Why We Should Attack Moderate Religiosity

[Neon Genesis]

 

Religion per say is not required but at present, there is no other institution that I know of the promotes dignity with freedom. I like freedom as well as all here but think that dignity should also have a place and a champion.

 

 

http://www.americanhumanist.org/ Oh wait, they're evil atheists, so they don't count, right?

[Shyone]

If one can change laws peacefully then that is nice.

If a law is really bad then the protestor must decide if the law is worth breaking or not.

Some laws must be broken before change comes about for the betterment of the nation.

 

Regards

DL

We do have a mechanism for changing laws peacefully. And I don't think violence promotes anything other than violence.

 

You also wrote (to Vigil):

 

Religion per say is not required but at present, there is no other institution that I know of the promotes dignity with freedom. I like freedom as well as all here but think that dignity should also have a place and a champion.

 

I gave a rough interpretation of dignity earlier. I bow to your degree and would ask what you would define as dignity and how it pertains to freedom?

 

From the Council for Secular Humanism "Humanist Manifesto 2000":

 

VI. A Universal Commitment to Humanity as a Whole

 

The overriding need of the world community today is to develop a new Planetary Humanism—one that seeks to preserve human rights and enhance human freedom and dignity, but also emphasizes our commitment to humanity as a whole. The underlying ethical principle of Planetary Humanism is the need to respect the dignity and worth of all persons in the world community.

[Ouroboros]

 

Religion per say is not required but at present, there is no other institution that I know of the promotes dignity with freedom. I like freedom as well as all here but think that dignity should also have a place and a champion.

 

 

http://www.americanhumanist.org/ Oh wait, they're evil atheists, so they don't count, right?

And their mother organization: International Humanist and Ethical Union.

And their youth organization: http://www.iheyo.org/

 

American Ethical Union.

 

List of (close to 300) organizations working for world peace: http://www.dmoz.org/Society/Issues/Peace/Activism_and_Peace_Work/ (most of them unaffiliated with any particular religion or belief, except the need of peace.)

 

And there's more if one just search for it. I looked around and found several philanthropist organizations, unaffiliated with any church or religion, working only for promoting an ethical society.

 

So fuck the idea that only religious delusion leads to goodness.

[Greatest I am]

 

Religion per say is not required but at present, there is no other institution that I know of the promotes dignity with freedom. I like freedom as well as all here but think that dignity should also have a place and a champion.

 

 

http://www.americanhumanist.org/ Oh wait, they're evil atheists, so they don't count, right?

 

You look for some kind of negativity from me. If that is all you want then fuck off.

 

When I was a atheist I did not think myself evil at all.

 

You on the other hand are giving them a bad name by your example.

 

Regards

DL

[Neon Genesis]

Hey, I'm not the one arguing an atheist society is incapable of morality.

[Greatest I am]

If one can change laws peacefully then that is nice.

If a law is really bad then the protestor must decide if the law is worth breaking or not.

Some laws must be broken before change comes about for the betterment of the nation.

 

Regards

DL

We do have a mechanism for changing laws peacefully.

 

Sure. the courts. anyone with the cash can bring a law down.

 

And I don't think violence promotes anything other than violence.

 

In most cases you are right but you should remember that many peaceful demonstration also bring on a violent response from authorities. The U S experience is a good example of this. Remember anti segregation and anti Vietnam protests.

 

 

You also wrote (to Vigil):

 

Religion per say is not required but at present, there is no other institution that I know of the promotes dignity with freedom. I like freedom as well as all here but think that dignity should also have a place and a champion.

 

I gave a rough interpretation of dignity earlier. I bow to your degree and would ask what you would define as dignity and how it pertains to freedom?

 

From the Council for Secular Humanism "Humanist Manifesto 2000":

 

VI. A Universal Commitment to Humanity as a Whole

 

The overriding need of the world community today is to develop a new Planetary Humanism—one that seeks to preserve human rights and enhance human freedom and dignity, but also emphasizes our commitment to humanity as a whole. The underlying ethical principle of Planetary Humanism is the need to respect the dignity and worth of all persons in the world community.

 

Good rhetoric but the how to remains vague.

 

You might note that some cultures have rights of passage that train and teach their view of manhood and dignity.

We in the west do not.

 

A good rule, in keeping with the prostitution issue and dignity, might be, though shall not screw another man's child for pay.

That would tend to save some fathers from knowing that that is what is happening to theirs.

