Robert.Evans
You will be assimilated; it is His Will.
Other people starve to death and have nothing and he is a millionaire, that is why. The longer reply to you went up the swanny.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
More Dawkins idiocy...
- Thread starter Augustus
- Start date
Augustus
…
None of this is relevant to the point I am making.
The point is not which ideology is better, it's that humanism has no basis in objective fact. All evidence points against it being 'true'. It may be desirable, but only because it matches a specific kind of subjective morality.
Anyway, dealing with your point.
The West rose to power on the back of the industrial revolution that happened when they were very much Christian countries. America still is. They then colonised most of the rest of the world putting others at a disadvantage.
They then were primarily responsible for the most violent century in history and some of the worst crimes. Human history is a long process, looking at the present and last 50 years only and drawing far fetching conclusions is folly.
Now it is seen that Europe has 'passed' these dark times, that they could happen again is impossible because of 'progress'. This myth is hubristic nonsense. After rise comes fall.
The West wins the 'murder count' easily over the past 100 years, so what is that evidence of?
Is the West more wealthy because of its moderate culture, or has a more moderate culture because of it's wealth?
What will happen in the West when it loses its power and wealth?
Too much ambiguity and too short a time frame to start making assumptions that are scientific rather than anecdotal.
Anyway, you didn't answer my questions about humanism. The whole thread has been about people sidestepping my point and wanting to discuss other topics unrelated to what I said.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
No he doesn't. He does both.
Why can't he do both things?
https://richarddawkins.net/2014/10/...volution-and-the-big-bang-they-make-no-sense/
He has a website with all kinds of resources on it and he was Professor for Public Understanding of Science at Oxford for 13 years. But again, why do you think he is not entitled to earn a living and should just give everything away for free?
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
And providing free online books will solve that ... how?
When did you become a commie?
By that standard USA drug companies could send container ships loaded with anti HIV and cholera and malaria drugs around the world for free. The poor people who need them can't pay and the companies who make them already make billions and billions selling the products in the first world.
Heck, all they have to is stop fighting the Indian and Brazilian companies willing to produce them for a tiny fraction of what a US consumer pays.
Tom
outhouse
Atheistically
I cannot find that acceptable when we can look at our past and see humanity retarded all factually due to ancient mythology.
Ditching mythology in favor of non biased reality can only have positive effects on humanity.
We already see how many negative aspects mythology has had on humanity.
Sorry, I pick reality over mythology.
outhouse
Atheistically
It rose under freedom from religion.
These Christian communities you speak of were ran by men who did not let religious thought rule their thought pattern.
The difference is not just religion and no religion. Its adherence to the religions. We never adhered to them as a way of life like islam.
We don't need to live that concept many claim is mythology
outhouse
Atheistically
Not true.
Provide credible non Islamic sources.
We have factually save more people then any other country ever.
outhouse
Atheistically
So far your the one doing all the side stepping
leibowde84
Veteran Member
No, but that has absolutely nothing to do with this conversation. Intent, when it comes to military action, is important. Pointing out that biased parties who have lost loved ones in this struggle doesn't change this fact. There is a difference between targeting civilians and civilian collateral casualties.
Augustus
…
So when scientific racism was considered a legitimate scientific view, ditching Quakerism to support it would have been positive?
Anyway, how is humanism 'non biased reality'?
Seeing as no one likes answering my questions, preferring to reply with a pre-packagedand unrelated point, will ask them again:
Humanism in general is a big topic, so will narrow it down to this.
From the Humanist manifesto 3, that Dawkins is a signatory to.
"we aspire to this vision with the informed conviction that humanity has the ability to progress toward its highest ideals."
What is the evidence that:
a) Humanity exists as an 'evidence based' reality?
b) We have the ability to progress, rather than progress and regress depending on environmental characteristics. That history is teleological, not cyclical?
c) informed conviction is a better phrase than "desperately need to believe, despite the evidence being overwhelmingly against us"?
And a bonus thought experiment: What will happen to our 'moral progress' when overpopulation and pollution cause the ecosystem to collapse?
Augustus
…
In my own thread, when people don't understand my point and ask unrelated questions which I still answer, how can I be sidestepping?
You even told someone who did get my point that they were wrong and in fact had misunderstood it. I've corrected you on that and you still act as if I meant something different and revert to asking the same questions that you asked when you misunderstood my point.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
How can humanism be considered "evidence free". Humanism is an outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters. Humanist beliefs stress the potential value and goodness of human beings, emphasize common human needs, and seek solely rational ways of solving human problems.
Augustus
…
Yes, and normatively all religions are amazing.
They say they are rational, so they must be. Case closed.
Do you want to answer these questions?
Humanism in general is a big topic, so will narrow it down to this.
From the Humanist manifesto 3, that Dawkins is a signatory to.
"we aspire to this vision with the informed conviction that humanity has the ability to progress toward its highest ideals."
What is the evidence that:
a) Humanity exists as an 'evidence based' reality?
b) We have the ability to progress, rather than progress and regress depending on environmental characteristics. That history is teleological, not cyclical?
c) informed conviction is a better phrase than "desperately need to believe, despite the evidence being overwhelmingly against us"?
And a bonus thought experiment: What will happen to our 'moral progress' when overpopulation and pollution cause the ecosystem to collapse?
outhouse
Atheistically
outhouse
Atheistically
Because unlike religion, it does no use mythology to explain life and nature.
outhouse
Atheistically
It does for me.
To me, its sad you do not. And many other people that want to follow ancient mens mythological guide to life.
outhouse
Atheistically
That is religious based, not humanism based.
Religions can go against reality because they were created by man in a time when he had little understanding of the natural world around them.
Humanism tries to stay as close to it as possible.
Augustus
…
What do you mean 'non-Islamic sources'? You are aware that I am an atheist aren't you? I'm genuinely no longer sure if you are serious or just trolling.
As regards 'not true', you are aware of the 20th C I assume. see if you can guess 3 important things that happened in 20th C Europe that support my argument. They are so obvious that they need absolutely no 'sources' to support them.
Please, stop.
Apparently you are one of these who believes the 'Enlightenment values' were inherently liberal myth.
Jesus wept.
Jesus wept.
Yes and genies and angels exist for other people yet are unsubstantiated by evidence.
Humanity came from religion, you are buying into the myths you mock me for believing. Ironically, I don't believe in them but you do.
What exists is people with differing need, wants and desires. This is the 'evidence based' view.
[By salvation, I mean salvation through reason. That is the humanist perspective.]
What from human history says you are right and I am wrong?