Is RF officially ramsacked by the secular movement?

[osgart]

It's odd @osgart that as soon as one says there is nothing to indicate science should be accepted as the sole means of verification, you get a bunch of angry materialists breathing down your neck- accusing you of rejecting science and stuff. It's almost with the zeal against one that rejects a faith position. Then when you tell them you accept science too, they adopt this kind of: "do you believe science is the ONLY truth"!?

That's an indoctrination tactic. That's my reason for the thread.

 

[Curious George]

I don't like when I go to rf, to talk religion, and there's no more religious people, and all you hear is anti religious points of view. So I thought perhaps the tones of these conversations were too negative.

I do not only see anti-religious points of view. So either I am seeing other stuff that is not there or you are not seeing stuff that is there. How can we decide which, if either, of us is seeing more correctly?

The approach isn't harmful at all. What's harmful is using it to denigrate other people with it. And only some people look to do that. They take a cause to discredit and eliminate opposition, Instead of to enlighten, and encourage.

If religion deserves scrutiny, so does secularity. And I believe they both need it.

I still do not see an answer here. I am trying to determine if I my asking was ineffective or if you are just not answering on purpose.

 

[osgart]

I do not only see anti-religious points of view. So either I am seeing other stuff that is not there or you are not seeing stuff that is there. How can we decide which, if either, of us is seeing more correctly?



I still do not see an answer here. I am trying to determine if I my asking was ineffective or if you are just not answering on purpose.

I'm trying to answer the question.

I'm sure there are indoctrinaters on both sides of the fence.

I grew up with religious indoctrination, and then I see secular people doing the same thing. It stems from the attitude that there way is the only way, on both sides.

This in no way is true of all others, but certainly true of many.

I'll decide for myself how things fit into my own perspective.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

You know @osgart I have to give agnostics credit for being honest in their unbelief and skepticism. I am not sure I find gnostic atheism honest.

 

[Curious George]

I'm trying to answer the question.

I'm sure there are indoctrinaters on both sides of the fence.

I grew up with religious indoctrination, and then I see secular people doing the same thing. It stems from the attitude that there way is the only way, on both sides.

This in no way is true of all others, but certainly true of many.

Yet, we do not seem to be getting an answer.

If we have the goal of acquiring the bigger picture in mind and it is only with secularism that we can be open to the idea that our former ideas might be false or invalid, is secularism not the best path for us to tread in order to achieve this goal?

You say, but another better path may arise. Sure, but I am talking about now, not then. You say secularism can have indoctrination, fine. But pointing out potential pitfalls that need to be avoided doesn't mean that secularism is not the best path to achieve the goal of acquiring the bigger picture.

I'll decide for myself how things fit into my own perspective.

This sounds an awful lot like you will

absolute the evidence into their own philosophies, and call that evidently done.

 

[Revoltingest]

I am not sure I find gnostic atheism honest.

Trust me...I'm part Scot!

 

[osgart]

You know @osgart I have to give agnostics credit for being honest in their unbelief and skepticism. I am not sure I find gnostic atheism honest.

I myself proceed from agnosticism, coming into a general belief that is called vitalism, from vitalism I draw towards believing in the virtues, wondering if there is more to life than this temporal existence. The universe seems to desire to grow into a higher order and purpose. I feel as though life is in its infancy, and is ever seeking to understand itself, and grow from there. I also feel that the universe is at odds with life. It's almost as if I'm flowing down a one way stream to grow out of this material shell .

I don't proceed from knowledge like the Gnostics seem to claim. I proceed from experiences. It seems as though there is an eternal vital force in the background of everything I do.

 

[osgart]

Yet, we do not seem to be getting an answer.

You say, but another better path may arise. Sure, but I am talking about now, not then. You say secularism can have indoctrination, fine. But pointing out potential pitfalls that need to be avoided doesn't mean that secularism is not the best path to achieve the goal of acquiring the bigger picture.

This sounds an awful lot like you will

I am subject to change. And experience is also a teacher.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

Trust me...I'm part Scot!

You don't wear kilts do ya? I know what those were originally for. I ain't trusting no man in a kilt...

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I would suggest the prosecution of Westboro Church then specifically. Instead of Christianity as a whole. Making a monolith of Christianity or any other ideology by lumping in extremist is not acceptable. It's the same as blaming Islam for the Taliban. Or the same as blaming atheist for the horrors and atrocities Marxist communism brought to the world.

Can we then move beyond Westboro and look, perhaps, at the Catholic Church (the largest Christian denomination)? And in that context, bring up the questions of homosexuality and safe sex, and see how that plays out? Forgive me for saying it, but there are areas in which Christian belief in which very large numbers find themselves willing to condemn others on the basis of things that (like homosexuality) cannot be helped, or (like safe sex and contraception) are absolutely life-saving.

 

[Curious George]

I am subject to change. And experience is also a teacher.

You honestly read this esoteric statement and think it communicates what?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

We are correct in that religious people often do try to prosecute using the Bible. This is not how to go about it.

As Sali proposed, if a religious person wanted to tackle evolution citing the Bible is not an argument or a viable citation . The burden of proof would be on them to submit scientific evidence that possibly refutes evolution.

And be sure, they have tried -- and failed repeatedly. And failed not only in the scientific community but in the very secular (mostly) courts. Dover PA was a good example, and a very wise judgement by a Christian judge!

As someone prosecuting a religious beliefs the burden of proof is on them. They would have to cite scripture to support their argument.

And many of us have done that over and over and over again. And when our arguments are sound, the thread ends...silence from the other side.

And you know the ones -- the many (and there are many) contradictions in the Bible that basically allow anyone to make it say anything -- and it should be obvious to everybody that anything that can mean whatever you want is utterly useless as a guide to what might be right or wrong -- irrespective of whatever it is you want.

The Bible, unfortunately for those who claim to love it, is heavy with cruelty, injustice, hatred, impossibility and implausibility -- and all in the name of a deity it is claimed "IS LOVE," forgiving, kind, just and perfect in knowledge. Whether there is a deity that is all of those things, I won't argue here, but the bible is the very first argument AGAINST such a supposition.

 

[Revoltingest]

You don't wear kilts do ya? I know what those were originally for. I ain't trusting no man in a kilt...

Only my avatar wears a kilt.
I favor cargo pants.....which is even worse in the eyes of trendy fashion mavens.

 

[Enoch07]

Can we then move beyond Westboro and look, perhaps, at the Catholic Church (the largest Christian denomination)? And in that context, bring up the questions of homosexuality and safe sex, and see how that plays out? Forgive me for saying it, but there are areas in which Christian belief in which very large numbers find themselves willing to condemn others on the basis of things that (like homosexuality) cannot be helped, or (like safe sex and contraception) are absolutely life-saving.

I would suggest specifically prosecuting the Catholic Church on those specific issues. That is a fair debate. So long as you can have citations and not just pure opinion.

 

[LuisDantas]

How do you define religion?

Far as I know, any attempts to reach a consensus definition end up muddying any understanding. So I have for years now accepted that useful definitions of religion are unavoidably reliant on specific, even personal parameters.

In my case, I don't recognize as actual religions doctrines and belief systems that rely on dogma as opposed to reflection, insight and personal development.

Therefore, many otherwise succesful systems that claim to be religions are not even related to religion proper far as I am concerned. Several of those that fail to make the grade are in fact doctrines that make a point of establishing a severe system of strife and mistrust, usually with outsiders, often enough among insiders. Others are based on fear of mortality, obsession with spirits or with deities, or even garden variety cults of personality.

Social psychology working as it does, that unfortunately often brings a superficial appearance of "solidity". It takes a measure of attention and information to realize how poisonous and destructive they are.

To put it in other words: once back in the day I used to be willing to presume a certain form of validity in movements that claimed to be religions. I have come to realize that it is a dangerous concession to make, as well as a source of endless confusion. Validity is not to be presumed without evidence.

I am all for establishing parameters for what should be acknowledged as a religion. But I am well aware of how difficult it is to reach consensus on that regard.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

You know, when it comes to defining religion, and as you acknowledge @LuisDantas that everyone has personal parameters for it- I've often thought we can't meaningfully talk about human spirituality in terms of religion until we get to more dogmatic systems like Catholicism. Given that religion means to tie or bind. The oldest forms of spirituality we know of among humans were fluid and somewhat naive from a philosophical point of view. If a person said a spirit talked to them in a dream the night before- that was accepted. There were no questions about how that might be debatable.

 

[Enoch07]

And many of us have done that over and over and over again. And when our arguments are sound, the thread ends...silence from the other side.

There are some who debate properly. But the overwhelming vast majority do not.

Many times those who even debate properly are shown their premise is false and they refuse to accept it.

Like a thread where someone accused Moses of being a racist engaging in ethnic cleansing. The OP left out scripture pointing out that the people Moses was "attempted to genocide" were indeed the aggressors and Moses was defending his people. After shown this the poster refused to accept it. This is one of the issues I hope can be resolved.

And you know the ones -- the many (and there are many) contradictions in the Bible that basically allow anyone to make it say anything -- and it should be obvious to everybody that anything that can mean whatever you want is utterly useless as a guide to what might be right or wrong -- irrespective of whatever it is you want.

Some people abuse the Bible. This happens amongst some people who are secular, religious, and scholarly. When not abused and understood properly it can be a great guide for Christians.

The Bible, unfortunately for those who claim to love it, is heavy with cruelty, injustice, hatred, impossibility and implausibility -- and all in the name of a deity it is claimed "IS LOVE," forgiving, kind, just and perfect in knowledge. Whether there is a deity that is all of those things, I won't argue here, but the bible is the very first argument AGAINST such a supposition.

That is purely your opinion. Which everyone is allowed to have. But if you wish to assert those opinions the burden of proof is on you, as such it is subject to scrutiny itself.

 

[LuisDantas]

I'd say that right now, society's tacit agreement is that all claims can be challenged. I don't think that's the same as saying "guilty until proven innocent". Do you think they are the same?

Also, it should be noted that presumption of validity in the absence of clear evidence is not always a reasonable stance in other fields, either.

People are not presumed sight unseen to be capable of operating heavy machinery and vehicles, nor of performing medical surgeries. It is widely accepted that such delicate responsibilities demand a measure of qualification that must be evidenced.

Even freelance car drivers and fast food workers are subject to frequent external evaluation.

Why should groups that are often extremely judgmental and dripping hubris be exempt from criticism and questioning? Just because they claim to be working God's will or out of similar claims?

Maybe it is just me, but I don't think that makes any sense.

 

[osgart]

Far as I know, any attempts to reach a consensus definition end up muddying any understanding. So I have for years now accepted that useful definitions of religion are unavoidably reliant on specific, even personal parameters.

In my case, I don't recognize as actual religions doctrines and belief systems that rely on dogma as opposed to reflection, insight and personal development.

Therefore, many otherwise succesful systems that claim to be religions are not even related to religion proper far as I am concerned. Several of those that fail to make the grade are in fact doctrines that make a point of establishing a severe system of strife and mistrust, usually with outsiders, often enough among insiders. Others are based on fear of mortality, obsession with spirits or with deities, or even garden variety cults of personality.

Social psychology working as it does, that unfortunately often brings a superficial appearance of "solidity". It takes a measure of attention and information to realize how poisonous and destructive they are.

To put it in other words: once back in the day I used to be willing to presume a certain form of validity in movements that claimed to be religions. I have come to realize that it is a dangerous concession to make, as well as a source of endless confusion. Validity is not to be presumed without evidence.

I am all for establishing parameters for what should be acknowledged as a religion. But I am well aware of how difficult it is to reach consensus on that regard.

That makes complete sense and I can't argue against any of that. I agree.

I've even experienced as much from certain so called religions. Pressure, fear, mistrust.

I do think religion can become something better than what it has been in the past. A lot of so called religions get undue protection under the title of religion when they are actually cults.

 

[osgart]

You honestly read this esoteric statement and think it communicates what?

It says we learn from our subjective experiences, as well as objective science.