 

Regards

DL

[Greatest I am]

 

Religion per say is not required but at present, there is no other institution that I know of the promotes dignity with freedom. I like freedom as well as all here but think that dignity should also have a place and a champion.

 

 

http://www.americanhumanist.org/ Oh wait, they're evil atheists, so they don't count, right?

And their mother organization: International Humanist and Ethical Union.

And their youth organization: http://www.iheyo.org/

 

American Ethical Union.

 

List of (close to 300) organizations working for world peace: http://www.dmoz.org/Society/Issues/Peace/Activism_and_Peace_Work/ (most of them unaffiliated with any particular religion or belief, except the need of peace.)

 

And there's more if one just search for it. I looked around and found several philanthropist organizations, unaffiliated with any church or religion, working only for promoting an ethical society.

 

So fuck the idea that only religious delusion only leads to goodness.

 

I agree with your last but in terms of numbers, the large majority of people are religionist and if we could get them to walk their talk then that would be a force worth reckoning with if they promoted dignity and inclusion instead of the exclusion that most religions sell.

As a side note. I see the Vatican and Islam working together on interpretations of scripture. A step in the right direction that compliments Vatican II.

 

Regards

DL

[Greatest I am]

Hey, I'm not the one arguing an atheist society is incapable of morality.

 

Neither am I.

 

Show where or recant and at least show you have manners.

 

Regards

DL

[Neon Genesis]

 

Show where or recant and at least show you have manners.

 

Regards

DL

Not quite.

I see religionists as the loyal opposition of secular government.

Your system as well as ours has checks and balances.

Take religionists out of it and you lose this check.

[Ouroboros]

You might note that some cultures have rights of passage that train and teach their view of manhood and dignity.

We in the west do not.

Actually we do, at least where I live. In California girls celebrate "Sweet 16," and to many families, the high-school graduation is the step into adulthood.

 

A good rule, in keeping with the prostitution issue and dignity, might be, though shall not screw another man's child for pay.

"Child" is a very misleading word in that sentence.

 

A child is a kid, not a grownup. To have sex with a minor is a crime in all western countries, regardless if you pay for it or not.

 

That would tend to save some fathers from knowing that that is what is happening to theirs.

It's already laws against that, in all countries, even the secular/non-religious ones.

 

In America it's called statutory rape. Basically, the minor does not have to file charges, but the state files the criminal suit against the perpetrator.

[Neon Genesis]

 

 

So fuck the idea that only religious delusion leads to goodness.

I agree that moderates are important in keeping the extremists in check and I believe that as long as Christianity is around, the moderates are important in keeping the extremists in check. But GIA seems to think atheism in itself is an extremist position and I don't get his argument that atheists are somehow incapable of moderation.

[Ouroboros]

I agree with your last but in terms of numbers, the large majority of people are religionist

And according to some studies, even a larger number of criminals are religious. Religion does not make people better people.

 

You see, what makes religion a good tool to make people follow good rules is that they encapsulate a culture, traditions, memes, values, and mores. And religion makes these really easy to get to and understand.

 

But culture, traditions, memes, values, and mores can all be encapsulated in society as such, without religion, and as we pointed out before that several European countries are examples of exactly just that.

 

... and if we could get them to walk their talk ...

How would you do that?

 

Create religious laws? Make society into a theocracy?

 

... then that would be a force worth reckoning with if they promoted dignity and inclusion instead of the exclusion that most religions sell.

Religion sell exclusion because that is EXACTLY what religion is about. It's the exclusive rights to be "saved" through their particular brand of snake-oil. If you remove the exclusive attitude in religion, you get humanism, and that exists already.

 

As a side note. I see the Vatican and Islam working together on interpretations of scripture. A step in the right direction that compliments Vatican II.

Not sure why that is a good thing. It's not a bad thing, but I can't see the good in it either.

 

Are you sure you're a Deist and not a Theist? I have never met a Deist arguing so hard for religion.

[Neon Genesis]

He should read Thomas Paine's The Age of Reason.

[Ouroboros]

 

 

So fuck the idea that only religious delusion leads to goodness.

I agree that moderates are important in keeping the extremists in check and I believe that as long as Christianity is around, the moderates are important in keeping the extremists in check.

Good point.

 

Basically, moderate religious make sure the extremists do not get too much power.

 

Unfortunately the moderates tend to keep quiet when the extremists act out.

[Shyone]

Hey, I'm not the one arguing an atheist society is incapable of morality.

 

Neither am I.

 

Show where or recant and at least show you have manners.

