John Page

Hi Gurdur.

I reviewed your argumentation in the formal debate you linked to earlier in this thread (my emphasis in italics). Using a term with which you seem to be familiar, vegemite also seems to be simply an additional and non-essential construct.

I think of it this way, religion allows a single set of beliefs to be promulgated, thereby promoting unification of peoples beyond ethnic, territorial or nascent state boundaries. As yet, I do not believe there is any other plausible alternative to explain how societies formed groups well beyond their tribal roots. To my knowledge, the only other force able to do this is weaponry that enables a small militia to control large populations through terror.

It should be clear from the above that while your conclusion may be consistent with the development of folklore, it ignores a large body of evidence that religion was a major force in shaping all major civilizations. Arguably it continues to be more powerful than any military in shaping the human world. I don't see the secular humanism has addressed this larger issue at all.

If your prior statements were intended to promote and assist the case for secular humanism, you seem to be letting their side down by showing it to be a multi-sourced basis on which an imaginative construct is built.

Care to remake any point you may have in terms that actually justifies what you said (and why you said it)?

Hint: The European Colonization of North and South America.

Cheers!

P.S. Please don't overlook my post on page 2!

[ April 01, 2002: Message edited by: John Page ]</p>

Laurentius

snatchbalance

AVE

The problem in your sequence is with (C):

a) We - what "we"? Individually? By ourselves? Each for him/herself? For everyone?
b) need - why "need"? Whose "need"? Whatever the answers for the questions in (a) are, why "need"?

AVE

Gurdur

Let's see, I made the conclusion that secular humanists would be better served by paying more attention to the framework of society rather than trying to compete with religions in many ways, and I gave some reasons for this. More details available on sensible request.
The major reason was of course the fact that this is precisely how humanists have had their greatest successes to date.

You, John Page, responded with a post proclaiming your own version of prescriptiveness, accompanied by various non sequiters of no use, and the rather bizarre statements:
Let's see what that means - you mean you are the prescriptivist (judging from your website which I checked out) and others dare not be ?
No, in the light of your other statements here you have to do far better than that.

You also said previously:
As a scientist, I dislike this statement for its non-specificity and its useless rhetoric.
Just whose failed promises in sociology ?
And just what is the connection ?

I am a secular humanist, and you would be a fool to try applying that above statement to me.

Once again you jump to totally inappropriate and bizarrely wrong inferences.

Are you a conspiracy theorist ? Do you really believe that all secular humanists suscribe to the same principles ?

And this is where you and I part ways, John Page. I specified beforehand that I do not accept the use of the term "psychosis" being applied in the popular way to religion; and as for the genuine medical definition (hint: try DSM-IV), after reviewing all the evidence, IMHO it just doesn't fit.

If the Macmillan Encyclopaedia is the best you can do in the way of scientific sources, then I really doubt we have any common basis for discussion.

There are some damned good reasons why no-one would be be ethically medically diagnosed as a psychotic just on the basis of the skimpy and short definition you've cited; think about it.

Nope. I already gave one massive clue in my first post in this thread, and frankly, given the fact that you ignore much of my posts while making bizarre statements and incorrect conclusions about me and my putative beliefs, why should I bother answering you in full in this thread ?

My article on psychosis vis-á-vis religion will be up in a few days anyway, and I see little reason to indulge you personally.

Tsk tsk tsk.
I'm a hard-line atheist, with training in some of the scientific fields pertaining to the subject at hand.
Forgive me if I neither take your incoherent pastiches, opinions of me or of psychosis, or your score-taking seriously at all.

Could be waiting quite some time, owing to the reasons I've outlined.

Tsk tsk tsk, you appear to be unfamiliar with the history of China - a largly nominally religious nation throughout its history - or with the history of say Soviet Communism, an ideology that certainly gave religion a run for its money for a while.

Furthermore you make the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy; you fail to explain why religion is a dying force in so many Western and Asian countries; and you fail dismally to consider all the evidence.

It should be clear from the above you simply don't know what you are talking about, since you hopelessly muddle terms and concepts, use a false dilemma fallacy in your psychosis "argument", ignore the fact that mythopoesis hardly applies only to folklore, ignore a fair bit of history and anthropology, and moreover you are erecting a strawman with regard to the religion and major civilization bit.

But of course I understand; you're pushing your own "meta-religion" on your web-site and everything would be just hunky-dory if everyone accepted it, right ?

Tsk³. Religion is no longer the major force it once was in many societies. And appealing to the forces that underlie religion was not necessary for the success of humanism in 1648, nor all other successes to date.

Tsk³, tsk³. I shall nevertheless wend my way.

