| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Pro-Humanist FREELOVER" |
| Date: |
29 Jan 2005 01:37:14 PM |
| Object: |
-Top 10- Insurmountable Defenses of Disbelief |
- - -
1) No one has proven (or provided testable and
verifiable evidence) that any God exists
- - -
2) No one has proven (or provided testable and
verifiable evidence) that any God has ever
created anything, or has ever existed
- - -
3) No one has proven (or provided testable and
verifiable evidence) that any God wants anything
- - -
4) No one has proven (or provided testable and
verifiable evidence) that any document or group
of documents conveys what any God wants
- - -
5) No one has proven (or provided testable and
verifiable evidence) that any God wants to be
worshipped
- - -
6) No one has proven (or provided testable and
verifiable evidence) that any God wants money
to be given to any religious entities
- - -
7) No one has proven (or provided convincing
evidence) that any God answers any prayer
- - -
8) It's easy to prove (and provide convincing
evidence) that no God answers specific prayers
with testable criteria (i.e., criteria by which a
specific God is asked to answer a prayer, and
a desired result transpires which is attributable
*only* to a specific God as *the* causal agent
rather than to the laws of nature/physics)
- - -
9) No one has proven (or provided convincing
evidence) that there is any afterlife (or any rein-
carnation)
- - -
10) No one has proven (or provided convincing
evidence) that acts or lack of acts or belief or
lack of belief in any God has any impact what-
soever on any afterlife (or any reincarnation)
- - -
¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤
~~~
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
http://fire.prohosting.com/prohuman
(Freethinking Realist Exploring
Expressive Liberty, Openness,
Verity, Enlightenment, & Rationality)
~~~
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: -Top 10- Insurmountable Defenses of Disbelief |
31 Jan 2005 12:31:39 PM |
|
|
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER wrote:
"David V." wrote ...
The problem is [...]
He deletes David's actual words because he can't address
them obviously. This is the same guy who says:
"'Pro-Humanist FREELOVER' wrote, among many
other things, most of which "David V." ignored ... "
Ergo, your non-response is both cowardly and hypocritical.
I'm sure you won't be able to address my words either.
Your close-mindedness and proclivity to dictate
to others what your opinion is of limited opposi-
tion to religious faith is obviously unique to a psy-
chological pr edisposition to do exactly what the-
ists want all disbelievers to do -- 'shut up' about
disbelief or play the disbelief angle in a manner
by which some theists can get away with murder
(and yes, that is going on in this very day within
elements of the islamic faith, and went on quite
profusely in times past by the ruling christian
authorities in Europe, and elsewhere).
The fact that you must lie in order for your words to
gain any traction at all is revealing both of the weakness
of your position and your guilty knowledge of that fact.
None of this argues against my previous speculation that
you are a stealth fundy out to make non-believers look bad.
The opposition to free speech encompassing
those of your ilk
Hahahahahahahaha! This from the guy who deletes Davids
words.
does nothing but embolden
those who wish to toss thei r religion into every
aspect of society. The rudeness of those of
your ilk does nothing to encourage freethinking,
humanism, or any other positive aspect of civil
discussion.
It must be awful to realize that you can't defend your own
position and must, instead, lie pathologically in order to
pretend otherwise. Who do you think is being fooled by
your low-rent tactics anyway?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: -Top 10- Insurmountable Defenses of Disbelief |
31 Jan 2005 12:04:14 PM |
|
|
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER wrote:
"David V." wrote ..
[another effort to preach to disbelievers to
all-but 'shut up']
You have the freedom to campaign for disbelievers
to be quiet.
It is revealing that you are obliged to put words in his
mouth in order to have anything to ***** about. This
is commonly referred to as "lying."
Your position is well-loved by theists of
all stripes. How ever, you do, on occasion, speak up
in advocacy of disbelief, and in opposition to belief,
oft-times in an insulting manner.
Interesting, your advocacy of disbelief, while at the
same time wanting said disbelief to be expressed
rarely, and briefly.
'Tis why disbelief is marginalized in American society,
the efforts of disbelievers like you to oppose expres-
sions of disbelief that fall outside some arbitrary
standard of near-silence that you've set + the efforts
of theists (like GW Bush and many others) to get their
religion infused into the cultural mainstream, science
courses, schools, etc.
I counted at least 4 lies in the above in your attempt to create
a straw man to rail against. The one who commits the straw
man fallacy must admit to himself that he is impotent to
address what the other side has actually said.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: -Top 10- Insurmountable Defenses of Disbelief |
31 Jan 2005 12:09:38 PM |
|
|
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER wrote:
"David V." wrote ..
[another effort to preach to disbelievers to
all-but 'shut up']
You have the freedom to campaign for disbelievers
to be quiet.
It is revealing that you are obliged to put words in his
mouth in order to have anything to ***** about. This
is commonly referred to as "lying."
Your position is well-loved by theists of
all stripes. How ever, you do, on occasion, speak up
in advocacy of disbelief, and in opposition to belief,
oft-times in an insulting manner.
Interesting, your advocacy of disbelief, while at the
same time wanting said disbelief to be expressed
rarely, and briefly.
'Tis why disbelief is marginalized in American society,
the efforts of disbelievers like you to oppose expres-
sions of disbelief that fall outside some arbitrary
standard of near-silence that you've set + the efforts
of theists (like GW Bush and many others) to get their
religion infused into the cultural mainstream, science
courses, schools, etc.
I counted at least 4 lies in the above in your attempt to create
a straw man to rail against. The one who commits the straw
man fallacy must admit to himself that he is impotent to
address what the other side has actually said.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: -Top 10- Insurmountable Defenses of Disbelief |
30 Jan 2005 03:45:21 AM |
|
|
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER wrote:
"David V." wrote ...
"Pro-Humanist FREELOVER" wrote, among many
other things, most of which "David V." ignored ...
"David V." wrote ...
"Pro-Humanist FREELOVER" wrote ...
- - -
1) No one has proven (or provided testable and verifiable
evidence) that any God exists
Why are you preaching to the choir. It's annoying.
Not into defending disbelief? [...]
No, I'm not into being preached at.
Yep, typical of theistically infected individuals,
convinced that the only way to oppose theism
is to shut up about theism.
Once again you are reduced to ad hominem attacks
instead of addressing his point. This, and what
follows is also a straw man logical fallacy. You're
just putting words in his mouth.
Millions go to church weekly, and in opposition
to that point of view, Dave V. recommends dis-
believers shut up.
So you oppose people going to church?
To Dave V., theists say "THANKS, you disbe-
lievers keep your mouths shut, and we'll tell
you how to doubt and disbelieve in our truth
and immortality promises -- we love it when you
guys adopt the 'silence' act, 'cause that leaves
it up to us, only us, to promote our immortality
seductions -and- our immortality threats. Also,
we add in a friendly god-buddy to answer your
every request. God, we're good, not only con-
vincing believers to follow, but also convincing
disbelievers to keep their mouths shut. Dave V.,
you're a God-send."'
This is loony tunes. I still suspect a stealth fundy
here out to make atheists appear hysterical and
intolerant.
- - -
? - ? - ? - ? - ? - ? - ? - ? - ? - ? - ? - ?
~~~
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
http://fire.prohosting.com/prohuman
(Freethinking Realist Exploring
Expressive Liberty, Openness,
Verity, Enlightenment, & Rationality)
~~~
.
|
|
|
| User: "David V." |
|
| Title: Re: -Top 10- Insurmountable Defenses of Disbelief |
30 Jan 2005 12:38:15 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER wrote:
"David V." wrote ...
"Pro-Humanist FREELOVER" wrote,
"David V." wrote ...
"Pro-Humanist FREELOVER" wrote ...
1) No one has proven (or provided testable and
verifiable evidence) that any God exists
Why are you preaching to the choir. It's annoying.
Not into defending disbelief? [...]
No, I'm not into being preached at.
Yep, typical of theistically infected individuals, convinced
that the only way to oppose theism is to shut up about
theism.
Once again you are reduced to ad hominem attacks instead of
addressing his point. This, and what follows is also a straw
man logical fallacy. You're just putting words in his mouth.
As you can see, it's not possible to have an intelligent
conversation with the guy. Any disagreement is met with ad
hominems and more preaching.
--
Dave
.....If you are open to the point of gullibility and have not an
ounce of skeptical sense in you, then you cannot distinguish
the useful ideas from the worthless ones - Carl Sagan, 1987.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: -Top 10- Insurmountable Defenses of Disbelief |
30 Jan 2005 02:49:48 AM |
|
|
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER wrote:
"David V." wrote ...
"Pro-Humanist FREELOVER" wrote ...
- - -
1) No one has proven (or provided testable and verifiable
evidence) that any God exists
Why are you preaching to the choir. It's annoying.
Not into defending disbelief? Apparently, but under-
standable, as you apparently retain theistic sympathies,
or have been so brainwashed by theists that your
ability to think free of theistic guilt-tripping is lacking.
This unprovoked over-the-top ad hominem reaction makes
me suspect that this dood is a theist troll attempting to
make atheists look bad.
- - -
? - ? - ? - ? - ? - ? - ? - ? - ? - ? - ? - ?
~~~
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
http://fire.prohosting.com/prohuman
(Freethinking Realist Exploring
Expressive Liberty, Openness,
Verity, Enlightenment, & Rationality)
Yeah, right. Logical fallacies are very rational,
aren't they?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Peterson" |
|
| Title: Re: -Top 10- Insurmountable Defenses of Disbelief |
31 Jan 2005 09:43:53 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER wrote:
...
This unprovoked over-the-top ad hominem reaction makes
me suspect that this dood is a theist troll attempting to
make atheists look bad.
He is a long-time poster whose postings have been very good in the
support of atheism and humanism.
--
Ron
.
|
|
|
| User: "David V." |
|
| Title: Re: -Top 10- Insurmountable Defenses of Disbelief |
31 Jan 2005 10:54:38 AM |
|
|
Ron Peterson wrote:
jfacts@earthlink.net wrote:
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER wrote:
...
This unprovoked over-the-top ad hominem reaction makes me
suspect that this dood is a theist troll attempting to make
atheists look bad.
He is a long-time poster whose postings have been very good in
the support of atheism and humanism.
Which is fine. I just don't like being preached at. If I wanted
that I'd be a christian.
--
Dave
.....If you are open to the point of gullibility and have not an
ounce of skeptical sense in you, then you cannot distinguish
the useful ideas from the worthless ones - Carl Sagan, 1987.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: -Top 10- Insurmountable Defenses of Disbelief |
31 Jan 2005 12:33:35 PM |
|
|
Ron Peterson wrote:
jfacts@earthlink.net wrote:
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER wrote:
...
This unprovoked over-the-top ad hominem reaction makes
me suspect that this dood is a theist troll attempting to
make atheists look bad.
He is a long-time poster whose postings have been very good in the
support of atheism and humanism.
How so?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: -Top 10- Insurmountable Defenses of Disbelief |
31 Jan 2005 12:45:28 PM |
|
|
Ron Peterson wrote:
jfacts@earthlink.net wrote:
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER wrote:
...
This unprovoked over-the-top ad hominem reaction makes
me suspect that this dood is a theist troll attempting to
make atheists look bad.
He is a long-time poster whose postings have been very good in the
support of atheism and humanism.
How so?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "pensul" |
|
| Title: Re: -Top 10- Insurmountable Defenses of Disbelief |
31 Jan 2005 05:43:00 PM |
|
|
["Followup-To:" header set to alt.atheism.]
He is a long-time poster whose postings have been very good in the
support of atheism and humanism.
Atheism needs humanism to support it, but theism needs neither. Theists do not
have the burden of proving that they are theists, neither do they cease being
theists if their statements are not understood. They do have the burden, like
everyone else, of backing up their statements with evidence, and if the
evidence is lacking, it means that the theist lacks the evidence, not that
those he is addressing lack evidence of or belief in theism. Thus atheism is
really only applicable to a theist, because only one who knows and believes the
claims of theism can tell what a-theism or non-theism is. The same could be
said of agnostics in relation to gnosis. Atheists are really disaffected
gnostics, but because they can't come up with a catchy phrase like agnosis,
( which is ridiculous ), they've thought up atheism, which sounds like a belief
but really isn't; this describes accurately what they resent about gnosis.
Briefly, they wish to be organized like a religion in order to fight religion,
but lack the vocabulary to do so. Therefore, the word "atheist" really only
describes a particular point of view of theists which indicates their ignorance
of the evidence of theism, not theists themselves.
--
"The world of existence is an emanation of the merciful attribute of God."
Abdul-Baha
http://www.costarricense.cr/pagina/ernobe
.
|
|
|
| User: "David V." |
|
| Title: Re: -Top 10- Insurmountable Defenses of Disbelief |
31 Jan 2005 06:15:25 PM |
|
|
pensul wrote:
["Followup-To:" header set to alt.atheism.]
He is a long-time poster whose postings have been very good
in the support of atheism and humanism.
Atheism needs humanism to support it
No, it doesn't. Atheism and Humanism are two different things.
--
Dave
.....If you are open to the point of gullibility and have not an
ounce of skeptical sense in you, then you cannot distinguish
the useful ideas from the worthless ones - Carl Sagan, 1987.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "pensul" |
|
| Title: Re: -Top 10- Insurmountable Defenses of Disbelief |
31 Jan 2005 05:37:19 PM |
|
|
["Followup-To:" header set to alt.atheism.]
Why are you preaching to the choir. It's annoying.
You don't have to listen to the choir. Theists do not have the burden of
proving that they are theists, neither do they cease being theists if their
statements are not understood. They do have the burden, like everyone else, of
backing up their statements with evidence, and if the evidence is lacking, it
means that the theist lacks the evidence, not that those he is addressing lack
evidence of or belief in theism. Thus atheism is really only applicable to a
theist, because only one who knows and believes the claims of theism can tell
what a-theism or non-theism is. The same could be said of agnostics in relation
to gnosis. Atheists are really disaffected gnostics, but because they can't
come up with a catchy phrase like agnosis, ( which is ridiculous ), they've
thought up atheism, which sounds like a belief but really isn't; this describes
accurately what they resent about gnosis. Briefly, they wish to be organized
like a religion in order to fight religion, but lack the vocabulary to do so.
Therefore, the word "atheist" really only describes a particular point of view
of theists which indicates their ignorance of the evidence of theism, not
theists themselves.
--
"The world of existence is an emanation of the merciful attribute of God."
Abdul-Baha
http://www.costarricense.cr/pagina/ernobe
.
|
|
|
| User: "David V." |
|
| Title: Re: -Top 10- Insurmountable Defenses of Disbelief |
31 Jan 2005 06:14:00 PM |
|
|
pensul wrote:
["Followup-To:" header set to alt.atheism.]
Why are you preaching to the choir. It's annoying.
You don't have to listen to the choir. Theists do not have
the burden of proving that they are theists, neither do they
cease being theists if their statements are not understood.
They do have the burden, like everyone else, of backing up
their statements with evidence, and if the evidence is
lacking, it means that the theist lacks the evidence, not that
those he is addressing lack evidence of or belief in theism.
Thus atheism is really only applicable to a theist, because
only one who knows and believes the claims of theism can tell
what a-theism or non-theism is.
That's bizarre. Is English your first language? No one said
anything about proving anything, nor did anyone mention Atheism.
...... Therefore, the word "atheist" really only describes a
particular point of view of theists which indicates their
ignorance of the evidence of theism, not theists themselves.
For your education; Atheism is a lack of belief in other gods. An
Atheist is one that lacks belief in gods. Anything added to that
is a strawman argument. Your explanation of Atheism is silly.
--
Dave
.....If you are open to the point of gullibility and have not an
ounce of skeptical sense in you, then you cannot distinguish
the useful ideas from the worthless ones - Carl Sagan, 1987.
.
|
|
|
| User: "pensul" |
|
| Title: Re: -Top 10- Insurmountable Defenses of Disbelief |
31 Jan 2005 08:48:39 PM |
|
|
For your education; Atheism is a lack of belief in other gods.
Atheism comes from the sixteenth century French. Even if you were a
Christian, you would have to admit that monotheism was not then being
threatened by paganism. Some politician thought about inventing the word
atheism to scare ignorant Christians with the idea that paganism was still
alive, and thus gain power. The existence of atheism and atheists is thus
imaginary, and if this newsgroup has a purpose, it is to expose politicians
as the self-seeking materialists that they are.
--
"The world of existence is an emanation of the merciful attribute of God."
Abdul-Baha
http://www.costarricense.cr/pagina/ernobe
.
|
|
|
| User: "sAnToLiNa" |
|
| Title: Re: -Top 10- Insurmountable Defenses of Disbelief |
31 Jan 2005 09:17:25 PM |
|
|
pensul <royspensul@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:368907F504qjfU1@individual.net...
The existence of atheism and atheists is thus
imaginary,
Aatheism? Well, I believe you're wrong. Guess that makes me an aaatheist.
Top that.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam" |
|
| Title: Re: -Top 10- Insurmountable Defenses of Disbelief |
31 Jan 2005 09:19:43 PM |
|
|
sAnToLiNa wrote:
pensul <royspensul@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:368907F504qjfU1@individual.net...
The existence of atheism and atheists is thus
imaginary,
Aatheism? Well, I believe you're wrong. Guess that makes me an aaatheist.
Top that.
you dont believe in the auto club?
--
Sam
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam" |
|
| Title: Re: -Top 10- Insurmountable Defenses of Disbelief |
31 Jan 2005 09:04:52 PM |
|
|
pensul wrote:
For your education; Atheism is a lack of belief in other gods.
Atheism comes from the sixteenth century French. Even if you were a
Christian, you would have to admit that monotheism was not then being
threatened by paganism. Some politician thought about inventing the word
atheism to scare ignorant Christians with the idea that paganism was still
alive, and thus gain power. The existence of atheism and atheists is thus
imaginary, and if this newsgroup has a purpose, it is to expose politicians
as the self-seeking materialists that they are.
oh, the hated french! always up to something
--
Sam
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michelle Malkin" |
|
| Title: Re: -Top 10- Insurmountable Defenses of Disbelief |
01 Feb 2005 02:56:01 AM |
|
|
"Sam" <srcarruth@yahoo.NO.SPAM.com> wrote in message
news:olCLd.25750$wZ2.9721@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
pensul wrote:
For your education; Atheism is a lack of belief in other gods.
