examination, that is what I like to see.
You, if anything, are actually turning being an agnostic into a position of moral superiority...
or trying to. You also use loaded language all the time thus my original comment (which triggered the above quoted response) about you begging the question.
Look at this;
"against all forms of unethical ideological influences"
Okay, maybe being obtuse is your thang, but ignoring your rather dense prose (as in heavy, not stupid, but ARE you realted to ANita Loomba?), I ask you; define 'unethical' (as in specific actions which would be unethical) without an underlying ideology. Go on. Don't bother. Can't be done. Cooking utensils exchanging comments on each other degree of carbonisation? The above quoted phrase is so close to meaningless as to pass as meaningless, unless adequately qualified, which it is not.
You also say;
I'd argue that the term athiest does indeed imply belief.
Yes, but that doesn't make it a religion, Quand Erat Demonstrandum and all that in my previous post on this thread, your rebutall of which I will reply to below.
One thing; I am also sure we've had a discussion before, with you using a different handle, but I can't remember what it was. I'll accept your word for it if I'm wrong, but if I am right, get some credit by owning up now.
You say;
If there was no "First Cause" then what exactly brought us into existence? Unless I'm missing something here, the only alternative beliefs are (1) an infinite digression of cause and effect events or, (2) something from nothing. Each of those views require faith since it cannot be scietifically demonstrated or duplicated.
I dispute your assertion that "those views require faith since it cannot be scietifically demonstrated or duplicated", as you are asking for demonstration or duplication of things that cannot currently be demonstrated or duplicated, and, indeed, may never be demonstratable or duplicable. Staging the Big Bang if possible would probably be rather stupid.
It's like the little old lady who will look at a sequence of fossils, and despite the slow incremental developments between fossils, refuse to believe in the theory which conects them to an evolution of an organism as there is no 'proof'. This to her would be it happening in front of her eyes, which is clearly impossible. This same little old lady (apologies to any little old ladies who are ace palentologists, it's an example, okay?) will refuse to accept the provable genetic similarity between species alive now with equivalent similarities of skeletal form as reasobale evidence that the same similarities in structure where DNA sampling is not possible as an indication of ancestrey or relatedness.
Say a theory is testable in part, and in the areas where it is testable it is verifiably true. Say this same theory explains what is not verifiable as well, and the link between the verifiable and non -verifiable portions are seemingly sound.
Say you have a second theory which is not testable in any part, or is, but cannot be verified through this testing.
In the first instance you are making a reasonable assertion on the non-verifiable portion based upon verifiable evidence; you can call this faith if it suits your argument Perry.
In the second instance you are making a baseless assertion that is not verifiable at any point. I would most definately call that faith.
To compare the 'faith' required in the first instance with that required in the second instance is to compare two disimilar things; it's sloppy thinking.
To declare, on the basis of the fact they both require some form of belief or faith, that they are therefore both religions is to ignore that the two are not stictly comparable.
The 'faith' required in one is partially supported, the faith required in the second is wholly assumptive.
You continue with this assertion;
I'd agrue as above that the humanist must accept supernaturalism since the answers on the question of origins all require faith because they are outside our experience in the natural world and the laboratory as well.
And I continue to say that your assertion is not reasonable, QED.
You then spend sometime attacking humanism; I only mentioned humanism as I dislike being defined by not believing in someone else's fantasies, and I believe in the wonderful political creed contained in the first few lines of the Declaration of Independence (created equal, blah blah blah, that bit). You can attack the humanist movement all you like, as you do, but it's not the subject, is it? Or is it? Trojan? Horse?
As far as the Humanist religion goes respecting a "way of life centered on human interests or values", just whose interests and values is it centered on? The incredibly arrogant creeds in this religion that claim to speak for all mankind is truly breath-taking. This kind of "we know better because we're us" thinking is intellectually repulsive, repressive and unfair to other world views. In "The Humanist" Jan/Feb 1983 John J. Dunphy had this to say concerning the spreading of Humanist ideals:These [Humanist] teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundalmentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level. The classroom must and will becomean area of conflict between the old and the new - the roting corpse of christianity together with its adjacent evils and misery and the new faith of Humanism, resplendent in its promise of a world in which the never-realized Christian idea of 'Love Thy Neighbor' will finally be achieved.
A very good selection of quote that is sympathetic to your assertions, I have to say, except
I don't agree with the writer, precisely 'cause he seems to have learnt NOTHING from religion. You say "This kind of "we know better because we're us" thinking is intellectually repulsive, repressive and unfair to other world views.", when, in fact, you are doing exactly that aren't you? You're saying you know better because you are you? So far you have dodged the bullet completely on the subject of differentiation I mentioned in my previous post, but maybe you get round to that below....
Now to be fair, don't you think that athiestic Humanists should just be honest and say, "Hey, were a religion too, but you really ought to check this out!" Do they ? Oh no, they have chosen to march in the footsteps of the WBTS to the tune of "Religion is a Snare and a Racket." In my opinion, just pure religious fanaticism. If they were really all about ethicalness, they would be touting "equal teaching for equal worldviews".(bold mine)
Yes, in your opinion,. but you've yet (obviously) to rebute the above assertion of mine you can't reasonably compare the two, or address the topic of differentiation raised in my previous post (yet, I'm writing this as I read your post).
You then go on to seemingly assert that any "defineable worldview" is a religion, which is like saying anything with a leg at each corner that does not have curly things on it's head is a horse; rubbish, QED.
Now, at last we get to the point where you address the topic of diferentiation, or in fact DON'T. You seem to argue that there is no difference in practice between the application of belief structures between atheists and theists. When I give examples that show this to be a fallacious arguement, you don't address the rebuttal of your arguement in any concrete way, rather going for the ad hom, ho hum.
You continue to sell this line, that atheism is the same as a religion and to not accept this is to be deceptive;
My angst is directed toward those constructs of thought (world views)who choose to deceptively identify themselves otherwise for the purpose of painlessly injecting its ideologies into others, outside of the victims awareness. Kinda like what the WBTS did in Mexico as a "cultural organization".
Yet, this is just repeated assertion, not an answer to the original rebuatal.
Then you try a flip-flop and fail, as again, you're comparing chalk and cheese... you ask me to "reread your quote above and replace the word theist with the word athiest". I'll do better; I'll paste that quote below and do as you say;
**********************************************************
An atheist, unless they have some pretty good proof, is just exercising their opinion, and that should start and stop with their own lives. I agree that atheists trying to impose their opinions upon the world has generally been an unpleasent business for those imposed upon.
************************************************************
I have highlighted the important bit; theists, unless I have missed 'God appears on Letterman' or 'Zeus and Oprah' or some-such DON'T EVEN HAVE ANY PROOF. Spending your entire arguement ignoring that there is not an even playing field does not stop the ball rolling to the end with some proof!
Atheists, or to be specific, evolutionists, have pretty good proof... and some of them still believe in god. Oooo, yes, you have so (not) proved how similar atheism and theism are! Again, you're just recycling your assertion without cogent responces to my rebuttals.
Yet, you describe this as;
... the kind of intellectual masturbation that is ruining our educational institutions and producing "group think" on a massive scale. Fairness and ethicalness would demand that all major world views be taught....equally and fairly considered; and then the individual would be in a much better position to make informed choices.
See? Reasserting the same thing. You haven't addressed the fact some atheists have very strong proof for their world-view (evolution). You say, again "Fairness and ethicalness would demand that all major world views be taught....equally and fairly considered", when you have failed to respond appropriately to the arguement that there is clear objective differentiation between belief structures, and YOU are accusing others of "intellectual masturbation", when you are clearly the one involved in an act soley involving yourself (as you fail to respond to the arguements made by me) for your intellectual gratification, as opposed to responding to someone else's arguement (which I guess is "intellectual coitus").
But despite this, you are still on your soapbox. When I suggest;
An atheist would be most unusal if they would expect their opinions to affect others' lives. That's not to say it doesn't happen, but what is more likely is that certain things a theist would NOT want to happen CAN happen, as opposed to forced conformity.
What do you do? Have a rant! Yay! Reasoned arguement? No thanks! Assert assert assert; some of it will stick. VERY old technique; seems like you label people with your own faults AND sometimes with faults YOU have but they don't! Look;
"That is simply pure propaganda myth."
No reasoned arguement (I can give so many examples theists expecting their opinions to affect others' lives, I think a few examples to back up how athiests do this would be in order).
"Athiests have united under the banner of Secular Humanism and have brought about huge societal changes through the auspices of deceptively denying that they are a religion (that would blow their cover and the separation of church and state doctrine would end their educational influence), while they themselves certify "counselors" who enjoy the same legal status of priests, rabbis, and ministers. At least one Humanist was granted conscientous objector status before the supreme court on religious grounds. Yes, the Humanists want it both ways just like the WBTS."
Continued assertion of something that you have failed to answer the rebuttal of, with value added insults.
