Gurdur

Well, despite all agitprop to the contrary,humans are not beings of pure reason, and never can be - otherwise we'ld all die out within a couple of generations through lack of (among other things) falling in love, a notoriously 'irrational' act.

Among others making such arguments, this is Karen Armstrong's point, in A History Of God.
I find the point interesting, and I've begun <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=8&t=000009" target="_blank">exploring this myself and will continue to do so</a>, however I think it's more valid on the whole not to say that Homo sapiens sapiens is Homo religiosus, but rather Homo mythopoesis.

Actually, it can be; there are examples on this board enough of atheists developing inappropriate religious-cult-like delusuions of grandeur and paranoia, however by any reasonable encompassing definition of "religiosity", your statement is simply wrong, since in essence IMHO you are zeroing in on attitudes that frequently accompany but do not comprise atheism.


This is a conclusion that I actually have reached myself; however, a very necessary collary is that society needs a broadly humanist, secular, lawful and tolerant framework in which the more acceptable strands can exist together in competition.
See my link above for more details why.

A good point, however atheists and agnostics are probably better served by helping develop that social framework I referred to rather than edifices of their own, since in the immortal words of echidna,
"Atheists differ on all issues but one".

[ March 31, 2002: Message edited by: Gurdur ]</p>

John Page

[quote]Originally posted by John Page:
</strong>

Laurentius reaponse: "This is obscure. To what statement or position of mine are referring here?"

None - I was refering to the basis of secular humanism.

Cheers!

[ March 31, 2002: Message edited by: John Page ]</p>

John Page

Well said. Just labeling something as "logical", "rational" or "reasonable" is no proof that it is any such thing.

Needs? Acceptable? It may also be considered rational to completely annihilate a competing civilization. Only, of course, in the interests of long term prosperity, peace, love, blah blah blah.

snatchbalance

Laurentius



I think there is a large difference, between continued debate, even heated debated, and sending people to gas chambers.

Our discussion, in this forum, has been about continued argument with Theists. Unfortunately, at least here in the US, the Theists have a strong lobby. Somebody, and I guess I feel the need, has to stand up to that lobby. My method is through unflinching debate; no applogies here.

The irony, sometimes you have to be intolerant of intolerance in order to preserve tolerance(I think that makes sense).

So, I think you have the roles mixed up - I'm trying to stop the "Nazis", not the other way around.

Snatchbalance

[ March 31, 2002: Message edited by: snatchbalance ]</p>

Gurdur

Didn't bother checking out the link I gave, did you, John Page?

As for your above statement, while on the whole it is true enough within its own very limited terms, it has absolutely no connection with what I said and contributes nothing at all to the discussion.

Care to remake any point you may have in terms that actually address what I say (and why I say it, as given in the above link) ?

Hint: The Thirty Years' War.

John Page

No. But I just have and it doesn't change my comments, I don't have to subscribe to your view of what society's needs are and what is acceptable.

I do, however, agree there's been a mass psychosis based around the concept of god and this psychosis has proven beneficial in the creation of large civilizations. The concept of god may, or may not, be an impediment to the development of superior civilizations. Why not just communicate your findings instead of being prescriptive? Other people will decide what their own needs are and what is acceptable.

Here's a link to the Prisoner Paradox which I find a very useful reflection on the rules of human behavior, irrespective of the "truth". <a href="http://www.magnolia.net/~leonf/sd/pd-brf.html" target="_blank">Prisoner Paradox Link</a>

Not true and No. Go look at my site at this link <a href="http://www.reconciliationism.org/site_map.htm" target="_blank">Reconciliationism</a>, it may further explain that while your findings may be all well and good, I don't agree with your posted conclusion that "a very necessary collary is that society needs a broadly humanist, secular, lawful and tolerant framework in which the more acceptable strands can exist together in competition." It is my own conclusion that this kind of mindset is the same one that contributed to the failed promises of sociology.

New balls. Gurdur to serve.

Go Meritocracry! Cheers!

Gurdur

Gosh, you mean you don't need to address at all what I said and why I said it, but you can indulge in your own agitprop while pretending it has some connection?

Agree with whom? I've never said that and I think that's bullshit which uses a popular and not a genuine medical definition of psychosis.

More loose language and argumentative incoherence from you, John Page. Try harder!
At least give a true connection!

Twaddle.

The concept of vegemite may, or may not, be an impediment to the development of superior civilizations.
Do you actually have any point to make that actually applies to this discussion or specifically my comments, John Page ?
If so, make it.

Surely you mean mediocrity rather than meritocracy, since I find your repeated connectionless assertions, lacking in any argument as they are, to be worthless owing to their insubstantiality.
I repeat: Do you have any actual point to make that has the slightest connection to my commments?

[ March 31, 2002: Message edited by: Gurdur ]</p>

John Page

Au contraire, my dear Gurdur, you are the one making connectionless assertions about what society's needs are and what is acceptable. I don't see the justification for your conclusion (the one I originally objected to) and, other than refering me to a link that did not seem to provide any justification, you have simply not responded. Love - 15.

My remarks about Secular Humanism come from a perception that subscribers to this collection of lofty priciples are people who like to think they are better and smarter than others and would be best to lead humanity into the future. Are you a Secular Humanist? - here's what I understand one to be from <a href="http://www.secularhumanism.org/intro/affirmations.html" target="_blank">this link to the list of principles from the Council for Secular Humanism</a>. Love - 30.

By the way, here's the definition of psychosis from the Macmillan Encyclopedia "A severe mental illness in which the sufferer loses contact with reality." As to belief in god being a mass psychosis, if you assert god is not real must you not agree that mass belief in god is a mass psychosis? Or are you agnostic or a believer in god. I don't see a win for Gurdur here, you're the one who doesn't know what a psychosis is. Love - 40.

I'm waiting. I have some more questions for you.

Cheers!

[ March 31, 2002: Message edited by: John Page ]</p>

crocodile deathroll

Honesty is a good start as regardless of what one would like to believe the truth is the truth. Creationists for example are often - quite rightly - criticized not only because secularists do not like what they are preaching, but because what they are preaching is also not true. Most prominent creationist preachers like Ken Ham may well be closet evolutionists only see financial advantage in continuing preaching his untruths by taking advantage of the gullible and ignorant by preying on them and not really praying for them. Rather like a snake oil salesman selling something which is purely intangible. They are selling a lie

snatchbalance

(A) There is no God.
(B) There is no afterlife, so:
(C) We need to make this life into the best one that we can, so:
(D) People need to find meaning in existance, so:
(E) With effort, an individual's life can be very meaningful, so:
(F) A set of values can be arrived at, so:
(G) One must engage in communication without interference of delusion, so:
(H) Ethics are vital.