Atheism comes from the sixteenth century French. Even if you were a
Christian, you would have to admit that monotheism was not then being
threatened by paganism. Some politician thought about inventing the
word
atheism to scare ignorant Christians with the idea that paganism was
still
alive, and thus gain power. The existence of atheism and atheists is
thus
imaginary, and if this newsgroup has a purpose, it is to expose
politicians
as the self-seeking materialists that they are.
oh, the hated french! always up to something
--
Sam
Did you ever notice how the fundies insist on using out of date
definitions that don't relate at all with current times? It's as though
they think that language never changes. And, considering that
atheists existed thousands of years ago, what he wrote above is
pure nonsense.
Famous Deists and Atheists Throughour History
http://www.visi.com/~markg/atheists.html
--
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
Michelle Malkin (Mickey) aa list#1
alt.atheism atheist/agnostic list name collector
BAAWA Knight & EAC Bible thumper thumper
http://questioner.www2.50megs.com
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Peterson" |
|
| Title: Re: -Top 10- Insurmountable Defenses of Disbelief |
29 Jan 2005 05:26:25 PM |
|
|
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER wrote:
1) No one has proven (or provided testable and
verifiable evidence) that any God exists ...
Minor points. The purpose of religion is to control people and it
sure seems effective at doing that.
--
Ron
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pro-Humanist FREELOVER" |
|
| Title: Re: -Top 10- Insurmountable Defenses of Disbelief |
30 Jan 2005 12:46:54 AM |
|
|
"Ron Peterson" <ron@shell.core.com> wrote ...
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER wrote:
1) No one has proven (or provided testable and
verifiable evidence) that any God exists ...
Minor points.
Tell that to the victims of the 9-11 mass murders.
Tell that to the victims of the islamic extremists in
Iraq.
Tell that to the victims of the islamic extremists in
Pakistan.
Tell that to the families of all those drowned in the
Dec. 26 tsunami that killed over 225,000, when
some of religious faith have said "GOD DID IT".
Tell that to all who are forced by law, in Islamic
theocracies, to pretend that God (Allah) exists
or risk persecution or worse.
Tell that to all the children who are taught, oft-
times from an early age, that they *must* believe
or suffer horrible torment in an everlasting fire.
By the way, I was told that, in childhood, and
suffered from hell nightmares until I said "I
don't believe in any of this"!
Tell that to all those suffering from terminal or
life-threatening diseases who have had research
hampered/killed by the idiotic notion of the god-
soaked that a superbeing hates it when humans
endeavor to cure disease by using fertilized cells
that, by act of nature -or- some supernatural being
if you believe in such things, terminates to the ex-
tent of 80% within 12 weeks with no human inter-
vention whatsoever.
Tell that (if you could time travel to the past) to all
the victims of religious wars, witch burnings/drown-
ings/tortures, inquisition tortures/killings, denial of
intellectual freedom thanks to church IDIOCY for
close to 1,000 years of the darkest period in human
history, to all who died because the church stood
opposed to scientific/medical advances, to the over
6 millions victims of the Holocaust who were killed
due to theologies inspired in NO SMALL MEASURE
by centuries of church-inspired anti-Judaism.
Minor points?
The control you mention in the following is ALL based
on belief in the existence of God and in the theology
and documents leveraged off of said belief, none of
which have been proven or evidence to be legitimate,
all of which qualify under the designations "human
imagination" -and- "human make believe".
The purpose of religion is to control people and it
sure seems effective at doing that.
Religion has many goals. The control is only to the
extent that folks who doubt and disbelieve deny their
freedom to speak up in opposition to beliefs by and
large deleterious to human welfare and survival in
this, the one and only *sure* opportunity humans
have at it.
Believers murder, commit high crimes and mis-
demeanors, fornicater, commit adultery, commit
pedophilia, lie, steal, backstab, gossip, connive,
deceive, manipulate, threaten, fear-monger, and
seek to deprive anyone and everyone of their
freedom to choose to believe or disbelieve?
Some of them do some of those things.
Control? If the above is the result of religious
'control', perhaps humankind would be better
off without said 'control'.
After all, the difference between so-called 'con-
trol' -and- 'slavery' is a very thin line.
Freedom and liberty? Not really popular in much
of religious theology. After all, the position that
you can choose whatever you want, but you'll
burn in hell forever if you don't choose what a
particular religion tells you to do, not really advo-
cacy of freedom, more like advocacy of mental
enslavement.
- - -
¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤
~~~
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
http://fire.prohosting.com/prohuman
(Freethinking Realist Exploring
Expressive Liberty, Openness,
Verity, Enlightenment, & Rationality)
~~~
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: -Top 10- Insurmountable Defenses of Disbelief |
30 Jan 2005 03:35:51 AM |
|
|
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER wrote:
"Ron Peterson" <ron@shell.core.com> wrote ...
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER wrote:
1) No one has proven (or provided testable and
verifiable evidence) that any God exists ...
Minor points.
Tell that to the victims of the 9-11 mass murders.
Tell that to the victims of the islamic extremists in
Iraq.
Tell that to the victims of the islamic extremists in
Pakistan.
Tell that to the families of all those drowned in the
Dec. 26 tsunami that killed over 225,000,
You tell them. You aren't doing it by spouting it here.
when
some of religious faith have said "GOD DID IT".
Tell that to all who are forced by law, in Islamic
theocracies, to pretend that God (Allah) exists
or risk persecution or worse.
Tell that to all the children who are taught, oft-
times from an early age, that they *must* believe
or suffer horrible torment in an everlasting fire.
By the way, I was told that, in childhood, and
suffered from hell nightmares until I said "I
don't believe in any of this"!
Tell that to all those suffering from terminal or
life-threatening diseases who have had research
hampered/killed by the idiotic notion of the god-
soaked that a superbeing hates it when humans
endeavor to cure disease by using fertilized cells
that, by act of nature -or- some supernatural being
if you believe in such things, terminates to the ex-
tent of 80% within 12 weeks with no human inter-
vention whatsoever.
How rational is it to exaggerate the situation? Edmonds,
D.K. (et al.) in the article "Early embryonic mortality
in women", published in Fertility and Sterility, Vol.
38, No. 4, found that _61.9%_ of conceptions that implanted
were lost before 12 weeks. The total number of fertilized
eggs that don't make it to term ranges from about 2/3rds
to 3/4ths.
