A good example of why athiests suck

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

That's only one school of US Constutional thought although it has been one abided by the Supreme Court in most instances. It's not something that I personally agree with as we are three centuries separated from when it was written.

Again if the constitution needs fixing it can be. What are you suggesting the Supreme Court do? Rewrite it themselves on a case by case basis?

[photon]

Originally Posted by peter12

What is your symbolism then? You are remarkably coy whenever this discussion comes up.

I don't think I'm coy, I think my posts are already too long lol. I try to be as honest and straight forward as I can be, if I'm missing a question ask it again or ask it a different way.

I don't understand what you mean by "what is my symbolism". Maybe that's why it seems coy, you're looking for an answer to a question that you think is implicit and I don't know of. I'll assume you don't mean symbolism in the sense of a flag or a phrase or an icon.

Originally Posted by peter12

As for my own position, I spend lots of time saying why I think things are wrong, I may not talk about replacements because frankly, I think it's a little premature in this discussions to bring up whatever is supposed to "replace" our secular humanism.

So can you see how criticizing something without offering an alternative could be anywhere from frustrating to trolling? It's a discussion forum, not a blog. Or at the very least specifying why something needs to be replaced?

And I don't even think you say why you think things are wrong, or when you do it seems to be what's wrong with some specific version of something that no one is espousing. What's wrong with secular humanism?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by photon

So can you see how criticizing something without offering an alternative could be anywhere from frustrating to trolling? It's a discussion forum, not a blog. Or at the very least specifying why something needs to be replaced?

And I don't even think you say why you think things are wrong, or when you do it seems to be what's wrong with some specific version of something that no one is espousing. What's wrong with secular humanism?

Socrates was a troll? Sometimes I don't even know what I think I just like to see where the argument goes.

Secular humanism has a ton of problems with it and I'll have to say start here:

http://www.amazon.ca/Natural-Right-H...4&sr=8-1-spell

I'll try to explain myself. Will take some thinking though.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by peter12

Socrates was a troll? Sometimes I don't even know what I think I just like to see where the argument goes.

Secular humanism has a ton of problems with it and I'll have to say start here:

http://www.amazon.ca/Natural-Right-H...4&sr=8-1-spell

I'll try to explain myself. Will take some thinking though.

Arguing for the sake of being argumentative to see where an argument goes is not condusive to conversation, discussion, or winning people to your side. You can see why your posting style might be riling some people up.

I have not read that book but I remember reading Leo Strauss in University and he's an interesting author and I would like to read that. I can't say that I agreed with everything he says but right now I couldn't say that I remember much either as it was years ago.

Your statement that "there are a lot of problems with secular humanism" is a huge cop-out. It's like saying "there are a lot of problems with Christianity" or "there are a lot of problems with the Calgary Flames". There will always be a lot of problems with every theory, view, ideology, religion, or philosophy. Nothing can universally encompass, appeal to, and be the solution everything that is the nature of human existence.

Why must we be defining Christianity or Athesim or Secular Humanism in such rigid terms? Why do we put people in groups or give them identities that are so formal? Why must we judge an ontological view as being complete or incomplete? "It has a lot of problems" is the biggest cop-out when it comes to anything. Even science does not have a unified theory.

And yes Socrates was a troll. Plato said so. They called trolls gadflys back then and instead of the ban-hammer, they got poisoned.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by peter12

...Secular humanism has a ton of problems with it and I'll have to say start here:

http://www.amazon.ca/Natural-Right-H...4&sr=8-1-spell

I'll try to explain myself. Will take some thinking though.

So much of the time you sound a great deal like a colleague of mine. It seems to me that you hope to critique and "debunk" secular humanism, but can only do so within the rationalized context of the secular humanist worldview, and yet you seem to think that you are somehow immune to it.

The fact of the matter is that there are plenty of problems inherent in any and every philosophy or human construct. Regardless of whether or not secular humanists choose to acknowledge this does not invalidate their worldview. Secular humanism manages to persist on the main basis that for the most part—and for lack of a better term—it works. Our species has evolved to the point (notice that I did not say "progressed"!) that rational processes derived from evidence provided within the natural world have come to shape our way of life.

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by peter12

Socrates was a troll? Sometimes I don't even know what I think I just like to see where the argument goes.

Secular humanism has a ton of problems with it and I'll have to say start here:

http://www.amazon.ca/Natural-Right-H...4&sr=8-1-spell

I'll try to explain myself. Will take some thinking though.

Are you comparing yourself to Socrates?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

So much of the time you sound a great deal like a colleague of mine. It seems to me that you hope to critique and "debunk" secular humanism, but can only do so within the rationalized context of the secular humanist worldview, and yet you seem to think that you are somehow immune to it.

The fact of the matter is that there are plenty of problems inherent in any and every philosophy or human construct. Regardless of whether or not secular humanists choose to acknowledge this does not invalidate their worldview. Secular humanism manages to persist on the main basis that for the most part—and for lack of a better term—it works. Our species has evolved to the point (notice that I did not say "progressed"!) that rational processes derived from evidence provided within the natural world have come to shape our way of life.

Well just because I choose to direct criticism towards secular humanism, doesn't mean that I don't recognize that I am, in some sort of way, an Enlightenment liberal.

It's given us a lot of great things; the idea that individuals are equal through their own reason, that women and men are equal, and strengthened the idea that a republic is the best political regime.

It's also purely utilitarian, reductionist and technocratic.

You get the good along with the bad and it's important to recognize that.

[photon]

Originally Posted by peter12

This is a position brilliantly addressed by Eagleton. You are accepting evidence under a particular set of ideological circumstances, ie. liberal humanism. You also are not addressing other types of evidence presented by theologians such as Thomas Aquineas or Maimonides.

I'd still like to see some examples of evidence in other sets of ideological circumstances BTW.

Originally Posted by peter12

It's not a trap at all. What evidence supports the belief in moral progress?

History. Over time we've discovered better objective standards for morality.

Originally Posted by Finny61

Well Christians primarily have the same common values and some similar beliefs but we both know that it varies hence the numerous denominations.

That's true, and that's why in my opinion anyone discussing such things should be clear about what they're talking about, or better yet discuss the particular issue rather than try and lump it all under the umbrella Christianity.

Originally Posted by Finny61

With atheism yes there is the common belief in no existence of God

Not really, some atheists believe that god does not exist, but some atheists just lack the belief that god exists. There is a difference (weak vs. strong atheism).

Originally Posted by Finny61

but each Athiest's values can differ (ie: an Athiest who does not see inherent threat in someone who is religious versus someone who does perceive a threat which is the point I've tried to make previously).

Exactly, so it's more useful to define things by the actual issue rather than a generalization. Especially so in the case of atheists who share no value system.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

Arguing for the sake of being argumentative to see where an argument goes is not condusive to conversation, discussion, or winning people to your side. You can see why your posting style might be riling some people up.

I have not read that book but I remember reading Leo Strauss in University and he's an interesting author and I would like to read that. I can't say that I agreed with everything he says but right now I couldn't say that I remember much either as it was years ago.

Your statement that "there are a lot of problems with secular humanism" is a huge cop-out. It's like saying "there are a lot of problems with Christianity" or "there are a lot of problems with the Calgary Flames". There will always be a lot of problems with every theory, view, ideology, religion, or philosophy. Nothing can universally encompass, appeal, and be the solution everything that is the nature of human existence.

Why must we be defining Christianity or Athesim or Secular Humanism in such rigid terms? Why do we put people in groups or give them identities that are so formal? Why must we judge an ontological view as being complete or incomplete? "It has a lot of problems" is the biggest cop-out when it comes to anything. Even science does not have a unified theory.

And yes Socrates was a troll. Plato said so. They called trolls gadflys back then and instead of the ban-hammer, they got poisoned.

This is a great post and I thank you for it. The first point. I don't care if I get people on my side. The point of philosophy is to argue against sides and provide invalidation of any common folk wisdom.

Briefly, because as I said, I want to respond when I've had more time to think about this, but secular humanism is distinct for being pretty absolutist in regards to past eras and paradigms. I am stunned by Textcritics response, for example, that a biblical scholar could make note to the unifying principle of material evidence. That simply is completely contrary to the human experience.

Also, in defense of myself, often I make fairly constructed and drawn out arguments for/against something and it doesn't get responded to at all. So you can see why I might resort to cynical drive-bys.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by peter12

...You get the good along with the bad and it's important to recognize that.

Yet you seem to think that you are the only one who recognizes as much. At least that is how you present yourself in several of your posts on the subject. How do you know that none of the rest of us have weighed the consequences?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by photon

I'd still like to see some examples of evidence in other sets of ideological circumstances BTW.



History. Over time we've discovered better objective standards for morality.

I'm sorry, I might be missing something here, but I don't get your first sentence. I'm having the weirdest sense of deja vu here.

Second, what objective standards? We just exited a century where the amount of humans killed by other humans exceeded the total of all other centuries combined. I've heard this argument before and it doesn't sit with me at all. Are you telling me that Plato's philosophical standards for a just society are somehow inferior morally?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Yet you seem to think that you are the only one who recognizes as much. At least that is how you present yourself in several of your posts on the subject. How do you know that none of the rest of us have weighed the consequences?

I don't know and that's the point. There's a good deal of unquestioned progressivism, if I may call it that, on this board.

As I've said before, with no response, most of the so-called skepticism going on around these days is liberal humanism of the sort we have seen since Bacon. It's not new and if examined, it's just another ideology.

I also want to draw a distinction between ideological inquiry and philosophical inquiry. Secular humanism is pure ideology, mainly for the reasons that I've stated earlier. That everything about the world is capabling of being quantified by humanity.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by peter12

T...secular humanism is distinct for being pretty absolutist in regards to past eras and paradigms. I am stunned by Textcritics response, for example, that a biblical scholar could make note to the unifying principle of material evidence. That simply is completely contrary to the human experience...

You should get out more. I'm hardly the first biblical scholar to acknowledge the material starting point in any critical discussion.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

You should get out more. I'm hardly the first biblical scholar to acknowledge the material starting point in any critical discussion.

What does this mean? I'm stunned by your admission in the thread. It's a statement that I find bizarre regardless of the context.

Actually, maybe I'm conflating theology with criticism.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by peter12

It's given us a lot of great things; the idea that individuals are equal through their own reason, that women and men are equal, and strengthened the idea that a republic is the best political regime.

I don't believe that individuals are equal or that men and women are equal for that matter. It is simply more condusive to creating a happy and stable society to grant everyone equal rights on paper and to entrench it into the cultural millieu. While empircally individuals are most certainly not equal, the idea of equal rights and treating each other equally has very deep altruistic roots that I do support.

There are many problems with a Republic

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

I don't believe that individuals are equal or that men and women are equal for that matter. It is simply more condusive to creating a happy and stable society to grant everyone equal rights on paper and to entrench it into the cultural millieu. While empircally individuals are most certainly not equal, the idea of equal rights and treating each other equally has very deep altruistic roots that I do support.

There are many problems with a Republic

Exactly, that's a very liberal attitude.

There's plenty of problems with everything, but I think I prefer a republic (see mixed democracy) to just about anything else.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by peter12

What does this mean? I'm stunned by your admission in the thread. It's a statement that I find bizarre regardless of the context.

Actually, maybe I'm conflating theology with criticism.

I expect that this is likely the problem. I am most certainly not a theologian; interestingly enough, the colleague of mine whom you remind me of happens to be a systematic theologian and *shudder* an apologist. I'm sure that has everything to do with why he and I do not see eye to eye.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I expect that this is likely the problem. I am most certainly not a theologian; interestingly enough, the colleague of mine whom you remind me of happens to be a systematic theologian and *shudder* an apologist. I'm sure that has everything to do with why he and I do not see eye to eye.

Probably an evangelical and that's the problem.

[photon]

Originally Posted by peter12

Sometimes I don't even know what I think I just like to see where the argument goes.

Nothing wrong with that, but it's better to be clear about it so people don't get the wrong idea.

Originally Posted by peter12

Secular humanism has a ton of problems with it and I'll have to say start here:

http://www.amazon.ca/Natural-Right-H...4&sr=8-1-spell

I'll try to explain myself. Will take some thinking though.

Lol you can't "start" with a complex philosophical book, I'm a philosophy lightweight remember!

Originally Posted by peter12

It's also purely utilitarian, reductionist and technocratic.

Is it? Would a secular humanist advocate enslaving a small portion of the population for the greater good is ok? Seems to be more complex than that.

What's wrong with reductionism? Or maybe I should ask for a more detailed definition of reductionism in this context.

And I don't know that secular humanism even advocated a technocracy.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

Are you comparing yourself to Socrates?

No. I am just saying that I admire him.