 

Regards

DL

Sometimes your writing can be misunderstood. There are a number of things you have said in this thread that seem to imply that atheists are immoral, or that religious morality is superior. Sometimes the dangling sentences complete themselves in ways you had not intended. Perhaps you might like to see some that struck me that way:

 

When I was a atheist I did not think myself evil at all.

 

Which seems to want to be completed with: "But I was - because I was an atheist."

 

My morality as a non believer did not change when I found the Godhead.

It was just confirmed.

 

 

Meaning there is no self-confirmation of morality without the Godhead.

 

 

"What proof do you have that prostitution is a product of atheism?"

 

 

I did not say it was. I may have hinted that secular systems are too easy in accepting it as same old same old without any moral implications.

 

 

I do not particularly push the Godhead that I know and prefer to show off my morals in discussions.

 

 

By this I mean that the secular small town will look like this.

A cat house on one corner. A drug den on the other. A bar/strip joint on another corner. An abortion clinic on the other. Prostitutes will abound. A gambling casino on the next.

 

If all moderate religionists disappear then all the above will come to pass and if a family person, you will realize that taking a walk downtown with the kids will become a whole new ball game. You will be walking through all kinds of things that at one time were considered filth.

 

No religion => bad morals. When religions disappear, filth will be normal. Isn't that what you are saying? That without religion, we would descend into moral depravity and filth?

[Neon Genesis]

 

Good point.

 

Basically, moderate religious make sure the extremists do not get too much power.

 

Unfortunately the moderates tend to keep quiet when the extremists act out.

But then it seems like whenever the moderates do speak out, you almost never see anti-theistic atheists thanking them for it. Like when virtually all of Christendom disowned Pat Robertson after his lies about Haiti, Dawkins didn't thank Christians for speaking out against him. Instead Dawkins picked apart all their responses and made the No True Scotsman fallacy that Pat Robertson was the only true Christian and any Christian who disowns him is not a real Christian. Which one is it? Does Dawkins want moderate Christians to call out extremists when they act out or should they shut up because they aren't "real" Christians? He can't have it both ways. It's the same thing with the Westboro Baptists. People complain that moderates aren't calling the extremists out on their actions enough but when they call out the Phelps on their actions, you never see anyone thank them for it. Instead people pick apart their response to the Phelps to argue that the Phelps are the only "real" Christians.

[Ouroboros]

But then it seems like whenever the moderates do speak out, you almost never see anti-theistic atheists thanking them for it. Like when virtually all of Christendom disowned Pat Robertson after his lies about Haiti, Dawkins didn't thank Christians for speaking out against him. Instead Dawkins picked apart all their responses and made the No True Scotsman fallacy that Pat Robertson was the only true Christian and any Christian who disowns him is not a real Christian. Which one is it? Does Dawkins want moderate Christians to call out extremists when they act out or should they shut up because they aren't "real" Christians? He can't have it both ways. It's the same thing with the Westboro Baptists. People complain that moderates aren't calling the extremists out on their actions enough but when they call out the Phelps on their actions, you never see anyone thank them for it. Instead people pick apart their response to the Phelps to argue that the Phelps are the only "real" Christians.

I think you got a valid claim there. Something to think about.

[Greatest I am]

 

Show where or recant and at least show you have manners.

 

Regards

DL

Not quite.

I see religionists as the loyal opposition of secular government.

Your system as well as ours has checks and balances.

Take religionists out of it and you lose this check.

 

You said

"Hey, I'm not the one arguing an atheist society is incapable of morality."

 

 

I do not see in my words anything that would indicate any statement to atheist or morality.

In fact, I was speaking of religionists and their fate.

 

It may be my misuse of English. Tabarnacle. That was me swearing in French.

 

Would any with a good grasp of language like to break this stalemate on this issue?

 

Ouroboros

We have had a slight communication problem and even with this as a draw back for me, would you offer your opinion please.

 

If you agree with Neon, I will apologize quickly.

 

Regards

DL

[Ouroboros]

Ouroboros

We have had a slight communication problem and even with this as a draw back for me, would you offer your opinion please.

 

If you agree with Neon, I will apologize quickly.

Your English is very confusing. At times it sounds like your in disagreement, and somethings it sounds like you're in agreement, but when we're arguing the finer points of either-or, the response from you isn't what we expected. I'm not sure what advice I can give you, but currently this is--what I can see--the central problem.