Not to you; I can only waste so much time clearing up your false misconceptions and trolling about either secular humanism and/or me, and Laurentius is far more direct and coherent on this thread, which means at least I can get a good argument with him without devoting reams to clearing up prejudices.

[ April 02, 2002: Message edited by: Gurdur ]</p>

bynature

Maybe not a parable, but certainly something to muse: What will a man give in exchange for his soul?

Depraved, by nature

Laurentius

AVE

Thank you for your valuable participation, guys. I don't think I deserve your last appreciation, Gurdun, since I lack the rigor and broad&specific horizon you seem to master. However, I may be on the verge of it. Or, in the future, if I am succesful at making a prosperous living, I'll dedicate my time seriously to this activity. For now, I am rather learning.

Keep up this interesting debate, I'm here, and I'll poke in when there is really something to say for my part.

AVE

Ender

*grunt*

Laurentis, who's the best philosopher of humanism, in your own estimation? And why have you chosen him? Who are the other humanist philosophers and why don't they past muster?

~WiGGiN~

Ender

I just came across this <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/secularhumanism/index.shtml" target="_blank">link</a>- i'll occupy myself for a few days and check your answer.

~WiGGiN~

Gurdur

Flattery will get you nowhere.
Or maybe you're just having fun at my expense ?

On a serious note: nonsense.
To my mind, at least you ask some hard and appropriate questions, and the right questions are 90 % of the struggle.
Join the club.

One point in particular:
I don't see the basis for your objection to Snatchbalance's premise (C).

Any moral argument is almost always a political one, in view of the social context; enough people would feel that they "needed" to make this life into the best one that they could, therefore Snatchbalance's premise is OK, at least for those people, probably not an insignificant number.

So what's the reasons for your objection, please ?

[ April 02, 2002: Message edited by: Gurdur ]</p>

snatchbalance

Laurentius


a) Most people "need" or at least want to have the best life possible, at least I wwould think so.
b) Again most people, I think, have a "need", or at least a strong desire, for meaning in thier lives.

Anyway, my real intent was to point out what I would consider to be a gross error in your logic. Namely, that by taking the stance of an Atheist, ethics somehow become futile.

I would have to say that, in many cases, God given, or religiously derived morals, prevent unbiased discusions on the ethics of certain situations.

Take for example, birth control. Once one takes the position that such practices are a sin against God, rational debate is out of the question.

Hence, it seems that at least in some instances, referal to some higher power, is what makes ethics futile. Atheism, by eliminating such wild cards, makes debate on the acutal issues possible.

Snatchbalance

[ April 02, 2002: Message edited by: snatchbalance ]</p>

John Page

Gurdur:

We seem to be at odds with our perception of China's history and the path of communism.

1. China is and remains a very superstitious country with many gods for all multitude of purposes, complete with creation myth etc. For example: Goddess of the Moon, God of walls and ditches, Goddess of spinners, God of Protection, Goddess of sexual delights, Supreme Deity of Heavan, God of Fire and many many more. The first emperor of China declared himself a deity. The last emperor of China, deposed in 1912, was regarded as a god king. Taoism became the Chinese national religion in 440BC and its progenitor worshipped as a deity. While I am not intimately acquainted with the history of Chinese religion my information is they have pretty much stuck with forms of polytheism although Islam started spreading as trade grew around the 10th century.

2. Atheistic Communism as an ideology failed to create sustainable civilizations, most attempts at implementing such a society collapsing within a couple of generations. Why? I don't claim to have a cast iron conclusion but I lived in the former Soviet Union for a number of years. As a result of reading Soviet history and talking to participants at many levels of that society I suggest that "grand experiment" failed to compete because it a) it was not a meritocracy and b) state control latterly demotivated citizens instead of empowering them as at the outset "All power to the soviets!". My exposure to recent Chinese history is much more limited but watching Chinese movies and reading Chinese books (Wild Swans etc.) provides a similar picture of a bullying "faceless" state that people struggle in spite of.

Back to Russia for a side comment. After the fall of communism, people rallied to put their churches back in service. It was kind of inspiring to travel round and see the pooling of resources, almost a competition, to restore religion. Specifically in Moscow in spring '93, as the weather turned to bright sunny days, increasing numbers of onion domes sparkled with their newly gold-foiled coverings. Religion had just gone underground. Now the patriarchy of the Russian Orthodox Church is waging an unholy battle seeking to limit the spread of new religions and atheism's communistic associations have relegated it to history (for a while!).

I hope you will see that my comments are based on fact and real experience. I don't think we yet understand humanity sufficiently, hence my objection to your original conclusion which, BTW, I still don't see a response to.

Cheers!