Tell that (if you could time travel to the past) to all
the victims of religious wars, witch burnings/drown-
ings/tortures, inquisition tortures/killings, denial of
intellectual freedom thanks to church IDIOCY for
close to 1,000 years of the darkest period in human
history, to all who died because the church stood
opposed to scientific/medical advances, to the over
6 millions victims of the Holocaust who were killed
due to theologies
What "theologies" were they killed, due to?
inspired in NO SMALL MEASURE
by centuries of church-inspired anti-Judaism.
Minor points?
The control you mention in the following is ALL based
on belief in the existence of God and in the theology
and documents leveraged off of said belief, none of
which have been proven or evidence to be legitimate,
all of which qualify under the designations "human
imagination" -and- "human make believe".
So you're saying that what hasn't been proven true
is therefore false. Something like that?
The purpose of religion is to control people and it
sure seems effective at doing that.
Religion has many goals. The control is only to the
extent that folks who doubt and disbel ieve deny their
freedom to speak up in opposition to beliefs by and
large deleterious to human welfare and survival in
this, the one and only *sure* opportunity humans
have at it.
And how many poeople have you convinced by
attacking them and what they believe in? Like
maybe...none?
Believers murder, commit high crimes and mis-
demeanors, fornicater, commit adultery, commit
pedophilia, lie, steal, backstab, gossip, connive,
deceive, manipulate, threaten, fear-monger, and
seek to deprive anyone and everyone of their
freedom to choose to believe or disbelieve?
You seem rather closed-minded, one-sided, and hate-
filled for someone who claims to be rational, don't
you think?
Some of them do some of those things.
Control? If the above is the result of religious
'control', perhaps humankind would be better
off without said 'control'.
Maybe we should pass some laws against, huh?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pro-Humanist FREELOVER" |
|
| Title: Re: -Top 10- Insurmountable Defenses of Disbelief |
30 Jan 2005 03:31:10 PM |
|
|
<jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote ...
"Pro-Humanist FREELOVER" wrote ...
[...]
Tell that to all those suffering from terminal or
life-threatening diseases who have had research
hampered/killed by the idiotic notion of the god-
soaked that a superbeing hates it when humans
endeavor to cure disease by using fertilized cells
that, by act of nature -or- some supernatural being
if you believe in such things, terminates to the ex-
tent of 80% within 12 weeks with no human inter-
vention whatsoever.
How rational is it to exaggerate the situation? Edmonds,
D.K. (et al.) in the article "Early embryonic mortality
in women", published in Fertility and Sterility, Vol.
38, No. 4, found that _61.9%_ of conceptions that implanted
were lost before 12 weeks. The total number of fertilized
eggs that don't make it to term ranges from about 2/3rds
to 3/4ths. [...]
Beginning of Human Life
http://fire.prohosting.com/prohuman/social_legal/beginning_of_human_life.htm
Excerpts:
...
SHAPING GENES: Ethics, Law and Science of Using
New Genetic Technology in Medicine and Agriculture
http://www.biol.tsukuba.ac.jp/~macer/SG5.html
... At 2-3 days, or the 8-cell stage, probably every cell
is totipotent. 45-70% of "preembryos" do not success-
fully implant. ... By 12 weeks, about half of the embryos
that implanted may have spontaneously aborted (about
80% since conception). ...
... There are sufficient doubts over the commencement
of human personhood until the cerebral cortex begins
to function, not to consider the embryo a person until
at least 8 weeks and possibly up to 24 weeks.
...
Excerpts from "The Intimate Universe, The Human Body,
The Incredible Journey From Birth to Death", a book
written by Anthony Smith
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0679462511
Page 17: "In a five-week human foetus evidence for
this ancient story is clearly visible. Near the head there
are six cartilages on either side, neatly and symmetrically
arranged like the gill supports of a fish. Beside them
are blood vessels and muscles, lined up as though
destined to join the gill system. When the foetus
reaches 20 weeks this earlier layout has been totally
transformed. All six cartilages have acquired new roles. ...
As biologists like to say, 'ontogeny recapitulates
phylogeny'. This means that the development of an
individual reflects its evolutionary past to some degree.
A very early human embryo is not identical to a fish or
a reptile embryo, but there is a degree of resemblance.
Only as the genetic program runs on does each species
begin to develop the characteristics that make it unique."
Page 26: "Each new human life starts as a single egg,
viable for 8-24 hours. Having been formed before its
mother's birth, it waits - for 20, 30, 40 or more years
before being prepared for fertilisation."
Page 35: "A large proportion of fertilised eggs fail to
implant, and are lost with the menstrual flow without
anyone realising that a conception took place."
Page 36: "Even for embryos that successfully implant,
early pregnancy is a precarious process. Up to one in
five pregnancies fail before eight weeks, usually because
something has gone wrong and the new life is no longer
viable. ..."
Page 40: "What is certain is that many more twins are
conceived than are actually born - the so-called 'vanishing
twin' syndrome. ... 12-15% of all human beings alive start
out with a twin, and for every set of twins born another
10-12 twin conceptions end as singletons. To put these
figures into perspective, only about one fertilized egg in
four results in a live birth."
Page 44: "Not until about week 18 will she (the mother)
begin to feel fluttering movements inside. This event was
known as the quickening, and until the modern era was
considered to be the beginning of life."
Page 47: "Week 22 - there is a small possibility that the
baby might live if born prematurely, but most die because
their lungs are too immature. ... Week 24 - half of babies
born now will survive given sophisticated care, but many
of these develop problems. ... Week 25 - 80% of prema-
tures survive given the right care."
...
- - - end excerpts - - -
¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤
~~~
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
http://fire.prohosting.com/prohuman
(Freethinking Realist Exploring
Expressive Liberty, Openness,
Verity, Enlightenment, & Rationality)
~~~
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Peterson" |
|
| Title: Re: -Top 10- Insurmountable Defenses of Disbelief |
31 Jan 2005 09:35:03 AM |
|
|
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER wrote:
"Ron Peterson" <ron@shell.core.com> wrote ...
The purpose of religion is to control people and it
sure seems effective at doing that.
Religion has many goals. The control is only to the
extent that folks who doubt and disbelieve deny their
freedom to speak up in opposition to beliefs by and
large deleterious to human welfare and survival in
this, the one and only *sure* opportunity humans
have at it.
Don't you think that control is the worst aspect of religion?
Control? If the above is the result of religious
'control', perhaps humankind would be better
off without said 'control'.
Sure. How should that control be stopped?
After all, the difference between so-called 'con-
trol' -and- 'slavery' is a very thin line.
Slavery just controls your body, religion controls your mind.
--
Ron
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pro-Humanist FREELOVER" |
|
| Title: Re: -Top 10- Insurmountable Defenses of Disbelief |
31 Jan 2005 01:40:42 PM |
|
|
"Ron Peterson" <ron@shell.core.com> wrote ...
"Pro-Humanist FREELOVER" wrote ...
"Ron Peterson" <ron@shell.core.com> wrote ...
The purpose of religion is to control people and it
sure seems effective at doing that.
Religion has many goals. The control is only to the
extent that folks who doubt and disbelieve deny their
freedom to speak up in opposition to beliefs by and
large deleterious to human welfare and survival in
this, the one and only *sure* opportunity humans
have at it.
Don't you think that control is the worst aspect of religion?
Anti-humanism, as encouraged via threats and attri-
butions of the worst acts imaginably, supposedly
inflicted by an almighty being, as well as encourage-
ment of doing terrible things to humans in the name
of that supposed almighty being, therein resides the
worst aspect of religion. Control is the mental enslave-
ment resulting from the seductions, threats, and child-
hood brainwashing technique which is the fundamental
survival/progation modality of religions.
Control? If the above is the result of religious
'control', perhaps humankind would be better
off without said 'control'.
Sure. How should that control be stopped?
Speaking up with alternatives to the modality iterated
above. Opposing close-minded non-thinkers who
advocate marginalization/demonization of people
who speak up with alternatives to blind religious
faith.
After all, the difference between so-called 'con-
trol' -and- 'slavery' is a very thin line.
Slavery just controls your body, religion controls your mind.
In varying degrees. To the extent that folks can
present logical and reasonable alternatives to blind
religious faith, and can discuss facts of natural his-
tory and the naturalistic way the universe operates,
the opportunity for minimizing the anti-humanistic
consequences of blind religious faith following is
optimized.
- - -
¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤
~~~
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
http://fire.prohosting.com/prohuman
(Freethinking Realist Exploring
Expressive Liberty, Openness,
Verity, Enlightenment, & Rationality)
~~~
.
|
|
|
| User: "David V." |
|
| Title: Re: -Top 10- Insurmountable Defenses of Disbelief |
31 Jan 2005 06:08:09 PM |
|
|
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER wrote:
"Ron Peterson" <ron@shell.core.com> wrote ...
"Pro-Humanist FREELOVER" wrote ...
"Ron Peterson" <ron@shell.core.com> wrote ...
The purpose of religion is to control people and it sure
seems effective at doing that.
Religion has many goals. The control is only to the extent
that folks who doubt and disbelieve deny their freedom to
speak up in opposition to beliefs by and large deleterious
to human welfare and survival in this, the one and only
*sure* opportunity humans have at it.
Don't you think that control is the worst aspect of
religion?
Anti-humanism....
The question was about religion. Can you ever give a direct,
honest, answer?
--
Dave
.....If you are open to the point of gullibility and have not an
ounce of skeptical sense in you, then you cannot distinguish
the useful ideas from the worthless ones - Carl Sagan, 1987.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Peterson" |
|
| Title: Re: -Top 10- Insurmountable Defenses of Disbelief |
31 Jan 2005 11:50:33 PM |
|
|
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER wrote:
"Ron Peterson" <ron@shell.core.com> wrote ...
Don't you think that control is the worst aspect of religion?
Anti-humanism, as encouraged via threats and attri-
butions of the worst acts imaginably, supposedly
inflicted by an almighty being, as well as encourage-
ment of doing terrible things to humans in the name
of that supposed almighty being, therein resides the
worst aspect of religion. Control is the mental enslave-
ment resulting from the seductions, threats, and child-
hood brainwashing technique which is the fundamental
survival/progation modality of religions.
Religion doesn't need a god. All it needs is dogma.
Sure. How should that control be stopped?
Speaking up with alternatives to the modality iterated
above. Opposing close-minded non-thinkers who
advocate marginalization/demonization of people
who speak up with alternatives to blind religious
faith.
There are many people that go along with religion although they
have no faith. How do you propose to reach those people?
Slavery just controls your body, religion controls your mind.
In varying degrees. To the extent that folks can
present logical and reasonable alternatives to blind
religious faith, and can discuss facts of natural his-
tory and the naturalistic way the universe operates,
the opportunity for minimizing the anti-humanistic
consequences of blind religious faith following is
optimized.
Morality is the instrument of religous control, how do you propose
to show that morality is deficient. What is a good basis for morality?
--
Ron
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pro-Humanist FREELOVER" |
|
| Title: Re: -Top 10- Insurmountable Defenses of Disbelief |
01 Feb 2005 01:00:04 AM |
|
|
"Ron Peterson" <ron@shell.core.com> wrote ...
"Pro-Humanist FREELOVER" wrote ...
"Ron Peterson" <ron@shell.core.com> wrote ...
Don't you think that control is the worst aspect of religion?
Anti-humanism, as encouraged via threats and attri-
butions of the worst acts imaginably, supposedly
inflicted by an almighty being, as well as encourage-
ment of doing terrible things to humans in the name
of that supposed almighty being, therein resides the
worst aspect of religion. Control is the mental enslave-
ment resulting from the seductions, threats, and child-
hood brainwashing technique which is the fundamental
survival/propagation modality of religions.
Religion doesn't need a god. All it needs is dogma.
Religion, as typically practiced, is a God(s)-leveraged
entity, with dogma, and plenty of other myths regarding
entities/places apart from naturalism.
Sure. How should that control be stopped?
Speaking up with alternatives to the modality iterated
above. Opposing close-minded non-thinkers who
advocate marginalization/demonization of people
who speak up with alternatives to blind religious
faith.
There are many people that go along with religion although they
have no faith. How do you propose to reach those people?
The faith thing is a variable. Typically, many believers
wane in faith from their last church visit to just before
their next one. Church (or some other religious aggre-
gation of rituals, ceremonies, sermons, singing, and
other manners of behavior centered on belief by get-
ting people to act as human sponges and social tools,
cooperating in religious indoctrination/pumping up faith
as a supposed 'good') is used to inject faith back into
the attendees.
As for those who have no faith, but pretend to have it,
it would be difficult to determine how many there are.
As for reaching the 'no faith' folks pretending to have
faith, if you're referring to getting them to publicly ac-
claim they're 'no faith' folks, one part of the progression
is to de-marginalize the manner in which doubters &
disbelievers are treated in society, generally speaking,
socially, in many instances, by believers -and- by fellow
doubters & disbelievers, in some cases.
To de-demonize doubt & disbelief, convincing cases
for the legitimacy of departure from pretense and an
end to promotion of silence, as well as actively count-
ering flaming/attacking doubters & disbelievers, all of
that and more is at play.
You see, there once was a day when the Jewish savior
concept was just an old testament thing along with all
sorts of son-of-god -and- god-as-human claims in vari-
ous societies, among them the Roman one.
Some guys got ahold of the Jewish savior notion, and
spun it into fanciful midrash. Much much later, the Roman
Emperor Constantine chose to leverage the Roman Empire
off of an aggregation of those stories. In efforting to change
things from a religiously-entrapped society to a humanistic-
ally-inspired one, the process is ongoing, and only in trying
to make it so, may it one day be.
What will be the pivotal point of transition?
I anticipate it won't come in the philosophical realm, and
it won't come as a result of well-reasoned efforts, -but-
nevertheless, those endeavors do foster an increased
possibility that some breakthrough in human understand-
ing will, some day, relieve humankind of the religious
burden of anti-humanism, childhood brainwashing, and
religiously-inspired deceit/delusion. And, after all, it does
give one (who sees a better way) an ideal to aspire to,
regardless of the futility (in a worst case scenario) in
doing so.
Carl Sagan, for example, was an idealist who had a
profound impact on the perceptions of many, me in-
cluded, so to presume one's impact is 'nil is naught
but to sell oneself short. We're all part of the stimuli
play, and to the extent that any of our efforts can make
for a significant change, therein resides the inspiration
to endeavor to make it so. At least, therein resides the
inspiration for those of us destined to be idealists.
As for as the actualized pivotal point of transition ...
I expect that the breakthrough in human understanding
will come as a result of scientific advances. When the
god-of-the-gaps becomes so small that it's insignificant
or practically non-existent in relation to that which is known,
when human understanding of the infinite nature of the
everywhere -and- everywhen that is the naturalistic totality
of human perception becomes so clear that human doubt
regarding such matters becomes infinitesimally tiny, when
life extension becomes a naturalistic part of human exist-
ence, when alternate lifeforms blur the differentiation be-
tween what is and is not sentient, when the naturalistic
origins of life as we know it are understood, when disease
and naturalistic threats are conquered or understood to
such an extent that such risks are an all-but eliminated
part of the past ...
... Then, religion will phase from the leverage point it
once was to naught but a memory of the evolutionary
consequences of the way in which matter-and-energy
once resulted in a being that imagined gods intervening
in a naturalistic world, the way things once were.
Slavery just controls your body, religion controls your mind.
In varying degrees. To the extent that folks can
present logical and reasonable alternatives to blind
religious faith, and can discuss facts of natural his-
tory and the naturalistic way the universe operates,
the opportunity for minimizing the anti-humanistic
consequences of blind religious faith following is
optimized.
Morality is the instrument of religious control, how do you propose
to show that morality is deficient. What is a good basis for morality?
Morality is the naturalistic consequence of genes + stimuli
(inclusive of life experiences) + random brain activity. So
long as we have genes, stimuli, and random brain activity,
there will be morality. Will future morality mate to that of
today? Highly unlikely, for if religion shows us one thing
clearly, if nothing else, what is considered moral in one
day-and-age is considered antithetical to morality in
another, by most (like, for example, 'thou shalt not suf-
fer a witch to live'), despite the efforts of religious devo-
tees to cling to the past and treat past precepts of moral-
ity as relevant to the modern (present) day.
Killing for a god? One can hope (and, if religious, pray)
that one day that evil anti-humanism will be buried in the
shame of past transgressions, never again to inflict its
evil influence on humankind.
- - -
¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤
~~~
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
http://fire.prohosting.com/prohuman
(Freethinking Realist Exploring
Expressive Liberty, Openness,
Verity, Enlightenment, & Rationality)
~~~
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Peterson" |
|
| Title: Re: -Top 10- Insurmountable Defenses of Disbelief |
01 Feb 2005 10:05:36 AM |
|
|
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER wrote:
"Ron Peterson" <ron@shell.core.com> wrote ...
Religion doesn't need a god. All it needs is dogma.
Religion, as typically practiced, is a God(s)-leveraged
entity, with dogma, and plenty of other myths regarding
entities/places apart from naturalism.
I think that the question is why do religions exist. Are you
claiming that people need to have a belief in some superior
being? Or is it more likely, that some priesthood wants to
control the hearts and minds of its followers?
There are many people that go along with religion although they
have no faith. How do you propose to reach those people?
The faith thing is a variable. Typically, many believers
wane in faith from their last church visit to just before
their next one. Church (or some other religious aggre-
gation of rituals, ceremonies, sermons, singing, and
other manners of behavior centered on belief by get-
ting people to act as human sponges and social tools,
cooperating in religious indoctrination/pumping up faith
as a supposed 'good') is used to inject faith back into
the attendees.
Those things make religion attractive for those with little or
no faith. One only has to look at what happened to church
attendance after the 9-11 disaster to see that hardship and
anxiety cause people to seek out religion.
As for those who have no faith, but pretend to have it,
it would be difficult to determine how many there are.
Church attendance is a good indication of the amount of
'faith' people have. Another indication is the proportion
of deductible donations going to religious institutions, which
I believe is currently at 50%.
As for as the actualized pivotal point of transition ...