This is great, really great, talk about shooting yourself in the foot;
What better way to enforce conformity than to control the flow of information, hide your true nature, and train ministers to promote your agenda. That's what the Humanists wanted and did and that is what we experienced in the WBTS.
In re-asserting the unfounded (no answer to rebutal so must be unfounded) assertion previously made you say atheists "control the flow of information." Whilst it is not JUST atheists that control this flow (conspiracy theory? oh,
please), it must be noted that athiests (or, to be accurate and consistant within my arguement, evolutionists who don't belive in god)
HAVE INFORMATION. There is essentially no NEW information coming from theists, just rehashed versions of century old arguements that cannot be proved one way or another as they have nothing even remotely ressembling proof!!! Maybe people are becoming atheists because that is the most reasonable course of action based upon the available evidence??? Oh, and you carry on stating your unfounded assertion (atheism=theism), and not ansdwering the rebutal; just want you to be clear on the fact I can see you've dodged this one even if you think you've done a good job.
You continue (after basically saying I should pay attention to my own signature line);
However please correct me if any of my statements are untrue.It seems appropriate to state to you at this point that I actually like many of the Humanistic ideals. My issue is with its MO.
And you have failed to rebut the arguements made that showed your assertions regarding the nature and MO of atheism to be unfounded assertions! Let's not even
look at your MO!
When I say "You are confusing religion with society, and also not recognising that religion is essentially old-time politics.", you say;
Again, I challenge you to show me the society that is without religion? Your failure to do so is causing you to simply repeat yourself. Please get back to me when you can think of one.
The fact that there are no societies without religion shows you are confusing religion with society; religion is a sociological artifact created by fear of the unknown. As the unknown gets known, and thunder becomes air rushing back into the space occupied by a fraction of a second by a super-heated plasma around an electrical discharge (instead of Thor in a bad mood), the need for religion declines, but as we have hardwiring for religion (due to the fact that people who will work together in a group have a suseptability to religions or organised sets of beliefs, and people who work together in a group survive better than those who don't, simple survival of fitest) in our brains, it takes FAR longer to die than it should, especially when it is so entwined in the sociological structure of a culture the fact it is not provable doesn't stop people belieiving it.
Do you seriously think, if someone thought up the idea of god, today, for the first time, and no one had ever thought of it before, they could make someone believe? Of course they couldn't THERE'S NO PROOF!!!
More assetion;
My contention is that just because we live in an information age and it is popular and political advantageous to call current ideologies something other than what they are, it does not negate the function of many ideologies as being essentially religious... even if it does operate outside the adherents awareness.
You've still not rebutted the issue of differentiation. Example; why should a religion with no proof be treated the same as a religion with some proof? No reason; the religon with some proof should be shown favour. Thing is, there aren't any religons with proof, therefore, maybe it's right to show favouratism toward something with proof, i.e. evolution, the logical concequence for many of this being, no god.
When I say you are creating a straw man arguement that religonists are seen as mad you ask;
Where have you been living? Do you not get television in your glass house?
[quote]Which underlines perfectly my point that you are failing to differentiate. This gives your arguement a superficial credability, but it is superficial, as as soon as you bring in differentiation, you see that the nut jobs get treated like nut jobs BECAUSE THEY PROBABLY ARE, whilst 'reasonable' religionists are not viewed as nutjobs, but as people who believe in something which can neither be proved or disproved on an objective basis. If you adust your monitor you may be surprised to see things are not as black and white as you make them!Oh, and don't lie, it devalues your arguement;[quote]
The Christians simply want equal consideration of worldviews.
Anti-abortionists? Oh, yeah, equal consideration? How many Christians want evolution out of the classroom? Yeah, equal consideration. Also, your consistant failure to not look like you are begging the question is shown by your specific use of CHRISTIAN. You seem, even if you can't bring yourself to admit it, to be a Christian apologist, as you don't really give a fig for Hindu's being given equal consideration, do you? You prove this even more convincingly as you continue your rant into fiscal appropriation.
Perry, I could go through your last few paragraph, but won't at this time as I have a meeting to go to. In anycase, you just repeat points based upon the assertion you have singularly failed to defend, and more clearly than ever mark yourself as a Christian apologist.
Seeing how you make out other people to have the hidden agenda you yourself clearly have, you are just making yourslef look foolish.
Answer my rebutals without simple assertions but by reasoned arguement, and it might be worth responding to you inevitable reply to this. Simply looping the arguement because you don't like being shown to be what you say others are won't get you a response at all, other than ROTFLMAO.
People living in glass paradigms shouldn't throw stones...