[Greatest I am]

You might note that some cultures have rights of passage that train and teach their view of manhood and dignity.

We in the west do not.

Actually we do, at least where I live. In California girls celebrate "Sweet 16," and to many families, the high-school graduation is the step into adulthood.

 

I will give you that but would point out that it is rather late if you consider the number of unwed mothere by the age of 16.

 

A good rule, in keeping with the prostitution issue and dignity, might be, though shall not screw another man's child for pay.

"Child" is a very misleading word in that sentence.

 

I will admit to this as well. I was perhaps thinking that most of the abuse in the home is with children and then they escape to prostitution as a way out.

 

A child is a kid, not a grownup. To have sex with a minor is a crime in all western countries, regardless if you pay for it or not.

 

Yes.

FMPOV, we give it lip service only.

 

That would tend to save some fathers from knowing that that is what is happening to theirs.

It's already laws against that, in all countries, even the secular/non-religious ones.

 

In America it's called statutory rape. Basically, the minor does not have to file charges, but the state files the criminal suit against the perpetrator.

 

It may work well in some cases but I would point to Michel Jackson and the Churches as notable exceptions to this rule and also point out that if you and I wanted to, we could go out tomorrow and buy a child prostitute.

As I said, I see our present situation as giving lip service only.

 

Regards

DL

[Greatest I am]

 

 

So fuck the idea that only religious delusion leads to goodness.

I agree that moderates are important in keeping the extremists in check and I believe that as long as Christianity is around, the moderates are important in keeping the extremists in check. But GIA seems to think atheism in itself is an extremist position and I don't get his argument that atheists are somehow incapable of moderation.

 

Not surprising that you do not get what I do not give.

But enough said here. I will wait to see if we get someone to opine on the other post.

 

Regards

DL

[Ouroboros]

It may work well in some cases but I would point to Michel Jackson and the Churches as notable exceptions to this rule and also point out that if you and I wanted to, we could go out tomorrow and buy a child prostitute.

As I said, I see our present situation as giving lip service only.

In what sense? The law is very strict about it, and when the police suspect anything of this kind, they go at it like bloodhounds.

 

Perhaps they're more loose about it in Canada?

[Guest Babylonian Dream]

If you conversed with God, you'd probably be diagnosed with schizophrenia or some other mental illness that causes you to hallucinate. If God was really real, that wouldn't be the case, and there should be no reason why you shouldn't be able to communicate directly with God in a conversation. With that being said, it seems like a quasi-acknowledgement that God isn't as real as people make him. That makes God a popular delusion. Delusions are dangerous, and really do have negative impacts on both the person having the delusion and those around them. So that is a reason to be against a belief in deity in any form.

[Greatest I am]

I agree with your last but in terms of numbers, the large majority of people are religionist

And according to some studies, even a larger number of criminals are religious. Religion does not make people better people.

 

You see, what makes religion a good tool to make people follow good rules is that they encapsulate a culture, traditions, memes, values, and mores. And religion makes these really easy to get to and understand.

 

But culture, traditions, memes, values, and mores can all be encapsulated in society as such, without religion, and as we pointed out before that several European countries are examples of exactly just that.

 

... and if we could get them to walk their talk ...

How would you do that?

 

Create religious laws? Make society into a theocracy?

 

No. just change the present view of God to a better one that is not based on fantasy but on reason.

 

... then that would be a force worth reckoning with if they promoted dignity and inclusion instead of the exclusion that most religions sell.

Religion sell exclusion because that is EXACTLY what religion is about. It's the exclusive rights to be "saved" through their particular brand of snake-oil. If you remove the exclusive attitude in religion, you get humanism, and that exists already.

 

As a side note. I see the Vatican and Islam working together on interpretations of scripture. A step in the right direction that compliments Vatican II.

Not sure why that is a good thing. It's not a bad thing, but I can't see the good in it either.

 

Are you sure you're a Deist and not a Theist? I have never met a Deist arguing so hard for religion.

 

I do not argue for the fantasy religions and indeed fight against them but I do recognize the value to community that churches are.

I do argue that they change the way they teach of God.

 

God should be the word and the word was and should return to what it is. A philosophy for a good life the way all philosophies are. They screwed it up when they gave God a name and personified the title of God and gave it impossible attributes.

 

Regards

DL

[NotBlinded]

snip

 

They screwed it up when they gave God a name and personified the title of God and gave it impossible attributes.

 

Regards

DL

I agree with that 100%.

 

Other than that, I'm confused. But, that is my nature.