I expect that the breakthrough in human understanding
will come as a result of scientific advances. When the
god-of-the-gaps becomes so small that it's insignificant
or practically non-existent in relation to that which is known,
when human understanding of the infinite nature of the
everywhere -and- everywhen that is the naturalistic totality
of human perception becomes so clear that human doubt
regarding such matters becomes infinitesimally tiny, when
life extension becomes a naturalistic part of human exist-
ence, when alternate lifeforms blur the differentiation be-
tween what is and is not sentient, when the naturalistic
origins of life as we know it are understood, when disease
and naturalistic threats are conquered or understood to
such an extent that such risks are an all-but eliminated
part of the past ...
Most of Europe is already breaking with religion with a small
number of exceptions. What is different about the US?
Morality is the instrument of religious control, how do you propose
to show that morality is deficient. What is a good basis for
morality?
Morality is the naturalistic consequence of genes + stimuli
(inclusive of life experiences) + random brain activity. So
long as we have genes, stimuli, and random brain activity,
there will be morality. Will future morality mate to that of
today? Highly unlikely, for if religion shows us one thing
clearly, if nothing else, what is considered moral in one
day-and-age is considered antithetical to morality in
another, by most (like, for example, 'thou shalt not suf-
fer a witch to live'), despite the efforts of religious devo-
tees to cling to the past and treat past precepts of moral-
ity as relevant to the modern (present) day.
How can religion be defeated if you don't have a rational basis
for morality. I don't see moral relativism as cutting it.
--
Ron
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pro-Humanist FREELOVER" |
|
| Title: Re: -Top 10- Insurmountable Defenses of Disbelief |
01 Feb 2005 12:14:10 PM |
|
|
"Ron Peterson" <ron@shell.core.com> wrote ...
"Pro-Humanist FREELOVER" wrote ...
"Ron Peterson" <ron@shell.core.com> wrote ...
Religion doesn't need a god. All it needs is dogma.
Religion, as typically practiced, is a God(s)-leveraged
entity, with dogma, and plenty of other myths regarding
entities/places apart from naturalism.
I think that the question is why do religions exist. Are you
claiming that people need to have a belief in some superior
being? Or is it more likely, that some priesthood wants to
control the hearts and minds of its followers?
People are generally religiously seduced (and
frightened, in many cases) into believing in magic
beings (like god, jesus as son of god, heaven,
hell) at a very young age, parentally/socially/cultur-
ally.
The modality of human children, vulnerable to their
environment, seeking their identity/place in the
world, is the perfect setup for anyone who wishes
to seduce/frighten children into blind faith.
Religions have, traditionally, used children as ob-
jects to be seduced/frightened in that manner, a
modus operandi some (like me) call brainwashing.
The blame? Attributable to anyone who cannot
(or will not) break free of the religious seduction/
frighten routine, from parents all the way up to
the President (and other leaders who try to treat
god and religion as their authoritarian political
buddy).
There are many people that go along with religion although
they have no faith. How do you propose to reach those
people?
The faith thing is a variable. Typically, many believers
wane in faith from their last church visit to just before
their next one. Church (or some other religious aggre-
gation of rituals, ceremonies, sermons, singing, and
other manners of behavior centered on belief by get-
ting people to act as human sponges and social tools,
cooperating in religious indoctrination/pumping up faith
as a supposed 'good') is used to inject faith back into
the attendees.
Those things make religion attractive for those with little or
no faith. One only has to look at what happened to church
attendance after the 9-11 disaster to see that hardship and
anxiety cause people to seek out religion.
Some, yes, and very questionable presidential
& political efforts to cling to a god figure (&
religion), even though religion was at the very
heart of causality of the disaster, helped to
temporarily increase religious influence. It
did not last very long, probably due in no small
measure to people becoming aware, over
time, of the extent of religious culpability in
the causality of the disaster.
As for those who have no faith, but pretend to have it,
it would be difficult to determine how many there are.
Church attendance is a good indication of the amount of
'faith' people have. Another indication is the proportion
of deductible donations going to religious institutions, which
I believe is currently at 50%.
To some extent, yes.
As for as the actualized pivotal point of transition ...
I expect that the breakthrough in human understanding
will come as a result of scientific advances. When the
god-of-the-gaps becomes so small that it's insignificant
or practically non-existent in relation to that which is known,
when human understanding of the infinite nature of the
everywhere -and- everywhen that is the naturalistic totality
of human perception becomes so clear that human doubt
regarding such matters becomes infinitesimally tiny, when
life extension becomes a naturalistic part of human exist-
ence, when alternate lifeforms blur the differentiation be-
tween what is and is not sentient, when the naturalistic
origins of life as we know it are understood, when disease
and naturalistic threats are conquered or understood to
such an extent that such risks are an all-but eliminated
part of the past ...
Most of Europe is already breaking with religion with a small
number of exceptions. What is different about the US?
Europe was terrorized by the religious insanity
of the Holocaust & all the World War I and II
events. Those activities had religious culpability
impossible to ignore, along with a long history
of suffering & death caused directly by the influ-
ence of christianity.
Also, Europe has been far more directly im-
pacted by naturalistic disasters than the US
has.
The US, on the other hand, apart from Pearl
Harbor and 9-11, has suffered far less than all
of Europe, insofar as civilians and property are
concerned, ever since the Civil War.
Morality is the instrument of religious control, how do you
propose to show that morality is deficient. What is a good
basis for morality?
Morality is the naturalistic consequence of genes + stimuli
(inclusive of life experiences) + random brain activity. So
long as we have genes, stimuli, and random brain activity,
there will be morality. Will future morality mate to that of
today? Highly unlikely, for if religion shows us one thing
clearly, if nothing else, what is considered moral in one
day-and-age is considered antithetical to morality in
another, by most (like, for example, 'thou shalt not suf-
fer a witch to live'), despite the efforts of religious devo-
tees to cling to the past and treat past precepts of moral-
ity as relevant to the modern (present) day.
How can religion be defeated if you don't have a rational basis
for morality. I don't see moral relativism as cutting it.
Why? What's "irrational" about moral relativism?
What's "moral" about childhood brainwashing and
religious threats? They (religions) assert that they
are moral, but assertion does not = morality. All
it takes to counter religious claims of morality is
reading the foundational religious documents they
carry into their places of worship.
- - -
¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤
~~~
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
http://fire.prohosting.com/prohuman
(Freethinking Realist Exploring
Expressive Liberty, Openness,
Verity, Enlightenment, & Rationality)
~~~
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
