Ooh, now there's a topic!
I doubt that, utterly and completely (but couldn't say why).
Why do theists associate with non-theists?
- Thread starter wynn
- Start date
I doubt that, utterly and completely (but couldn't say why).
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
I said that I was a "religious agnostic".
That is, an agnostic regarding knowledge about transcendental religious matters. Not an agnostic about all knowledge in general. I think that I know countless things, to a reasonable degree of certainty at least.
But having said that, I don't deny that I'm religious. I probably am extremely religious, at least according to some definitions of the word. But I might not be religious at all according to other definitions.
I don't think that classifying and pigeon-holing me is very interesting or very important.
Wow, too big a topic for a short answer. Quickie = being able to see others points of view, respect, ability to at least recognize that someone else has a legit point.
My preset mode is respect.
I think a large issue revolves around the different ways of knowing i.e. intuition and logic.
I can only speak for me, and for me the reason I'm open to what others think and experience is that I am seeking to understand the truth of things as fully as I can.
Yep, an Evangelical denomination. Actually, It ain't a very good fit for my beliefs anymore, but hey, bloom where you're planted, I've always said.
Finally, how do I get my original quotes into this message?
First, setting up a question followed by a backhanded insult is never a good way to engage someone.
In answer to your question, if someone wishes to dialog with me in good "faith"
, their lack of religious faith doesn't matter. I don't have time, though, for those who want to score points in some on-going argument trying to discredit/humiliate another's faith or lack of faith for kicks and giggles.Post-dated rainchecks really are not a consolation when your own ass is on the line.
For many people, I think this is where the core problem is to begin with: What goals to pursue? What to value?
I think goals are not a given at all.
To what end?
What are the implications for one if others dispute one's moral convictions?
I just wanted to know, as your calling yourself "religious" caught my attention.
I myself could probably also call myself a "religious agnostic with Theravadan Buddhist tendencies."
I've never really thought about calling myself such until I read your post.
You have to copy-paste them yourself.
(Original quotes automatically copy into new messages only in private messages.)
@Signal --
No, the goals are not a given at all. The only real commonality is that virtually all humans(except known outliers like psychotics) shrink from the act of personally harming others, we don't like it. Beyond this a given set of goals is mostly based on societal and political norms, not really givens.
However, this doesn't mean that all methods are equally good, it just depends on what the goals are. If your goal is to be like christ then christianity is a better method than islam is. If you're goal is to reduce the amount of human suffering then secular humanism works better than just about anything else. That's sort of what I was getting at.
No, the goals are not a given at all. The only real commonality is that virtually all humans(except known outliers like psychotics) shrink from the act of personally harming others, we don't like it. Beyond this a given set of goals is mostly based on societal and political norms, not really givens.
However, this doesn't mean that all methods are equally good, it just depends on what the goals are. If your goal is to be like christ then christianity is a better method than islam is. If you're goal is to reduce the amount of human suffering then secular humanism works better than just about anything else. That's sort of what I was getting at.
I don't see any evidence of that.
Surely, secular humanism seems to work fine - in the short run. But in the long run, it seems to create even more problems.
Consider the hunger problem in Africa, and how it was exacerbated by Western help.
It was exacerbated by our help???
How so? Any evidence to support this?
Is the money we give making things worse? Are the wells that it's helping to dig causing more issues for them?
Or are you thinking more politically, where capitalism tends to rule?
I just want to be sure you are not blaming secular humanism for the issues created by other areas.
@Signal --
Really? Helping those in need and moving to obliterate bigotry aren't helping to reduce human suffering? Gosh, what could I be thinking? It's a really good thing you're here to fix such a grave error in my reasoning.
You're right though, it's so clear to me now that secular humanism is about the worst possible thing for human suffering, that religion is demonstrably the better choice. It's obvious to me now that being stoned to death for witchcraft, or heresy, or going outside without completely covering your body(as it still to this day in some muslim countries), cause less suffering than malnutrition and overcrowding do.
Really? Helping those in need and moving to obliterate bigotry aren't helping to reduce human suffering? Gosh, what could I be thinking? It's a really good thing you're here to fix such a grave error in my reasoning.
You're right though, it's so clear to me now that secular humanism is about the worst possible thing for human suffering, that religion is demonstrably the better choice. It's obvious to me now that being stoned to death for witchcraft, or heresy, or going outside without completely covering your body(as it still to this day in some muslim countries), cause less suffering than malnutrition and overcrowding do.
And that means we shouldn't help them?
Or does it just mean that we should be more appropriate in our help, and learn from the impacts that previous efforts have had?
"Local" is getting wider and wider... and it's questionable whether we should not include the entire planet as "local" - given the interrelatedness of the economies and environments.
The issue is not with the help but possibly with where that help is going to - and this is not an issue with Humanism per se but with lack of sufficient help, lack of expertise, with politics and hidden agendas playing their part and countless other impacts.
There again, we could just allow all of the hungry people of the planet to starve to death (or we could be more "humane"?)... that way we eliminate hunger quite quickly - and surprisingly cheaply.
(Yes, I am being sarcastic).
Let's not go crazy and drop the false dichotomies.
Some of the helpers certainly are learning from the negative impact previous attempts to help have had.
And natural resources are fewer and fewer.
I think it is more about why we want to help, and why we think that our approaches can and should work.
The fact is that many of our efforts to end hunger have just postponed the hunger death of many people; postponed it but not eliminated it.
If Western help, due to the Western socio-economic crisis, ceases - and it is quite likely it soon will: what will happen to the millions of hungry Africans who rely for their survival on Western help?
Mmmm... edging pretty close to the "Westerner knows best" mentality here, Signal. Don't fall off the cliff.
What exactly is it about secular humanism that contributes to... what? Overpopulation? Helping others? Valuing every human life?
Are these last two "unwise" to do in certain circumstances?
Last edited:
What are you talking about? And with that attitude?
Let's not go crazy and drop the false dichotomies - that goes for you too.
You're about to walk into a trap with your statements which can be used by others to make you appear paternal (or worse) about the population situation in Africa. I think you're onto something in your original idea; don't muck it up by over-generalizations that could offend unintentionally.
Gandalf said:
Signal said:
:facepalm:You love that phrase, don't you.
I'm asking you, honests and for trues, to further explain your position about secular humanism, especially in relation to the three subtopics I mentioned. As I said before, I'm intrigued by your original idea regarding secular humanism, but I hope you unpack it carefully. As a start, I'd love to hear more about your following statement:
Signal said: