How Are Atheists or Secularists Harming You, Your Kids or Your Country?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It is well shown that you treat every issue as an issue of fact. Destroying, subjectivity, destryoing freedom of opinion, in the process. The conclusion "the painting is beautiful" is equally logically valid as "the painting is ugly". If you say to be able to measure the love for the way the painting looks in the brain, then logically it follows, one could not have reached the conclusion the painting is ugly, one was forced by the love brainchemistry to the conclusion "the painting is beautiful".

I find it ironic how you present your opinion as fact in your complaint about someone else presenting opinions as fact.

 

[Cephus]

It is well shown that you treat every issue as an issue of fact. Destroying, subjectivity, destryoing freedom of opinion, in the process. The conclusion "the painting is beautiful" is equally logically valid as "the painting is ugly". If you say to be able to measure the love for the way the painting looks in the brain, then logically it follows, one could not have reached the conclusion the painting is ugly, one was forced by the love brainchemistry to the conclusion "the painting is beautiful".

There's a difference between the freedom to have an opinion and insisting that your opinions are correct. An opinion is correct if, any only if, it be demonstrated to be so. There is quite a difference between saying "I think that painting is beautiful" and "I think leprechauns exist". One is clearly a statement of subjective opinion and the other is a statement of fact about the real world. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge that serious difference is quite telling.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

There's a difference between the freedom to have an opinion and insisting that your opinions are correct. An opinion is correct if, any only if, it be demonstrated to be so. There is quite a difference between saying "I think that painting is beautiful" and "I think leprechauns exist". One is clearly a statement of subjective opinion and the other is a statement of fact about the real world. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge that serious difference is quite telling.

It is well shown that atheists regard love and hate as a factual issue, which means atheists destroy subjectivity altogether, and not just the particular subjectivity of faith in God.

 

[Bunyip]

It is well shown that atheists regard love and hate as a factual issue, which means atheists destroy subjectivity altogether, and not just the particular subjectivity of faith in God.

I'm an atheist, but don't relate to that at all. How does atheism destroy subjectivity?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I'm an atheist, but don't relate to that at all. How does atheism destroy subjectivity?

Duh... because of, like I said, regarding whether love and hate are real as a factual issue.

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram

Yes I agree that there is some good in religion, but there is good in every ideology, people can feel better believing in anything that makes them feel better. All I am saying is that religion needs to grow, and not keep us in the past, with beliefs that are far out of date, and in many cases has no relevance to todays way of thinking.

there are some areas in which relidion can and does grow , for instance making it self more accessable , but if we are expecting religion to change its beleif structure to come into line with what people think these days, isnt that is some what like expecting schools to change what they teach from what a child needs to learn to what a child wants to hear ???

religion is not just about beliving in something that making people feel better , it is about finding answers to many human dilemas , ....

 

[Estro Felino]

I am a Christian and love Atheists and Secularists. I believe that Christianity implies a big responsibility and great effort, so I admire Atheists so much because of their coherence.

Too many Christians do not take Christianity seriously and I am sorry to say that it would be much better if they became Atheists: they would live their lives more authentically, as Atheists do.

In my signature you can see a passage from the Bible. That passage is true: God prefers cold Atheists than warm Christians.


answers
In what ways are the actions of atheists or secularists threatening you, family, or the country?
---they are not a threat
For example, just off the top of my head I can imagine someone saying that teaching evolution is harmful to their children, or that it is important that the people running this country believe in God.------Education is a serious thing. So Science must be taught in schools. Not fantasy.

(2) Are atheists trying to convert people in the same way that religious people do?
-----most of them are not. but what's wrong with that, if they are?

(3) If atheists are trying to convert people, Is it better or worse than when people of other religions try to do the same?----neither better nor worse

(4) would a rise in secularism be bad for America? Why or why not?
----secularism is always a wonderful thing

 

[Robert.Evans]

These questions go out to theists, atheists, agnostics and pretty much any dairy product you can think of.

(1) In what ways are the actions of atheists or secularists threatening you, family, or the country?
For example, just off the top of my head I can imagine someone saying that teaching evolution is harmful to their children, or that it is important that the people running this country believe in God.

(2) Are atheists trying to convert people in the same way that religious people do?

(3) If atheists are trying to convert people, Is it better or worse than when people of other religions try to do the same?

(4) would a rise in secularism be bad for America? Why or why not?

I would suggest anyone interested read ''Tortured for Christ''. I believe it is free on the internet. That will show what atheists can do.

 

[Estro Felino]

I would suggest anyone interested read ''Tortured for Christ''. I believe it is free on the internet. That will show what atheists can do.

I'm sorry....it looks like you are justifying people's actions. as if people (atheists or Christians) were victims of their own beliefs.

There is no invisible hand that guides us. Each of us is endowed with free will and our responsibility is unlimited, and the crimes committed by people will be carved in History and be indelible.

so...given that there are as many free wills as people on this Earth...it is not right to say "what atheists can do". as if they were a whole

 

[Robert.Evans]

I'm sorry....it looks like you are justifying people's actions. as People (atheists or Christians) were victims of their own beliefs.

No. It is a response to the point about what atheists do or might do. That is what they did. It is history. fact.

There is no invisible hand that guides us.

We are part of an evolving consciousness

Each of us is endowed with free will and our responsibility is unlimited, and the crimes committed by people will be carved in History and be indelible.

We have freewill but are unlikely to use it.... otherwise how could God be sure of the beginning and end. The whole universe has complete autonomy from God, but the god of this world, this aeon, is part of it, and is it, is us.
We therefore follow what we already are within the higher consiousness - the logos

so...given that there are as many free wills as people on this Earth...it is not right to say "what atheists can do". as if they were a whole

The same applies to believers... so agreed. But mine was a general point to a question I think

 

[Estro Felino]

We have freewill but are unlikely to use it.... otherwise how could God be sure of the beginning and end. The whole universe has complete autonomy from God, but the god of this world, this aeon, is part of it, and is it, is us.
We therefore follow what we already are within the higher consiousness - the logos

I don't understand what you mean. It depends on our choices. Was God inside those Communists who tortured that Romanian priest?

so...it's like you said that people are not aware that they are doing evil. They are. They choose evil You said an excellent thing: "we are supposed to follow what we already are".
but those Communists chose evil and their actions will be indelible.

 

[Robert.Evans]

I don't understand what you mean. It depends on our choices. Was God inside those Communists who tortured that Romanian priest?

Life here is like a play. We follow a script. Just as an actor on a stage could say the wrong things, as it is live (as it is here) they probably won't. They will follow their own script. It is hard not to, that is the character you are playing. But the script is unusual. It was written by us. The higher-consciousness and us are one of the same thing. The difference is that we are the lower part of that Self.

so...it's like you said that people are not aware that they are doing evil. They are. They choose evil You said an excellent thing: "we are supposed to follow what we already are".
but those Communists chose evil and their actions will be indelible.

We do follow what we already are.

So the consciousness is one of the same with the lower god... to put it simply. It is a God of a God. He, it, everything, reflects.

So the priests and communists are playing out their own lines... who they are. Thus God is just, because we have freewill... he knows the beginning from the end... and we answer for what we are.

 

[Cephus]

It is well shown that atheists regard love and hate as a factual issue, which means atheists destroy subjectivity altogether, and not just the particular subjectivity of faith in God.

No, there are plenty of things that are subjective, you can subjectively decide what flavor of ice cream you like best, for instance. Subjectivity just isn't useful when it comes to debating facts about the real world. You don't get to arbitrarily decide the speed of light. Reality is what reality is and your opinions mean nothing if they vary from what reality actually is.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

No, there are plenty of things that are subjective, you can subjectively decide what flavor of ice cream you like best, for instance. Subjectivity just isn't useful when it comes to debating facts about the real world. You don't get to arbitrarily decide the speed of light. Reality is what reality is and your opinions mean nothing if they vary from what reality actually is.

...no what you say is incoherent. You have the love for some flavor icecream as fact and opinion both. Doesn't work.

Instead of fundamentally categorizing between fact and opinion, you fundamentally categorize between fact and fantasy. So you put love and hate into the fact category (you can measure it in the brain), and put God and the soul in the fantasy category (together with santa). You have no distinct fundamental category for opinion, so then you just end up throwing opinion into the fact category.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

....that is just how it works, the spirit chooses, and it's a matter of opinion if the spirit is real or not.

I completely disagree. How can one say if the spirit is real or not without a definition of spirit? To whit, I would think that human spirit exists, but I'm not talking about a literal human spirit than transcends death.

Atheism generally relates to low emotional development. That is my argument.

You can't really list this as an argument, since you have offered no evidence for it. You could offer it as an opinion, I guess.

How this works in Australia I don't know. The British do have a tradition with Ockham, Thomas, Berkely who are quite plain to philosophically validate opinion.

These appear to be universal, rather than local questions. I might refer to local examples to demonstrate a point, but I'd don't think we're talking about anything that is locale specific. With more specific relation to the philosophers you listed, it's a little hard to know what your point is, based only on a list of names, so very briefly for now;

Ockham - assuming William of Ockham. His philosophy on opinion-making and hypothesis-forming are a key tenet to how many atheists have reached the position which they have reached. To be clear, I think your base argument (that atheism is associated with low emotional development, and that atheism mandates a black and white, objective view of the world) is completely false. I think adding 'secular' to this base argument takes it the next step, in terms of 'wrongness', which I suspect would be 'not even wrong'. But I'd be interested in how Ockham in any way supports your base argument, or runs contrary to secularism or atheism. That would allow me to address specific argument.

Thomas - Sorry, not sure to whom you are referring. My initial assumption would be Aquinas, but wanted confirmation.

Berkely (sic) - Assuming George Berkeley. His works are interesting, but I'm not sure I understand what specifically you're referring to here. Obviously, he attributed perception to God, but the work he did on perception doesn't require God as an explanation, and is effectively a study in subjectivity. It seems to tie back to your idea that atheism and subjectivity are exclusive, which seems a pretty ignorant stretch, or that secularism and subjectivity are exclusive, which is flat out unsupportable.

I suspect where all this is heading is that you actually have issue with materialism, and equate that with atheism (which I can understand to some degree) and secularism (which I don't understand at all). This would make the reference to Berkeley understandable to me, but I'm connecting too many dots to be sure, so would prefer clarification. It is worth raising at this point, though, that materialism is not a single viewpoint, but has nuances, and that there are scientific challenges to materialism, not just philosophical ones.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

That's sort of what I thought until LegionOnomaMoi schooled me in the forum 'How do you exactly define free will?"
He uploaded some great sources that argue for a scientific explanation of free will. It's related to Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle.

Hi Paradox...

Naw... @LegionOnomaMoi would agree with me I think, but I might need to clarify meaning first. I also shouldn't speak for him, so I've linked him here so he can drop in and call me a goose if he wants to.
At any given point in time, scientists might hold a common opinion on something. As a simple example I would offer the Theory of Evolution (or more specifically, some of the key theories under that umbrella term).

At this point in time, evidence strongly supports the Theory of Evolution. The various concepts beneath it are constantly tested, and refined, etc. In effect, they are constantly challenged. Science itself is the process by which the theory is tested and refined. It is the process by which it could possibly one day be disproven.

So what I meant was that scientific method is the process and mechanism used for trying to understand free will. It has no opinion on free will, but has led to some commonality in opinion being formed. If one wants to disagree with the current common opinion, then I think there are two ways to do this;

1) Simply go the anti-scientific route, and declare that the scientific method is an ineffectual tool for determining whether free will exists. My first question in response to that would be to ask what is a more effective method?

2) Go the scientific route, and picks holes, challenge, or further develop the various theories and hypotheses in place. This is where my point (that science has no opinion on free will) comes into play. Science can be used to disprove current opinion on free will, just as it was used to form current opinion in the first place.

Hope that clarifies what I meant?

 

[Paradox22]

So what I meant was that scientific method is the process and mechanism used for trying to understand free will. It has no opinion on free will, but has led to some commonality in opinion being formed. If one wants to disagree with the current common opinion, then I think there are two ways to do this;

1) Simply go the anti-scientific route, and declare that the scientific method is an ineffectual tool for determining whether free will exists. My first question in response to that would be to ask what is a more effective method?

2) Go the scientific route, and picks holes, challenge, or further develop the various theories and hypotheses in place. This is where my point (that science has no opinion on free will) comes into play. Science can be used to disprove current opinion on free will, just as it was used to form current opinion in the first place.

Hope that clarifies what I meant

Understood, and completely agree.

More than anything else, what science comes down to is a systematic and objective process to go about learning about the world of which we are a part.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I would suggest anyone interested read ''Tortured for Christ''. I believe it is free on the internet. That will show what atheists can do.

Damn atheists. They appear to be fallible. I suspect the rumours about them being 'humans' is sadly true. Luckily, there is still one infallible group left...

*ponders*

Hang on...no there's not.

 

[dgirl1986]

I find it ironic how you present your opinion as fact in your complaint about someone else presenting opinions as fact.

So common.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I'm not looking at a practical application at all, but if I were, it would be harmony and negotiation.

I think I realized a way to settle it. We'll still teach evolution, because that is today's best interpretation of the evidence we have, and then we'll put a very strong emphasis on "today's best interpretation" while simultaneously stressing the why behind the "today's best interpretation" but because we are constantly learning new things and because of the very nature of the scientific method any one given scientific theory today could be replaced tomorrow. And we'll remind kids that of course they can believe anything they want, after all no one is holding a gun to their head and telling them to believe in whatever, but science is a method of itself and because it is a method of itself we teach, in a science room, things that are revealed through the method of science.